TIGHAR

Amelia Earhart Search Forum => General discussion => Topic started by: Ric Gillespie on June 16, 2013, 01:28:36 PM

Title: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Ric Gillespie on June 16, 2013, 01:28:36 PM
It seems beyond belief that, at a time when a conclusive answer to the Earhart riddle appears increasingly within reach, we must spend time and money defending ourselves from a groundless attack by someone who can afford to sue those who don't agree with his opinions.  Although utterly without merit, Mr. Mellon’s suit must still be fought, and fighting lawsuits – even groundless ones – is expensive. We are therefore establishing a TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund to solicit contributions to help us meet the legal fees necessary to answer Mr. Mellon’s suit.  There is now a simple “click here” feature on the TIGHAR website homepage to accept donations earmarked for the fund.

We tried to avoid this.  As soon as we became aware of the complaint, TIGHAR’s legal team reached out to Mr. Mellon’s attorneys offering to get together to clear up factual errors or misunderstandings and arrange an amicable termination of the suit.  I must tell you now that those overtures were rebuffed.  Mr. Mellon appears to be intent upon continuing his suit.  This is not a fight we sought, but with your help, it is a fight we’ll win. We’ll never be able to match the financial horsepower of our adversary but, with your support, we can bring a more valuable resource to bear – the truth.

Because you, the members of this Forum, have spent time and effort conducting important research and, in many cases, have joined TIGHAR and donated your hard earned money, it is only fair that you be given the opportunity to comment on this threat to all of our hard work.  I am, therefore, opening this topic to comment and discussion about the Mellon lawsuit.  I will not personally participate in this thread except to monitor postings closely to enforce the usual Forum Rules (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,454.msg5497.html#msg5497). 

In particular:
“Avoid ad hominem remarks: insults, stereotyping, sarcasm, or ridicule.  If you have nothing objective to say, don't say it.  Please pass over the character defects of other posters in silence.  Deal with the substance of an opponent's position, not with the moral shortcomings, character defects, or motives of the other person.  "Even a blind pig finds the occasional acorn."  What matters is the objective content of a claim being made, not the claimant's qualities of character.”

Mr. Mellon has chosen to remain active on this Forum.  Feel free to ask him questions but, of course, it his prerogative whether to answer.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Michael Calvin Powell on June 16, 2013, 03:42:47 PM
I have been involved in a lot of litigation between people who have strong opinions (it is what I do for a living) and one of the things I have observed is that no one, even those who win, are ever happy to have gone through the experience.  The solution, of course, is to talk before too much is invested in the confrontation.  If Mr. Mellon continues to refuse the opportunity to talk then it doesn't speak well of him and, more importantly, puts him in a position where he may have much to regret some day.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Ted G Campbell on June 16, 2013, 06:56:51 PM
Ric,

Post the actual complaint so we can see the arguments and possibliy offer suggestions.
Ted Campbell
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Tim Mellon on June 16, 2013, 07:51:15 PM
I have been involved in a lot of litigation between people who have strong opinions (it is what I do for a living) and one of the things I have observed is that no one, even those who win, are ever happy to have gone through the experience.  The solution, of course, is to talk before too much is invested in the confrontation.  If Mr. Mellon continues to refuse the opportunity to talk then it doesn't speak well of him and, more importantly, puts him in a position where he may have much to regret some day.

Mr. Powell, would you trust an offer from the attorney that represents Bodybuilding.com (http://www.schmidtandclark.com/supplement-retailer-steroid-spiking) (Bill Carter)?

Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Charlie Chisholm on June 16, 2013, 10:34:53 PM
Mr. Mellon -

Are you able to discuss anything about the subjects in the lawsuit?

Like can you answer questions from forum members?

Or are you required to remain tight-lipped because there is a court case pending?

- Charlie
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Mark Appel on June 16, 2013, 10:56:01 PM
It was my pleasure to make a donation tonight to the TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund. It is indeed sad and quite pathetic that precious time, resources, and both physical and emotional energy must be diverted to defend against the absurd. It is an unfortunate artifact of our otherwise superior legal system that those of sufficient resources, inclinations, and or pathologies can wage such actions with virtual impunity.

No question though. The only road to take is the high road...

Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Tim Mellon on June 17, 2013, 12:24:21 AM
Mr. Mellon -

Are you able to discuss anything about the subjects in the lawsuit?

Like can you answer questions from forum members?

Or are you required to remain tight-lipped because there is a court case pending?

- Charlie

Of course not, Mr. Chisholm. The Complaint speaks for itself.

Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: richie conroy on June 17, 2013, 04:43:01 AM
Hi Tim

As you know, I too believe that there is stuff in the 2010 video apart from wire and rope that is not natural, Myself and another person off the forum took a lot of flak for what we claimed to see in the video, However if everyone believed us Tighar included the headlines 2 years ago would have read some thing like" Amelia Earhart's plane found after 75 years" the money that would have come in from interviews etc would pay to go back many times more.

The thing is only a few, us included believe there is man made objects in the video, So for Ric to come out and say we have found the Electra based on the 2010 would be suicide for Tighar an anyone connected to it.

As of now thanks to yours and others donations in 2012 Tighar. Found the best evidence to date that Amelia Earhart did in fact land on Niku, And in reality depending on how you look at it, out ov the 2010 video and 2012 sonar image. The sonar image is our best evidence yet.

So my question is. Would you not consider putting this lawsuit on hold until after the 2014 expedition, Because the only way to prove the electra is indeed were the wire rope is, Is to go back and look.

This way if the 2010 video does fall in area Electra is, there is your evidence to back up your claim, If the electra is found else were then that proves you were wrong an you will have to take it on the chin, If the Electra is not there at all then no one wins

Just my 2 pence worth as I believe there is always a solution

Thanks Richie
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Randy Conrad on June 17, 2013, 08:29:55 AM
Hey Tim....

  I don't know you personally, and at the same time I can understand your frustrations. Put yourself in Ric's shoes for one moment. Here is a man who has given over twenty years of time and research to look for this plane (Electra). I don't think he is the type of man, who literally would take people's money if it wasn't going to where it was supposed to go. Yes, it takes funds and monies to do this kind of research and expedition. As most of the Tighar members, we are thankful for your support and contribution to this cause. But, my friend as we speak....you're case against Ric and Tighar is not touchable. I don't know if this will make things any easier...but as I see it and with many others...no court in the land is gonna touch this case...simply for the fact that the video you deemed was evidence of a plane and remains is not there. Anyway, I agree with Richie...our strongest evidence yet is the anomaly sonar image that was shown. I would suggest waiting until 2014...and like he said if your video proof does conclude that you were right then you have your case...but if you're wrong then it can really backfire on you. I, like alot of others feel that you should wait...We're all hoping and praying that this will be the last time we have to go to Niku...I feel that we are that close to solving one of the biggest mysteries of the 21st century. Wouldn't you like to be a part of that celebration??? Anyway, please give Ric and company a chance to solve the sonar image and underwater imagery 100% before you make any hastey judgements. Thanks!!!!
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Charlie Chisholm on June 17, 2013, 09:04:04 AM
Mr. Mellon -

Are you able to discuss anything about the subjects in the lawsuit?

Like can you answer questions from forum members?

Or are you required to remain tight-lipped because there is a court case pending?

- Charlie

Of course not, Mr. Chisholm. The Complaint speaks for itself.

Thank you for taking the time to try to answer my questions.

And excuse me for being dense, but "of course not" what?

"Are you able to discuss anything about the subjects in the lawsuit?"

Of course not.

"Can you answer questions from forum members?"

Of course not.

OR

"Are you required to remain tight-lipped because there is a court case pending?"

Of course not.

Would appreciate a clarification if you have the time.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Dan Swift on June 17, 2013, 10:36:57 AM
Of course the lawyers are going to be the only winners in this.  I am shocked any lawyer in his right mind would take this case.  But then again, this is why there is such a negative opinion of them in general.  And I will be shocked if a judge doesn't throw it out and allows it to go to court and eat up our tax dollars unnecessarily.  But, then again, I have been shocked and disappointed in these things before. 
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: James G. Stoveken on June 17, 2013, 10:48:13 AM
At first I wasn't able to decipher Tim's reply either Charlie.  But after thinking about it for a while, if you take it in it's entirety... "Of course not, Mr. Chisolm.  The complaint speaks for itself."... the reply makes sense for your first two questions but not the third.  I think. 
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Dan Swift on June 17, 2013, 01:17:54 PM
Richie,
Nice thought.  Problem is, the lawsuit is not whether or not the Electra is there, but claiming that there was proof it was there and further claiming that Tighar withheld the proof for the sole purpose of raising money for the next expedition.  Now understand how crazy that is!  I too see things that are shaped similar, could be, there's a chance of, but NONE are proof until one item that can be proven belonged to NR16020.  And NOTHING is close to that yet. 
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Joshua Doremire on June 17, 2013, 04:15:56 PM
From the AP article on the lawsuit (http://news.yahoo.com/group-denies-withheld-2010-earhart-131216892.html): “As a layman, it is hard to see, unless you know what you're looking at it," Stubson said of the footage, which he said he couldn't share. "Much of it relates to the landing gear and parts that are unique to the landing gear”

Tim,
The video is shared on this website and has been on YouTube for a while, so the footage is something available to look at.   Your lawyer said “As a layman, it is hard to see, unless you know what you're looking at” and then he says what some of it is supposed to be. So now that we know what we are looking at, “the landing gear”, it should be easier to see. (Images and drawings of the landing gear are in the latest TIGHAR Tracks). You have also posted several screen captures in different threads from the video.
Please indicate the reply# and thread where you posted an image of these parts that are unique to the landing gear.  Or reference the time it shows up in the available video, if not already posted as an image frame.
Thank you,

This is the exact problem Tim has to convince a jury the aircraft was found in the 2010 video. Public opinion still holds this as a theory. Evidence being a clear underwater picture of the aircraft that can be 100% identified by 12 people unable to get out of jury duty, a specific part that would only fit the aircraft, serial numbers from the aircraft, or related parts that can be proven to have been on it. Otherwise we are looking at maybe rocks, dead fish, shipwreck debris, lost WWII or other plane with similar lost paperwork...   

Tim, you are welcome to come up with better ways to go about finding Amelia Earhart. I am sure TIGHAR is listening especially with the donation level you are at. Your time may be better spent on convincing the world that Amelia Earhart's plane was indeed found rather than suing this outfit. Quite frankly I see a good theory. However I don't see any proof or evidence that would convince me beyond a reasonable doubt.   

The other problem you are running into is the theory itself saying the aircraft is in the area. Someone is going to trip over it sooner or later. Knowing what you tripped over is the real trick.

Sure I am wondering what kind of experts TIGHAR has when someone points out a good target on the forum. Yet, it is better to be lucky than an expert.

The bright side is you did get a return on your investment/donation with the 2012 trip and the interesting sonar find. You also got a nice Discovery program about Amelia Earhart made possible. Thanks Tim, I really enjoyed the program. 

You may have the same luck suing the Coast Guard and the Navy for the failed 1937 search and cover up. Total waste of the court's and jury's time let alone money that could be better used to find convincing proof Amelia Earhart did better than history tells us by making it to this island.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Leon R White on June 17, 2013, 05:18:06 PM
According to the complaint, Mr. Mellon donated "stock" equal in value to $1 mill roughly.  Why stock, I wonder?  Let's follow the money. Using simplified numbers for those of us not in the 2%: 

The stock was donated at present day value.  Mr. Mellon received a tax deduction for the donation.  The stock had appreciated from the original value, otherwise he wouldn't have donated it as stock. He'd have sold it at a loss or held on to it.  So.  Mr. Mellon purchased/inherited/owned $5 worth of stock which appreciated to ? $20?  He then donated the stock valued at $20 and got a tax deduction of $20 for stock he paid $5 for. His donation is much appreciated of course, but is that what's going on here?  Perhaps we can look forward to reading the tax returns during the discovery phase.

I'm sure many are disappointed.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Bill Lloyd on June 17, 2013, 08:43:35 PM
Mr. Powell, would you trust an offer from the attorney that represents Bodybuilding.com (http://www.schmidtandclark.com/supplement-retailer-steroid-spiking) (Bill Carter)?

Are you saying that a settlement offer was made or if one was received from that attorney, it would not be considered?

I just checked PACER and so far, a response to the complaint has not been filed. A response must be filed within 21 days from date of service. Thus far there are only 4 docket entries.

Tim, I have read your complaint and the statutes that your lawyers refer too.  Those are all criminal statutes in Title 18 United States Code. It is apparent that you feel that you have somehow been wronged and are entitled to restitution, however, those are very serious charges and if Gillespie in unable to properly defend, the court could find complicity and refer the case to the US Attorney for prosecution. Surely that is not the desired remedy.

 
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Tim Mellon on June 17, 2013, 10:53:56 PM

Tim, I have read your complaint and the statutes that your lawyers refer too.  Those are all criminal statutes in Title 18 United States Code. It is apparent that you feel that you have somehow been wronged and are entitled to restitution, however, those are very serious charges and if Gillespie in unable to properly defend, the court could find complicity and refer the case to the US Attorney for prosecution. Surely that is not the desired remedy.

Oh, really?

Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Dan Swift on June 18, 2013, 02:24:20 PM
The "waste of resources" is likely the plan in this entire process.   Sad!   
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Ted G Campbell on June 18, 2013, 03:03:31 PM
All,

I am a bit puzzled over this law suite with regard to the basis on which such a charge of impropriety has been leveled.

It appears from the facts of the pleading that has been released to the public, there has been certain claims made by TIGHAR that are not factual in nature, purposely misleading and lacking in detail so as to lead one to believe that membership and donations to the organization is personally justifiable for future and further exploration of the facts surrounding a particular TIGHAR activity.

Why I am so puzzled, as noted above, is:  When I became a member of TIGHAR I, and I assume so did the plaintiff in this case, signed the Member “Registration Agreement.” This document clearly states the following; “We ‘TIGHAR, subsidiaries, forums, etc.’ do not warrant the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information presented.” 

The above implies, you as a member, may reach your own conclusions regarding the information presented.  What one does with the conclusions reached by such information is solely at the discretion of the member.

Ted Campbell 
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Doug E Shaw on June 18, 2013, 05:41:55 PM
Ric -
When I donate is TIGHARs priority the proving the true location, or has the priority become the LDF until further notice? Where do you prefer me to contribute?

- Doug
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Ric Gillespie on June 18, 2013, 05:47:21 PM
When I donate is TIGHARs priority the proving the true location, or has the priority become the LDF until further notice? Where do you prefer me to contribute?

As noted in my original posting on this topic, I'm not participating in this discussion except as a moderator.  I'll make this exception to say that our research is continuing unabated.  Our funding needs are many.  Please give where it makes the most sense to you.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Dan Swift on June 19, 2013, 07:17:02 AM
Jeff,
I truly believe the ONLY reason for this frivolous lawsuit is to cause pain to Ric and TIGHAR.  It appears very childish and imature.  And if you go back and review the posts about the shapes in the coral and such statements as "Oh really".....well.....I 'rest my case'.  And until the plantiffs of these frivolous lawsuits are made to feel AT LEAST as much pain as they cause, then there will be no end to them.  It cost more $$, but countersuit for slander and frivolous lawsuit may be appropriate.   
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Dan Swift on June 19, 2013, 08:17:13 AM
No doubt Jeff.  Agree. 
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Nancy Marilyn Gould on June 19, 2013, 10:57:15 AM
I just hope that this lawsuit doesn't cause TIGHAR to go bankrupt.  Does TIGHAR have any kind of liability insurance?  Somebody please tell me that this isn't a danger!
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: richie conroy on June 19, 2013, 12:04:00 PM
Hi Nancy

I don't think Tighar would be in any danger of that, Longs they can get the funds for the case.

And when it does go to court Team Mellon will need to have an expert on par or above Jeff Glickman who will be willing to put there reputation on the line to represent Mr Mellon

From what av read about Mr Mellon while he seem's to be a self made man, Which i have allot of respect, There appears to be cases were Mr Mellon as took people to court to get his own way, Or has ignored the laws of the lands to do as he please's

Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Dan Swift on June 19, 2013, 12:12:01 PM
Sounds like he may be 'sue happy'.  Sooner or later one should lose credibilitiy by wasting so much of the court's time.  Hopefully sooner rather than later. 
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Doug E Shaw on June 19, 2013, 12:35:45 PM
Apologies Ric. Forgot that detail as days went by.

Thinking out loud here. If next year’s expedition goes down as planned, validates the hypothesis, but not in the area captured in the 2010 footage, wouldn’t that end the lawsuit? Mr. Conroy posted similar thoughts in his appeal to postpone and they just keep coming back to me. If other parties are not to be swayed by all the people on this forum, everyone looking at the same info and not drawing the same conclusions, then the schedule seems to be in jeopardy. And if this delays the chance to finally solve one of history’s greatest mysteries.... then why now? Hard to believe the end goal was ever really earnest and/or the same as TIGHARs. 

Anybody have any thoughts as to how long it takes a lawsuit like this to reach conclusion?
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Charlie Chisholm on June 19, 2013, 01:02:02 PM

From what av read about Mr Mellon while he seem's to be a self made man, Which i have allot of respect

Not self-made Richie - he is the grandson of Andrew W Mellon, one of the richest men in the history of western civilization. Timothy Mellon's net worth was estimated in 1993 to be 300 million dollars - it's anybody's guess what it is today (probably much higher - the 1993 estimate was long before the settlement of his father's enormous estate after his passing in 1999). His father, Paul Mellon, was a philanthropist and was listed as one of the 8 richest people in America in 1957.

Nothing wrong with any of that, but he is not self-made - he got the money from his family. That said, he apparently did well with Guilford (now Pan Am Systems) and revived some closed railroads on the east coast with his business partner (among many other things).

Pretty big bankroll to throw around lawsuits - why he is using his enormous wealth to beat up on a tiny research organization with 1000 members and no money (in debt actually) I have no idea.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Nancy Marilyn Gould on June 19, 2013, 01:33:35 PM
Not self-made Richie - he is the grandson of Andrew W Mellon, one of the richest men in the history of western civilization.

I was thinking the same thing, and I'm glad you pointed that out.

Pretty big bankroll to throw around lawsuits - why he is using his enormous wealth to beat up on a tiny research organization with 1000 members and no money (in debt actually) I have no idea.

That's a very good point.  What, exactly, does he expect to gain by suing TIGHAR?  If TIGHAR is in debt, then he can't expect to receive very much.  The most likely scenario (assuming TIGHAR is found guilty, and I don't see how that could happen if there is any justice and common sense in the world), would be that TIGHAR would file for bankruptcy and be put out of business.  What then?  Will Mr. Mellon start his own research organization and try to take all the credit?  Wouldn't whoever picks up from where TIGHAR left off have to get the rights from the Republic of Kiribati (sp?)?

Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Charlie Chisholm on June 19, 2013, 01:52:04 PM
...TIGHAR would file for bankruptcy and be put out of business.  What then?  Will Mr. Mellon start his own research organization and try to take all the credit?  Wouldn't whoever picks up from where TIGHAR left off have to get the rights from the Republic of Kiribati (sp?)?

If Tighar is bankrupt and thus out of the way, it would be a simple matter to persuade ROK to transfer the rights to a new organization. And by persuade I mean with money. We all know who has plenty of that...

I don't want to guess what the motivations for the lawsuit are, and Mr. Mellon isn't talking (probably on advice of his attorneys). Because you're right - it couldn't be for money, since Tighar doesn't have any. Maybe he just feels slighted, or he wants to hurt Tighar, or he wants to take over the project - who knows.

We're just guessing, and it's not a good idea to guess, as many on this forum have found out...

Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Nancy Marilyn Gould on June 19, 2013, 02:14:15 PM
We're just guessing, and it's not a good idea to guess, as many on this forum have found out...

I agree, we should not guess...

Still, as a lady pilot, I find this whole thing extremely depressing.  I have always been a huge admirer of Amelia Earhart and have always wanted to know what happened to her.  Just when it was looking like the question might be solved in my lifetime, this has to happen...

My heart goes out to the entire TIGHAR organization, not only to Rick Gillespie, but to everyone else who has contributed and waited so long for an answer...
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Bill Lloyd on June 19, 2013, 02:38:40 PM
Pretty big bankroll to throw around lawsuits - why he is using his enormous wealth to beat up on a tiny research organization with 1000 members and no money (in debt actually) I have no idea.

Do you have a link to current TIGHAR financial statements, debts,  expenses, payroll etc? If we are going to make arguments then we need all the facts.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: richie conroy on June 19, 2013, 02:51:32 PM
Hi All

Don't You all see Tim Mellon has backed him self into a corner, and Tighar are now in a position negotiate this.

For a court to rule in favor of Tim Mellon, Can only mean one thing Tighar unknown to them actual found Amelia Earhart's Lockheed Electra in 2010 MYSTERY SOLVED.

If they rule in favor of Tighar, Tighar win it will have been a sad state of affairs but either way Tighar are going to win.... BUT

As Tim as made this Claim against Ric aswell, Ric may not be so fortunate because if they did rule in favor of Tim then Ric have a mark on his Criminal record

I Think

Richie 
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Charlie Chisholm on June 19, 2013, 02:55:05 PM
Pretty big bankroll to throw around lawsuits - why he is using his enormous wealth to beat up on a tiny research organization with 1000 members and no money (in debt actually) I have no idea.

Do you have a link to current TIGHAR financial statements, debts,  expenses, payroll etc? If we are going to make arguments then we need all the facts.

There are numerous posts about how Tighar still owes quite a bit from the last expedition. I don't have the posts at my fingertips.

Update - here's one for you http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,994.msg20776.html#msg20776

Go to the parts where it says: We ended this last trip nearly $400,000 in debt.  That debt has to be retired before we can begin building the next trip.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: richie conroy on June 19, 2013, 03:04:00 PM
Here is link to were i read about Tim Mellon being self made through city planning

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1964&dat=19710516&id=aoEyAAAAIBAJ&sjid=PbcFAAAAIBAJ&pg=970,1005969
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Tim Mellon on June 19, 2013, 03:13:08 PM

Do you have a link to current TIGHAR financial statements, debts,  expenses, payroll etc? If we are going to make arguments then we need all the facts.

Is this what you are looking for? (TIGHAR 2012 Form 990 not yet available online).
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Charlie Chisholm on June 19, 2013, 03:13:51 PM
Here is link to were i read about Tim Mellon being self made through city planning

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1964&dat=19710516&id=aoEyAAAAIBAJ&sjid=PbcFAAAAIBAJ&pg=970,1005969

Still not self-made. Self-made means literally you started with nothing and became highly successful. That's not the case with Timothy Mellon, but as I said earlier, I don't want to take away from what he has accomplished since he started/financed Guilford. He's not a deadbeat by any means. He even attempted to rebuild Pan-Am, starting at regional airports near major airports - a novel idea. Times were tough in those days for airlines and it didn't work out, but at least he tried. He and his business partner/co-owner have built a conglomerate of transportation-related companies in the northeast. There are even rail cars with the Pan-Am logo on them.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Charlie Chisholm on June 19, 2013, 03:26:19 PM

Do you have a link to current TIGHAR financial statements, debts,  expenses, payroll etc? If we are going to make arguments then we need all the facts.

Is this what you are looking for? (TIGHAR 2012 Form 990 not yet available online).

Looks correct to me. Tighar had $108K at the end of 2010, collected mostly from contributions from members and revenue from licensing. Is that the money you feel you are entitled to? Member contributions?
 
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: richie conroy on June 19, 2013, 04:07:40 PM
Another interesting one

http://ks.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.19980518_0000129.DKS.htm/qx
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Bill Lloyd on June 19, 2013, 05:34:51 PM

Do you have a link to current TIGHAR financial statements, debts,  expenses, payroll etc? If we are going to make arguments then we need all the facts.

Is this what you are looking for? (TIGHAR 2012 Form 990 not yet available online).

Yes it is. Thanks Tim. It will take a while tonight to digest those numbers. Filing date for 2012 was May 15, it will be interesting to see that one.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Monty Fowler on June 19, 2013, 08:05:29 PM
I'm not going to say what I really think about all of this - my momma raised me right.

What I would like to gently suggest to all forum members posting on this topic is that we might be inadvertently giving Mr. Mellon the one thing he truly stands to gain from all of this - attention.

And that's all I've got to say about that.

LTM, who has deposed a few rogues in his day,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 CER
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Bill Lloyd on June 19, 2013, 08:29:29 PM

Do you have a link to current TIGHAR financial statements, debts,  expenses, payroll etc? If we are going to make arguments then we need all the facts.

Is this what you are looking for? (TIGHAR 2012 Form 990 not yet available online).

Yes it is. Thanks Tim. It will take a while tonight to digest those numbers. Filing date for 2012 was May 15, it will be interesting to see that one.

So far don't see anything unusual. Total revenue was $402,516, expenses $372,673. Only two on the payroll, $204,665 plus rental income $15,431. Compensation is about 51% of revenue and according to my CPA former IRS auditor, that is about the norm for a non profit. CPA also said that the rental income could have been much more and opined that the female on the payroll was probably very underpaid. (CPA is a female)
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Dan Swift on June 20, 2013, 06:54:42 AM
Monty,
You may be correct, but the amount of attention Mr. Mellon is getting from this forum is most likely way below what his ego needs in numbers.   But it is a bit like 'beating a dead horse'.   However, it is good to know he has a lot of $$$.  Maybe TIGHAR could pay for the return trip to Niku on the millions they SHOULD be paid in the slander counter suit.   
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Charlie Chisholm on June 20, 2013, 08:50:57 AM
it is good to know he has a lot of $$$.  Maybe TIGHAR could pay for the return trip to Niku on the millions they SHOULD be paid in the slander counter suit.   

Since Mr. Mellon is suing for the revenue from member contributions, and members had nothing to to do with the issues in this lawsuit, can't members sue as a class against Mr. Mellon?

Members contributed in good faith, trusting that their contributions would be used for research to find AE, not to pay Mr. Mellon for his frivolous lawsuit.

His lawsuit is damaging not only to Tighar the organization, but to all members who have contributed also.

I'm sure we could find some high-flying Texas class-action lawyer willing to make a few million dollars of income by suing a very rich person.

Something to think about.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Andreas Badertscher on June 20, 2013, 01:51:11 PM
Yes we should consider that!!!
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Nancy Marilyn Gould on June 20, 2013, 02:16:18 PM
I just contributed to the TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund.  It wasn't an easy decision, and  I'm not even a member of TIGHAR.  But this just doesn't seem right.

Let's just assume for the sake of the argument that Rick was some kind of a jerk who was embezzling from the organization or swindling contributors: Why would you sue the organization itself and put years of research and hard work at risk?   Many people without the resources of Mr. Mellon have made real sacrifices to support TIGHAR, and now, everything that they contributed is about to go down the drain.

It just doesn't make sense to me.  I'm not a lawyer, maybe some of you who know more than I do can explain it to me.

Please consider contributing to the Legal Defense Fund if you haven't already. 

Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Jerry Simmons on June 20, 2013, 03:48:01 PM
This is not a good situation. I am not a rich person at all - I live on social security and it feels like this situation is stealing from me. I donate as much as I can and some people would light their cigars with the piddling amount I squeeze out to donate to a cause I think is worthwhile. If the world was balanced right, this kind of thing would not happen. In case anyone is wondering, I donated to Tighar and hope my little amount will help.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Greg Daspit on June 20, 2013, 05:43:49 PM
The lawsuit states “TIGHAR did not disclose the discovery”.

 RE: “Discovery”:
 I'm not a lawyer but in my opinion, for there to be fraud, TIGHAR has to have believed they “discovered” Earhart’s plane wreckage. I don’t think it’s  fraud on TIGHAR’s part if someone else thinks they discovered Earhart’s plane wreckage by looking at video.

RE:  “Did not disclose”:
It should be noted that some of the footage that is claimed to show Earhart’s wreckage was originally uploaded to YouTube in 2010 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tvHm3jZcME).  I think this shows there was no intent to hide whatever it is from the public. And I think it shows TIGHAR thought it was “wire & rope”, and not discovery of Earhart's plane wreckage.

 


 

Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Charlie Chisholm on June 23, 2013, 03:19:14 PM
Hey Tim I have a great idea -

Why don't you fully fund the next expedition, through Tighar of course, and make the contribution contingent upon Tighar agreeing to first and foremost going to look at and fully investigating the 2010 site. After that is completed will they look at Richie's Anomaly.

If the 2010 site ends up being just lumps of coral, Richie’s Anomaly remains the most likely location of the Electra.

To increase your chances of success, consider a slightly larger contribution to:

Do it sooner rather than later, before some trawler tries to snag it to make a quick buck. Doing it this fall would cost more than doing it next summer, by a certain margin.
Make the expedition longer in length in case of technical difficulties like they had before.
Locate and excavate Camp Zero (which may actually be visible in the Walrus photos once they are analyzed).
Finish off excavation of the Seven site, including deep excavation of the skull hole, fully screening for the missing teeth, which remains the best chance of recovering DNA (short of finding a box of bones on a shelf somewhere).
Locate and excavate the G feature, including restoring it to its previous state before leaving the island.

If the Electra is found in one of the first two locations, all resources should be diverted to investigating the Electra of course.

With your family's connections to Amelia Earhart and Pan Am's connections to Amelia Earhart, this is a natural for you.

And regardless of your current disagreement, Tighar remains your best partner in finding Amelia. Both you and Ric have a long history of working professionally and competently on large projects. I urge you to temporarily put differences aside and work together for the common goal.

What a legacy that would be – the man who financed the discovery of Amelia Earhart and Fred Noonan's final resting place.

Something to think about.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Tim Mellon on June 24, 2013, 02:10:51 AM
Hey Charlie, didn't you hear?

The Electra is at Site #1, including the cockpit and nose section, the tail section and tailwheel, as well as both main landing gears. So Richie must have found something else.

The debris at Site #1 was first found in 2010, then refound in 2012 (although slightly disturbed by rock movements on the slope.)

Any further expeditions, IMHO, would be a total waste of resources.

Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Tim Mellon on June 24, 2013, 07:13:05 AM
That's all very well and good, Jeff, but Charlie Chisolm wansn't suggesting that you pay for it, was he?

Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: JNev on June 24, 2013, 08:29:46 AM
I'm suggesting that I pay what I can; and with warm regards for what you have generously done in the past, with all due respect you can do as you please regarding the future, of course, Tim.

My point is that this unfortunate exercise could well rob many of us of the means to continue on our own via this institution because of what is being sought via the courts now.  The premise of the suit does not even have to be found valid to harm the efforts of us little folk who give to TIGHAR - the mere exercise of defense could prove too taxing.  Sad.  But hopefully many of us will do what we can and come to a better day.

It is also sad to me that one thing that seems to be sought is a court-based vindication of what one individual sees in the footage as conclusively that of Earhart's wreckage.  I have little confidence that will float, but to each his own.  Again though, it is the potential burden of cost that makes the fight such a risk.

It is an old game, of course.  I hope heads might yet cool, but if it is to be joined in the courts then I will support the best cause as I see it.

So, no offense intended - nor any suggestion that you contribute against your wishes, and as a fellow member I will always be grateful for what you made possible through your generous support, no matter what.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Tim Mellon on June 24, 2013, 08:48:56 AM
Jeff, I understand your position and appreciate your gentlemanly response.

Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Matt Revington on June 24, 2013, 10:16:06 AM
Tim
Since we are being civil here, I wonder (if it doesn't interfere in some way with your legal action) if you could post an image or two that you feel is the best proof of the presence of AE or the electra in the videos or even you could tell me which message in the lengthy video analysis threads had those images.  I just want to get a better feel for what the dispute is based upon.

Thanks
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: manjeet aujla on June 24, 2013, 11:33:46 AM
Ditto Matt above, with reference to Mr Mellon sharing with us what his reasons, or reasonings are, insofar as he can.

Yes, we may eventually see those reasons in the lawsuit filing. But this forum being the more knowledgeable group of people on the AE search, maybe we can convince him otherwise, or maybe he can convince us. ( The "we" does not include me as I am a new poster although I have been following this site for a while).  The lawsuit filing itself shows that Mr. Mellon must feel strongly that evidence has been overlooked. Not being privy to discussions between the two parties, if any, this forum seems to me the most logical avenue for a public discussion of his reasons, especially since he is a valued participant here. Anyway, I hope there are behind the scene discussions going on which can lead to a satisfactory settlement for all.

Also as an introduction and comment from a new poster, I lean towards the Niku hypothesis based on the 1) the logic of the 157/337 path to Niku, 2) the verified radio transmissions, 3) the bones discovery, 4) the 7 site and its fire features, 5) Nessie.

 The single most remarkable thing which struck me was Gallagher's message to his superior on the bones discovery. He uses the words "bones... possibly of Amelia Earharts", which is a statement not made lightly by a well educated civil service officer. We don't know what else he saw, other than the bones, sextant, shoes etc. that made him say that. But the scene/discovery must have made an impression on him, to connect it to AE. I know, this is pretty unscientific, but this contemporary account of his, which could be dismissed as a wild speculation, is one of the reasons for my leanings.



Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Nancy Marilyn Gould on June 24, 2013, 12:58:03 PM
I see three possible outcomes for this case:

#1. Mr. Mellon is wrong and TIGHAR loses the case -- very bad for us, although it would make for some interesting headlines.  If Mr. Mellon is wrong and yet still manages to persuade the court that AE and her plane have indeed been discovered, it will be fascinating to see what the larger scientific community has to say, not to mention the rest of the world who will be wondering what the heck happened to the American justice system.  This could have global implications!  We will probably become the laughing stock of the rest of the world.  At least life will be interesting.

#2. Mr. Mellon is wrong and TIGHAR wins the case -- great news for us

#3. Mr. Mellon is right and TIGHAR loses the case -- justice has been served, and at least we'll all finally know what really happened to AE (a "win" for us)

I'm not considering the fourth possibility (Mr. Mellon is right and TIGHAR wins the case) to be a very likely possibility. I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm pretty certain that Mr. Mellon is wrong.

Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Matt Revington on June 24, 2013, 01:08:06 PM
One problem Nancy is that outcome #2 (Mr. Mellon is wrong and TIGHAR wins the case ) which looks good on paper for those interested in the resolution of this mystery could still drain away much of the cash needed to fund another expedition or at least draw some of the focus away from running that expedition which would be almost as bad.  Plus even if TIGHAR wins this case could taint them in the eyes of the general public who don't know the details and interfere with their fundraising capabilities in the future.  I hope that I am wrong about this but....
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Nancy Marilyn Gould on June 24, 2013, 01:15:17 PM
Matt:
I like to think that if Mr. M is wrong and TIGHAR wins that Mr. M will then be required to pay all of TIGHAR's legal expenses and maybe additional damages.  But even if this draws away some cash, it may delay the research, but it won't stop it. 

I don't see how this could taint TIGHAR in the eyes of the general public.  I know we keep hearing these stories about high school students who can't name the President of the U.S., but does anybody (other than a few conspiracy theorists, and of course, Mr. M himself) seriously believe that AE has actually been found and that there's been some kind of secret coverup?  Besides, most people love a good David and Goliath story...This could actually end up helping TIGHAR!  You can't buy publicity like this!
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Ted G Campbell on June 24, 2013, 01:49:24 PM
Ric and Tim,

Please give the following some consideration.

To put an end to all these current legal issues why not form a “joint venture” solution to the ultimate objective of both parties (Mr. Mellon/TIGHAR) i.e. finding the plane.

Value of a JV to Mr. Mellon:  If the plane is found where he believes it to be and the assorted artifacts are where he believes them to be and if something identifiable is recovered Mr. Mellon would be free to negotiate with the Republic of Kiribati to exploit the findings.

Value of a JV to TIGHAR:  Conserves its cash contributions to its mission of finding the aircraft rather then defending itself in court.  If the aircraft is found, regardless the source of preliminary evidence, TIGHAR will still have the satisfaction that its scientific approach to the search proved to be effective and precedent setting within the archeological community.

The foregoing idea of a “joint venture” solution to a rather complicated situation is strongly recommended by this writer and perhaps others as well.

Ted Campbell
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Tim Mellon on June 24, 2013, 02:12:41 PM
Tim
Since we are being civil here, I wonder (if it doesn't interfere in some way with your legal action) if you could post an image or two that you feel is the best proof of the presence of AE or the electra in the videos or even you could tell me which message in the lengthy video analysis threads had those images.  I just want to get a better feel for what the dispute is based upon.

Thanks

Can't, Matt: I fully respect Ric's prohibition since 12 January 2013 against any further discussion of underwater images.

And, as you surmise, there are further legal constraints against same.



Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Charlie Chisholm on June 24, 2013, 03:35:40 PM
Hey Charlie, didn't you hear?

The Electra is at Site #1, including the cockpit and nose section, the tail section and tailwheel, as well as both main landing gears. So Richie must have found something else.

The debris at Site #1 was first found in 2010, then refound in 2012 (although slightly disturbed by rock movements on the slope.)

Any further expeditions, IMHO, would be a total waste of resources.

An expedition is the only way to confirm or disprove your hypothesis that the shapes in the coral you see are actually airplane parts. There is no other way.

Aren't you the least bit curious if the items you see are actually what you think they are and would withstand scientific peer review? That would be a major major thing - it would go down in the history books.

Or are you concerned that if your coral shapes are properly investigated, they may end up being just lumps of coral, and you feel you would be embarrassed and humiliated about the lawsuit and being proven wrong?

Believe me, for a scientist, there is no better thing to be proven wrong, because a real scientist is interested above all in what reality actually is, and being proven wrong means you will be closer to the truth. That is the overriding goal of all science. There is no shame. It's progress - on a personal and scientific level. It advances science.

I urge you to give it some thought. The truth is, nobody else except you, has the means to get this resolved in a timely fashion. It could take Tighar 3 to 5 years or more to raise that kind of money, and the truth should not have to wait. By then, the anomaly could be gone, your coral shapes could disappear by then. The time to act is now.

Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Bill Lloyd on June 24, 2013, 08:09:02 PM
Summons returned and filed today in the US District Court Wyoming.

RE: Mellon v TIGHAR
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Tim Collins on June 25, 2013, 06:33:17 AM
Summons returned and filed today in the US District Court Wyoming.

RE: Mellon v TIGHAR

Seriously, you'd think they could at least spell correctly on such a document: HIUSTORIC
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Ric Gillespie on July 17, 2013, 08:55:20 AM
As I said I would at the beginning of this topic, I have refrained from discussing the Mellon lawsuit on this forum. Recent postings, however, have made it apparent that there is considerable confusion in some quarters about the facts of the case.  With the approval of TIGHAR's legal team, we have sent the following review of key events to all TIGHAR members.  I'm happy to share it now with all readers of this forum.

On March 30, 2012 Mr. Timothy Mellon made a contribution of a little over a million dollars toward TIGHAR’s NIku VII expedition to Nikumaroro.  Mr. Mellon subsequently participated in the expedition as a Sponsor Team Member.  On June 3, 2013 Mr. Mellon filed a lawsuit against TIGHAR and me personally.  The essence of Mr. Mellon’s suit is his allegation that the wreckage of the Earhart aircraft is visible in underwater video taken during TIGHAR’s 2010 Niku VI expedition and that I withheld that information from him at the time he made his financial contribution to the 2012 Niku VII expedition. Mr. Mellon’s allegations are not only totally illogical but also demonstrably false.

The underwater video in which Mr. Mellon says he sees airplane wreckage was taken on June 7, 2010. There is a piece of rope and what might be a piece of wire, or it could be just “whip coral,” in the video. They were the most interesting objects seen underwater during the Niku VI expedition. The discovery of the rope and possible wire, and the team meeting that night at which the video was reviewed and discussed, were filmed live by the Discovery Channel camera crew and are included in the documentary special “Finding Amelia” that first aired on December 10, 2010.  A clip of that segment from the show is on the TIGHAR Channel as “Finding Amelia excerpt (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9s_rDB8vYZs).”  It is difficult to imagine how anything could be better documented than the fact that wreckage of the Earhart aircraft was not discovered during the 2010 expedition.

On December 8, 2010, two days before the Discovery show aired, I posted a two-minute clip from the video on the TIGHAR YouTube channel as “Wire & Rope (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tvHm3jZcME).”  To date, that video clip has been viewed nearly 10,000 times. 

Mr. Mellon’s first contact with TIGHAR was on March 22, 2012 (two days after the State Department event with then Sec. of State Hilary Clinton) when Mr. Mellon sent an email to info@tighar.org inquiring about “funding opportunities.”   He and I talked on the phone, I sent him some standard project information, and he made his contribution eight days later.  I did not meet him in person until April 28, 2012 - nearly a month after he made his contribution. We met for lunch in Providence, RI. 

Tim Mellon came along on the Niku VII expedition and I thought we got along fine. In October 2012, three months after the expedition, Mr. Mellon and a few other members of the TIGHAR Amelia Earhart Search Forum began seeing what they believed to be airplane debris in the 2010 “Wire & Rope (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tvHm3jZcME)” video. I couldn’t see anything but the rope and possible wire but, on November 2, 2012, at their request, I posted the entire eight minute video to the TIGHAR YouTube channel as “Wire & Rope entire (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9NXJnwJmRY)”.  That video has now been viewed over 21,000 times. Mr. Mellon soon began posting annotated screen captures from the video pointing out not only aircraft debris but also dismembered human remains, a fly swatter and Amelia’s banjo, guitar and violin.  His postings can be seen on the TIGHAR Forum in "Join the Search", “Summary of Debris from 2010 video (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1038.0.html).”    By January, 2013 I felt that Mr. Mellon’s posted “discoveries” had become so bizarre that allowing them to continue would damage TIGHAR’s credibility so I cut off forum discussion of objects seen in the underwater video.  He continued to send me annotated screen-captures of wreckage and body parts he believed he could see in the video, and I continued to see nothing but coral.  More recently, based on Mr. Mellon's insistence that the airplane wreckage, musical instruments, and body parts were best viewed in the full-resolution HD version of the 2010 video, I made the full-resolution video freely available via Dropbox to anyone who wished to see it.  Only a handful of people asked to see it and none of them reported seeing anything but coral.

The lawsuit in June came as a complete surprise.  We expect and respect that different people will have different interpretations and opinions about the Earhart disappearance.  That has been true for 76 years.  We don’t expect people to resort to legal action to promote their opinion. There were no acrimonious exchanges with Mr. Mellon and we received no demands from him before he filed his complaint.  When we learned of his suit we contacted his attorney and offered to meet to work out any misunderstanding, but our overtures were rebuffed. None of this makes any sense to us.

We’re confident that TIGHAR will prevail but even frivolous lawsuits are expensive to fight so we’ve asked the TIGHAR membership and the general public to support us by donating to the TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund.  I hope you’ll help.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Tim Mellon on July 17, 2013, 07:02:20 PM
As I said I would at the beginning of this topic, I have refrained from discussing the Mellon lawsuit on this forum. Recent postings, however, have made it apparent that there is considerable confusion in some quarters about the facts of the case.  With the approval of TIGHAR's legal team, we have sent the following review of key events to all TIGHAR members.  I'm happy to share it now with all readers of this forum.

On March 30, 2012 Mr. Timothy Mellon made a contribution of a little over a million dollars toward TIGHAR’s NIku VII expedition to Nikumaroro.  Mr. Mellon subsequently participated in the expedition as a Sponsor Team Member.  On June 3, 2013 Mr. Mellon filed a lawsuit against TIGHAR and me personally.  The essence of Mr. Mellon’s suit is his allegation that the wreckage of the Earhart aircraft is visible in underwater video taken during TIGHAR’s 2010 Niku VI expedition and that I withheld that information from him at the time he made his financial contribution to the 2012 Niku VII expedition. Mr. Mellon’s allegations are not only totally illogical but also demonstrably false.

The underwater video in which Mr. Mellon says he sees airplane wreckage was taken on June 7, 2010. There is a piece of rope and what might be a piece of wire, or it could be just “whip coral,” in the video. They were the most interesting objects seen underwater during the Niku VI expedition. The discovery of the rope and possible wire, and the team meeting that night at which the video was reviewed and discussed, were filmed live by the Discovery Channel camera crew and are included in the documentary special “Finding Amelia” that first aired on December 10, 2010.  A clip of that segment from the show is on the TIGHAR Channel as “Finding Amelia excerpt (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9s_rDB8vYZs).”  It is difficult to imagine how anything could be better documented than the fact that wreckage of the Earhart aircraft was not discovered during the 2010 expedition.

On December 8, 2010, two days before the Discovery show aired, I posted a two-minute clip from the video on the TIGHAR YouTube channel as “Wire & Rope (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tvHm3jZcME).”  To date, that video clip has been viewed nearly 10,000 times. 

Mr. Mellon’s first contact with TIGHAR was on March 22, 2012 (two days after the State Department event with then Sec. of State Hilary Clinton) when Mr. Mellon sent an email to info@tighar.org inquiring about “funding opportunities.”   He and I talked on the phone, I sent him some standard project information, and he made his contribution eight days later.  I did not meet him in person until April 28, 2012 - nearly a month after he made his contribution. We met for lunch in Providence, RI. 

Tim Mellon came along on the Niku VII expedition and I thought we got along fine. In October 2012, three months after the expedition, Mr. Mellon and a few other members of the TIGHAR Amelia Earhart Search Forum began seeing what they believed to be airplane debris in the 2010 “Wire & Rope (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tvHm3jZcME)” video. I couldn’t see anything but the rope and possible wire

And herein lies the basic problem: you refuse to examine the highest definition video, and you rely on a less than qualified forensic examiner to rubber-stamp your "opinions".
Quote

 but, on November 2, 2012, at their request, I posted the entire eight minute video to the TIGHAR YouTube channel as “Wire & Rope entire (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9NXJnwJmRY)”.  That video has now been viewed over 21,000 times. Mr. Mellon soon began posting annotated screen captures from the video pointing out not only aircraft debris but also dismembered human remains, a fly swatter and Amelia’s banjo, guitar and violin.  His postings can be seen on the TIGHAR Forum in "Join the Search", “Summary of Debris from 2010 video (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1038.0.html).”    By January, 2013 I felt that Mr. Mellon’s posted “discoveries” had become so bizarre that allowing them to continue would damage TIGHAR’s credibility so I cut off forum discussion of objects seen in the underwater video.  He continued to send me annotated screen-captures of wreckage and body parts he believed he could see in the video, and I continued to see nothing but coral.  More recently, based on Mr. Mellon's insistence that the airplane wreckage, musical instruments, and body parts were best viewed in the full-resolution HD version of the 2010 video, I made the full-resolution video freely available via Dropbox to anyone who wished to see it.  Only a handful of people asked to see it and none of them reported seeing anything but coral.

Lloyd Manley excepted?
Quote


The lawsuit in June came as a complete surprise.  We expect and respect that different people will have different interpretations and opinions about the Earhart disappearance.  That has been true for 76 years.  We don’t expect people to resort to legal action to promote their opinion. There were no acrimonious exchanges with Mr. Mellon and we received no demands from him before he filed his complaint.  When we learned of his suit we contacted his attorney and offered to meet to work out any misunderstanding, but our overtures were rebuffed. None of this makes any sense to us.

We’re confident that TIGHAR will prevail but even frivolous lawsuits
(Your interpretation)
Quote
are expensive to fight so we’ve asked the TIGHAR membership and the general public to support us by donating to the TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund.  I hope you’ll help.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Nancy Marilyn Gould on July 17, 2013, 07:27:36 PM
I'm not a member of Tighar, but I did contribute to the legal defense fund.  So you can imagine my surprise when I came home today to find a copy of "Tighar Tracks" in my mailbox!  Gee, thanks, Tighar!  That was awfully nice of you and very much appreciated!

BTW, as a person with an engineering background and an advanced degree in statistics as well as being an instrument-rated pilot, I just wanted to tell Ric and the rest of the Tighar team that I find the research you've done to be highly credible and that I stand behind you all the way!  I bet a lot of people in the scientific community would agree.

Don't let the b'stards get you down!
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Ted G Campbell on July 17, 2013, 10:02:12 PM
Keep it up Tim, the more you talk the bigger the "Defense Fund" becomes.
Ted Campbell
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Kevin Weeks on July 18, 2013, 08:30:48 AM
the irony of this lawsuit kills me!

If we look at this rationally one question stands out.

why would Ric want to keep scrounging (probably not the right word, but I'm sure it feels like it when Ric is trying to get funding to meet deadlines for a research expedition) for research funding if he had already found an object that proved beyond doubt his hypothesis??

basically the way I read the suit is that Ric covered up a find that would probably send him as much funding as he could ever want just on the off chance that someone would offer him enough money for another expedition 2 years later??

option 1: show proof the plane exists, get funding, grants, publicity. write books that make him literally millions of dollars, movie rights?? etc. there is possibly HUGE money to be made if his hypothesis were to pan out.

option 2: Find wreckage, ignore it. show the footage to the WORLD and hope no one sees it. chance anyone being able to go back and claim it. HOPE and pray that you continue to get enough in donations to keep up the facade that you haven't found the smoking gun you've been praying for the last 20+ years.

completely ridiculous grounds for a lawsuit IMO. my REAL thought is "you aren't taking my ideas seriously so I will sue you and force you to!" with tongue out, thumbs in ears while wiggling fingers.

his lawsuit stands on the grounds that there is more money to be made by donations than by proving his hypothesis. these grounds are completely 100% false. Therefore I have to stand by my opinion above, that it is 100% ego that is driving the suit.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Scott Doudrick on July 18, 2013, 09:37:53 AM
Sorry to add another voice to the fray but...

Go back to Niku and look again

A lot of time and resources have been/will be spent on this lawsuit. Instead, put that time and those resources toward another look at the slope beneath Niku with the underwater tools and technology necessary to ensure an archaeologically conclusive result.

If wreckage is found where Mr. Mellon says, he gets huge props for the resources and insight he has provided, along with Mr. Gillespie and the rest of the TIGHAR team.  Most importantly, SHE WOULD BE FOUND!

If no wreckage is found in that location, the sonar anomaly can be investigated, etc. and Mr. Mellon gets huge props for the resources and insight he has provided, along with Mr. Gillespie and the rest of the TIGHAR team. Most importantly, SHE MIGHT BE FOUND!

In any lawsuit(s) filed by any party after that, the suit(s) would focus solely on the motivation of individuals and entities, and not the state of the archaeology.

-Scott
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Tim Collins on July 18, 2013, 09:53:50 AM
... Mr. Mellon gets huge props for the resources and insight he has provided, ...

Indeed! I found the violin and banjo images to be quite compelling.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Charlie Chisholm on July 18, 2013, 11:43:38 AM
Go back to Niku and look again

A lot of time and resources have been/will be spent on this lawsuit. Instead, put that time and those resources toward another look at the slope beneath Niku with the underwater tools and technology necessary to ensure an archaeologically conclusive result.

If wreckage is found where Mr. Mellon says, he gets huge props for the resources and insight he has provided, along with Mr. Gillespie and the rest of the TIGHAR team.  Most importantly, SHE WOULD BE FOUND!

If no wreckage is found in that location, the sonar anomaly can be investigated, etc. and Mr. Mellon gets huge props for the resources and insight he has provided, along with Mr. Gillespie and the rest of the TIGHAR team. Most importantly, SHE MIGHT BE FOUND!

I suggested to Mr. Mellon this same thing, with him paying all or some of the bill, but he is not interested in finding out the truth.

I think his biggest fear, now that he has made such a stink about his so-called theory, is that he will be demonstrably and conclusively proven wrong. He may be willing to go to great lengths to prevent anyone from looking at the 2010 site again, because of that fear.

It would be an irresponsible waste of resources for Tighar to look again at the 2010 site, since there is nothing there but lumps of coral. A much better use of resources would be to look at Richie's Anomaly - it is the same size in both length and diameter as an Electra fuselage, and it's in the right place, so it clearly should be the number one target at this point.

The only reason to look at the 2010 site again would be if someone were willing to fund the cost of looking at it.

I still think Mr. Mellon should pony up some funding to go with Tighar to look at both sites, but I view that as unlikely at this point, because of the reasons I have stated.

It's too late now for a late summer/early fall "rush" expedition - too much risk of weather. Next summer is the earliest possible, but funding is not likely to be there for several summers from now, unless we find another angel investor to help us.

Just my two cents...
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Scott Doudrick on July 18, 2013, 12:18:56 PM
It would be an irresponsible waste of resources for Tighar to look again at the 2010 site, since there is nothing there but lumps of coral

I was assuming the Golden Rule - He who provides the Gold makes the Rules.
Too bad that there isn't time this summer.

Cheers,
Scott
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Ric Gillespie on July 18, 2013, 12:35:39 PM
The only reason to look at the 2010 site again would be if someone were willing to fund the cost of looking at it.

When we get back out there with the technology to investigate Richie's Anomaly it will be no big deal to take another look at the area covered in the 2010 Wire & Rope video - that is, if we knew where that area is.  As you may recall, the ROV positioning system was busted the day before the video was taken.  We don't know where the ROV was when it took that video except in the most general sense (roughly off the Bevington Object location at somewhere between 800  and 900 feet). We wanted to recover the "wire" to see what it was but when we went back the next day we couldn't find it again.  We didn't see the rope either. 

We have somewhat the same problem with the 2012 positioning data.  There are large discrepancies between where the AUV and ROV say things are. We suspect a calibration error but we can't tell which, if either, position is correct.

The point being, nobody can place the location of the 2010 Wire & Rope video or the 2012 ROV video on a map with any reasonable degree of accuracy.  We'll just have to re-search the whole area.  I don't think we'll come across the "wire. After studying the full-resolution video, I'm quite sure we inadvertently knocked it free.  We might find the rope.  If we do we'll recover it to see if it's made of modern synthetic material ( hemp should have rotted away after few years).
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Ric Gillespie on July 18, 2013, 12:59:43 PM
I was assuming the Golden Rule - He who provides the Gold makes the Rules.
Too bad that there isn't time this summer.

That's true in a vendor/client relationship. For example, when TIGHAR charters a boat, as Expedition Leader, it's my boat (except for matters of safety which are always the captain's prerogative). Sponsors of the expedition, however, have no say in the conduct of the expedition. By making a charitable contribution they are expressing their confidence that their money will be used wisely. If they also participate in the expedition they are regular team members. We try to operate by consensus but the expedition leader has the final say.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Brano Lacika on July 18, 2013, 01:00:52 PM
The only reason to look at the 2010 site again would be if someone were willing to fund the cost of looking at it.

  We might find the rope.  If we do we'll recover it to see if it's made of modern synthetic material ( hemp should have rotted away after few years).

Being a pleasure yacht skipper for some years I do know, how the ropes look like after some years submerged in the seawater. Of course it may differ upon the depth, water temperature and other circumstances, but I would say no way of rope to look like that one on the pic after decades...
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Jeff Buttke on July 18, 2013, 03:27:29 PM

Hello TIGHAR members,

I am a fan of TIGHAR and have been following your work for years.

I have are hard time dealing with what I do not understand.
This lawsuit is one such thing.

To me when making a large donation it is only logical to do at least some research first.
And when donating to a specific project reading the project overview is a must.

In this case the first paragraph states:
"The Earhart Project was inaugurated in November of 1988 with the stated purpose of investigating the Earhart/Noonan disappearance according to accepted academic standards and using sound scientific methodology."

This one line alone should have been enough to avoid the lawsuit.

After all "investigating the Earhart/Noonan disappearance" is not the same as "finding Earhart's airplane"
A short exploration of the website reveals accounts of the processes used and artifacts found.
But are "sifting screens" really used for finding an Aircraft?
Any aircraft piece found in this manner could hardly be significant enough to be conclusive of anything.
Instead it is quite clear by the artifacts found as to what the searchers are looking(Bottle pieces, compact, button, Shoe parts)
These are the types of finds are valuable to the investigation of the people themselves but not so much location of the aircraft.

So let's say that the 2010 footage showed a piece of aircraft with a legible matching N-number.
Assuming no maliciously placed evidence, it would be quite conclusive.  Would even that eliminate the need for the next expedition?
Instead it would increase the need, value, and excitement of that mission.
After all at that point it moves TIGHAR's theories to the brink of confirmed fact.
This type of footage would change the next expedition in what activities and methods are used.
It would also change the possible out-come of success to the certainty of success.
But in no way would it eliminate the need for it.

So with this reasoning, I wonder what that certain person is thinking?
Does he really expect anyone to believe he has a desire to help the cause when its chances of success are in question.
However, when he has the knowledge/belief that success is not only possible but assured, he is unwilling to do so?

I am grateful for all his contributions both financially and otherwise.
I found his posts and photographic analysis interesting.
Interesting enough that I reviewed all of the posts trying to see what he claimed was there.
Sometimes I could see what he was talking about right off and other times I struggled.
In the end, with no size reference the only conclusion I could make is by shape comparison.
Shape recognition hardly meets TIGHAR's "accepted academic standards and using sound scientific methodology" standards.

If I am wrong about this I have a great announcement.
In my younger days I laid out on my lawn watching the clouds above.
Using this same technique I was able to discover many new creatures including -  white fluffy flying dogs, rabbits and dragons!

I am also perplexed how that certain individual can feel taken advantage of to the degree that warrants a lawsuit, but still chooses to support TIGHAR by continuing to visit and contribute to the website.

In the end I strongly believe TIGHAR will be successful in determining a larger part of the details of the end of AE's flight and life.
All they need is open mindedness and persistence. I wish TIGHAR much luck and will be watching (donation coming soon).

To that specific person I would wish to say...
Amelia Earhart is woven into our culture to such a degree that after all this time her story still captivates us.
When TIGHAR is able to produce conclusive evidence, the story will be unprecedented.
The bulk of books on AE will go from conspiracy theories to the story of TIGHAR's quest against time to find her.
You have already intertwined yourself into TIGHAR's Project Earhart.
In this story that will be documented for the future why do you want to be moved from TIGHAR Hero to TIGHAR foe?
Since your lawsuit can only add adversity to TIGHAR's goals, there is no doubt you will be portrayed as the villain.

Although, I would love a response explaining his reasoning and logic so I could understand, I do not expect one.
I only send this out into the internet as a mental exercise to help me deal with the facts I cannot understand.


-Jeff






Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Tim Mellon on July 19, 2013, 01:33:02 AM
Quote
So let's say that the 2010 footage showed a piece of aircraft with a legible matching N-number.
Assuming no maliciously placed evidence, it would be quite conclusive.  Would even that eliminate the need for the next expedition?
Instead it would increase the need, value, and excitement of that mission.
After all at that point it moves TIGHAR's theories to the brink of confirmed fact.
This type of footage would change the next expedition in what activities and methods are used.
It would also change the possible out-come of success to the certainty of success.
But in no way would it eliminate the need for it.

Mr. Buttke, the point in time you are referencing in the above quote is now.

This point in time, given all the video information collected in 2010, should have occurred latest 2011, and should have led to the successful expedition you envisage in 2012.

TIGHAR failed, instead, to apply enough proficient analysis to the data. The 2012 expedition was, therefore, ill-conceived and ill-managed, employing the wrong equipment supplied by a less than competent sub-contractor.

In short, the goal line should have been crossed by now.

 
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Kevin Weeks on July 19, 2013, 09:20:37 AM

Mr. Buttke, the point in time you are referencing in the above quote is now.

This point in time, given all the video information collected in 2010, should have occurred latest 2011, and should have led to the successful expedition you envisage in 2012.

TIGHAR failed, instead, to apply enough proficient analysis to the data. The 2012 expedition was, therefore, ill-conceived and ill-managed, employing the wrong equipment supplied by a less than competent sub-contractor.

In short, the goal line should have been crossed by now.

lets propose for a moment that your images are encrusted airplane pieces.

It sounds to me like you are admitting that tighar did not see the airplane in the video that was taken in 2010. How can you sue for fraud if even you are saying they did not analyze the video enough to know one way or the other until now?? Is your suit not based upon the fact that tighar had found the plane in 2010 yet still knowingly used your money for another search for said plane?? Just because they walked by a piece of evidence does not mean it was found...... you have to prove that they knowingly found it and misrepresented that fact. an ill-conceived, ill-managed expedition is not fraud

What is your end goal of the suit??
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Charlie Chisholm on July 19, 2013, 09:21:19 AM
Amelia with Tim's grandfather, and again with Tim's aunt Ailsa included.

Back in the 1930's.

With Tim's family connections with Earhart, and Pan Am's connections with both Earhart and Noonan (Tim currently owns Pan Am), it is puzzling why he is intent on harming the only organization that is actively trying to solve the Earhart/Noonan mystery.

Just sayin'
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Victor Russell on July 19, 2013, 10:56:40 AM
It sounds to me like you are admitting that tighar did not see the airplane in the video that was taken in 2010. How can you sue for fraud if even you are saying they did not analyze the video enough to know one way or the other until now?? Is your suit not based upon the fact that tighar had found the plane in 2010 yet still knowingly used your money for another search for said plane?? Just because they walked by a piece of evidence does not mean it was found...... you have to prove that they knowingly found it and misrepresented that fact. an ill-conceived, ill-managed expedition is not fraud

That's an excellent point, Kevin -- this post would seem to contradict the fundamental assertion of the suit.

Feel free to clarify if you feel differently, Tim. If you do, I'd add another follow-up: your last post laments that "the goal line should have been crossed by now" (referring to the verification of the wreckage you claim is documented in the 2010 footage). I understand from your POV why you feel that way, even though I don't agree with your findings. But again, supposing you're 100% right, how does the suit move anyone or anything closer to that goal line, yourself included? I think this is what so many of us struggle to comprehend. Even if we disagree with your opinions but can respect your right to interpret the data as you choose, this feels very much like you're blowing up the whole operation in retaliation for what you consider one failed or deliberately misdirected effort. It hurts TIGHAR, to be sure, but it also dramatically hurts any chance you have of moving your thesis forward. I realize I'm writing the same thing many others have expressed on this thread already, so my hopes for understanding remain tempered.

Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Ric Gillespie on July 19, 2013, 11:32:28 AM
How does the fund stand at the moment? How much more is needed?

Today the Legal Defense Fund balance is $5,970.  There have been 39 contributors.  Individual donations range from $5 to $2,500.  The most common amount is $100 (15 contributors at that amount).  Obviously we're going to need a lot more.  How much more will depend upon on how long the suit drags on.

Here's what's going to happen.  On Monday, we'll file a Motion for Dismissal.  The other side will have until August 15 to file a written response.  The judge will then rule on whether to dismiss the suit. Although in this case totally justified, Motions for Dismissal are also standard procedure and rarely granted. If the motion is not granted it does not mean that the suit has merit, only that the judge wants to hear more. That's fine.  We have lots to tell and nothing to hide.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Scott C. Mitchell on July 19, 2013, 11:42:01 AM
"That's an excellent point, Kevin -- this post would seem to contradict the fundamental assertion of the suit."

A wise philosopher once said: Contradictions do not exist.  If you think you are dealing with a contradiction, then check your premises.

Scott Mitchell
TIGHAR #3292
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Kevin Weeks on July 19, 2013, 12:05:19 PM
"That's an excellent point, Kevin -- this post would seem to contradict the fundamental assertion of the suit."

A wise philosopher once said: Contradictions do not exist.  If you think you are dealing with a contradiction, then check your premises.

Scott Mitchell
TIGHAR #3292

and a good poet once said: “A successful lawsuit is one worn by a policeman” -frost
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Joshua Doremire on July 19, 2013, 12:23:57 PM

Mr. Buttke, the point in time you are referencing in the above quote is now.

This point in time, given all the video information collected in 2010, should have occurred latest 2011, and should have led to the successful expedition you envisage in 2012.

TIGHAR failed, instead, to apply enough proficient analysis to the data. The 2012 expedition was, therefore, ill-conceived and ill-managed, employing the wrong equipment supplied by a less than competent sub-contractor.

In short, the goal line should have been crossed by now.

What other contractor should they have used? What better equipment? Extra cost? Recall the selected contractor managed to find some black boxes lots of other people/military (unlimited budget outfits) were not able to. Nothing wrong with hiring luck. If the sonar anomaly turns out to be the airplane you have luck. I say that due to the technical issues going on.
 
Looks like you were a major contributor for the 2012 expedition that made it even possible. There was no 2011 expedition due to funding no doubt. They have already admitted the 2012 mission was rushed in some ways due to politics: 2012 election, state department, etc. Let’s not forget the other expeditions that brought out clues to convince the public the mystery is solved.
 
After looking over the facts out there the mystery is solved. You have RDF direction finder logs, eyewitnesses to aircraft debris on the island… What stronger evidence is there than an eyewitness combined with historical logs? Bodies? That is already covered to some degree with the bones found and then lost.
 
Although I write that the mystery is solved I would love to see the smoking gun. And that is going to be parts of the actual aircraft as anything else is very hard to find and prove to the public. That is if it survived that long in that environment.
 
The images in the last newsletter from the video where the skull is pointed out I am reminded of the Ailenware PC logo. I just don’t see anything that I can make out as human remains.
 
If you feel the aircraft should have already been found I am curious as to how you think it should be found in detail. What outfit would you hire? How much do you estimate it would cost? How long would you say a search would take? I, as well as others, am a skeptic of anything in the 2010 video so I am not asking to get the answer of ‘it has already been found in that video’.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Tim Mellon on July 19, 2013, 09:16:19 PM
Jeff, this is a great example of how disinformartion gets a grip:

Quote
Did TIGHAR fail by not going specifically to that very place and shaking the dust off of those 'things' to see?  I'm sure all would love it had TIGHAR been able to do so, but as we know, finding the precise spot is problematic due to lack of specific location information, and because some of the features seen in 2010 may have moved on or been disturbed since, for whatever reasons.  We can also look keenly at these things, IMO, and make a reasonable argument that there is not enough present in that video to warrant the effort.

In reality, the 2012 videos (both Standard Definition and High Definition) with precise position (see Site #1 in Research Bulletin #63/65) show objects from the same Debris Field as the 2010 HD video.

The notion that the locatioin is "unknown" is a crock. 985 to 1010 feet deep due West of the presumed Nessie location.

You are correct that things have shifted somewhat in the intervening two years. But how would anyone know unless they carefully examined the videos. Have you? Have you even seen the sixteen minutes of High Definition video from 2012?
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Jeff Lange on July 20, 2013, 06:50:53 AM
The bottom line in all of this is that every cent and every ounce of energy spent on defending this, or any lawsuit, whether frivolous or justified, is time and money NOT spent on solving the mystery that we all are here to solve. The way I view it, the only people who will come out ahead in this will be the lawyers, who will be paid regardless of which way the suit is decided.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Dan Swift on July 22, 2013, 09:33:57 AM
"Shapes", "Looks like's", "could be's", are nothing until the object is in hand or a clear picture of the object (uncovered) showing a name or number is at least 'readable'.  It reminds me of a box I shipped via UPS recently to an associate that contained two pair of high priced clothing, and UPS somehow switched the labels with another box (I believe it was theft but I didn't see it happen so this is just SPECULATION on my part) and when my associate opened the box to find some hoses and guages (have no idea what they were for)...well you can imagine the surprise to both of us.  Until the item is opened (coral removed) and phylically looked at, then NO ONE knows what is in the box or under the cover (coral).  NO ONE! 
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Jeff Buttke on July 22, 2013, 10:35:05 AM
Tim,

It wasn't necessary for you to reply to my post.
Since you did I find it very interesting that your reply only focused on my "hypothetical scenario" and ignored the rest.

My point with the hypothetical scenario was to explain that even with evidence (more conclusive than your "evidence") that the expedition would still be necessary. You see, I was operating under the premise that your lawsuit was about TIGHAR withholding data in order to trick you into funding an unnecessary expedition. (A notion placed in my head by various news articles and public statements by your lawyer).
But from your reply I now realize that instead of fraud your lawsuit is about inept management (" ill-conceived and ill-managed, employing the wrong equipment supplied by a less than competent sub-contractor.")

Good luck, sounds like you will need it. The results (TIGHAR has to date) seem to disprove "ill-conceived and ill-managed, employing the wrong equipment". Especially if as you claim they found the plane (Something no one else has acheived , despite many, many , many others having tried. )


-Jeff



Quote
So let's say that the 2010 footage showed a piece of aircraft with a legible matching N-number.
Assuming no maliciously placed evidence, it would be quite conclusive.  Would even that eliminate the need for the next expedition?
Instead it would increase the need, value, and excitement of that mission.
After all at that point it moves TIGHAR's theories to the brink of confirmed fact.
This type of footage would change the next expedition in what activities and methods are used.
It would also change the possible out-come of success to the certainty of success.
But in no way would it eliminate the need for it.

Mr. Buttke, the point in time you are referencing in the above quote is now.

This point in time, given all the video information collected in 2010, should have occurred latest 2011, and should have led to the successful expedition you envisage in 2012.

TIGHAR failed, instead, to apply enough proficient analysis to the data. The 2012 expedition was, therefore, ill-conceived and ill-managed, employing the wrong equipment supplied by a less than competent sub-contractor.

In short, the goal line should have been crossed by now.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Tim Mellon on July 22, 2013, 06:23:21 PM
Read carefully, my friend:

   (1) Fraud
   (2) Negligence

Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Ric Gillespie on July 22, 2013, 09:09:43 PM
Yes, read carefully.
http://trib.com/news/local/casper/attorneys-file-motion-to-dismiss-amelia-earhart-missing-plane-lawsuit/article_8dbe856d-688d-53f7-b7e7-e22419d825df.html
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Irvine John Donald on July 23, 2013, 12:07:16 PM
Chris, I suspect a number of people are whacking their heads repeatedly.

I would like to offer my four cents worth.  Two cents to TIGHAR and Ric and two cents to Mr. Mellon.  Let me just say a few things first.

Mr. Mellon has the right to sue TIGHAR if he feels there was fraud and negligence.  That is his right.  He believes he was a victim.
Mr. Gillespie, on behalf of TIGHAR, claims he made no such representations.  There are none on this forum so, if he did make those representations, they would have to be in non-forum or private communications.  Only the discovery phase of the lawsuit would bring those out.  So both parties feel wronged.  Thats why there are courts and lawyers. 

However let me point out that IF TIGHAR goes to court and loses what do you think the headlines will be?  "Earhart Mystery Solved!!!"  For the courts would have to side with Mr. Mellon and declare that TIGHAR had found the evidence as shown in the 2010 video.  But wait!!  The courts cannot do that because the video is only video.  No recovered artifacts being held up in the courtroom with serial numbers engraved.  No DNA evidence taken from a skull.  No toilet paper with AE's intials on each roll.  In fact only a video that a court judge is not likely going to see much of anything in.

So could the court declare "Amelia Found" and BTW TIGHAR owes Mr. Mellon a few million.  I am no judge or jury so I simply pose the question.

My two cents to Ric and TIGHAR.  While Mr. Mellon and his lawsuit are a distraction they are real.  Mr. Mellon was a very welcome contributor last year and had new evidence been found then everyone would be whistling a different tune.  Take his lawsuit seriously.  He is serious.  And if the court finds that he is correct and you found the evidence in 2010 then be prepared to bask in the glory and reap the rewards.

My two cents to Mr. Mellon.  The court will find you to be an entrepreneur and a sophisticated investor who knows there are no guarantees in adventurous investments.  The hype from the State department and the Bevington Object, led a lot of people, including both you and me, to believe TIGHAR was very close to their goal.  But you chose to throw in with TIGHAR for opportunistic reasons I will assume.  Perhaps I assume wrongly, but why throw in now?  You didn't just win a lottery.  You knew of TIGHAR's efforts for many years.  I submit you got caught up, as did many people, in the hype.  Please drop your lawsuit Mr. Mellon.  Do you really believe Ric and TIGHAR guaranteed to find evidence?  Do you really believe Ric sat on the knowledge that the evidence was in the 2010 video and said nothing?  Really?  It serves no one in the ultimate goal to solve the mystery.  It looks like sour grapes because the glory wasn't there. 

There, I had to get that off my chest.  My opinion only.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Scott C. Mitchell on July 23, 2013, 01:33:59 PM
Regarding this legal detour to the search, it may be that somewhere out on that Line of Position, still navigating in the night for that compass point where Infinity crosses Eternity until her fate is known at last, the essence of Amelia has bowed her head and wept.

Scott
TIGHAR #3292
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Greg Daspit on July 23, 2013, 01:45:54 PM
"Don't squeeze the Charmin"
Yes, but it would be funny to see “cellophane” wrapped toilet paper (if somehow sealed) implode as it is forced down to 300 meters.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Irvine John Donald on July 23, 2013, 02:39:56 PM
I think that it's important to remember that Tim is asking the court to believe his interpretation of the video of 2010 as proof Ric and TIGHAR knew that they had found the Electra but still looked to folks like Tim, Jeff and other TIGHAR contributors to fund yet another expedition.  Long sentence, sorry.

Those other contributors as well as Ric and others who follow the story, all wanted to believe the 2012 expedition would find either the smoking gun or other more positive evidence.  Everyone was disappointed.  Only those who do not believe in the TIGHAR hypothesis might have been happy with the outcome.  But disappointment was the emotion that most felt.  Granted there is always video and photo analysis going on but no smoking gun.  Probably no one was more disappointed than Ric, who has put 25 years into this search and been disappointed many many times.  But I bet Mr. Mellon was second in line on the disappointment train.  He did put $1 million into it so he has the right to be disappointed at the outcome.

I think Ric has learned to pick himself up after these disappointments, brush off and start into it again. Tenacity is a great virtue.  But perhaps Mr.Mellon, successful in his own right, isn't as experienced in surmounting the disappointment that others have faced. 

But look at some of the other donors as Jeff Neville points out.  To some of them their smaller donations paled in comparison to Mr. Mellon's. In dollar amounts.  But perhaps their contribution was just as weighty, or more so, in terms of their budget.  Or given with the same level of emotion.  But no lawsuit from them.  Yet, they too suffered the disappointment.

Perhaps we are just not seeing the overall reason for Mr. Mellon's lawsuit.  If he was a victim of fraud then weren't we all?  I hesitate to say this but should Mr. Mellon have brought a class action suit on behalf of all the other contributors?  Or did Mr. Mellon simply not think about anyone else?  Or not care?  Or couldn't rustle up the interest?  etc.

People talk about the distraction this lawsuit causes.  It seems to me the work of TIGHAR goes on.  Ric and Jeff Glickman have new photos to work from.  New video targets from the 2012 expedition to review.  A new expedition to assemble and fund.  The forum has lots of readers, contributors and well wishers. Let Mr. Mellon have his day in court.  Its his right.  We need to carry on.  He can't stop that.  He doesn't have that right. 
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Charlie Chisholm on July 23, 2013, 03:00:38 PM
I hesitate to say this but should Mr. Mellon have brought a class action suit on behalf of all the other contributors?

Actually Mr. Mellon is suing all of us other contributors for the money we have contributed. Where else would the money of any settlement come from?

Tim is indeed against all of us who have contributed - and yet we have nothing to do with the issues in this lawsuit.

Unfair...
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Tim Mellon on July 23, 2013, 03:13:17 PM
Quote
Perhaps we are just not seeing the overall reason for Mr. Mellon's lawsuit.  If he was a victim of fraud then weren't we all?  I hesitate to say this but should Mr. Mellon have brought a class action suit on behalf of all the other contributors?  Or did Mr. Mellon simply not think about anyone else?  Or not care?  Or couldn't rustle up the interest?  etc.

Actually, Irv, "class action" was my initial instinct, and putting myself at the end of the queue as far as any recovery.

But I was advised to hold off until the sentencing phase, as "too many attorneys spoil the broth."

Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: richie conroy on July 23, 2013, 03:27:46 PM
Hi All

This Quote from Tim Mellon is exactly what the lawsuit is about

"Can't, Matt: I fully respect Ric's prohibition since 12 January 2013 against any further discussion of underwater images"

12 January 2013

I Believe this was the date that 2 different things happened.

A. Ric had had enough of Tim's claim's of seeing violins, toilet rolls, skeletons etc in 2010 Rov video, And called time due to it damaging Tighar's image and good work.

B. Tim on the other hand believed he was getting close to what he believed to be the truth, And by Ric banning images being posted confirmed this.

So my question is, If we knew then what the outcome of that date means now, What would the solution of been ?

 

 
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Irvine John Donald on July 23, 2013, 03:32:50 PM
I think there is a fine line here Chris. Someone who is a member of TIGHAR may be potentially liable. But a financial contributor, who is not a member, would not likely be.  I know there are lawyers out there who can weigh in with the corporate law for this case. Ric has probably already clarified this with TIGHAR's lawyers.

I also hope that the motion to dismiss might include costs to be paid.

But my point Chris was really that I believe Mr. Mellon is looking out for himself and not the group. I think you just made the same point. By suing TIGHAR he catches the Board of Directors and everyone else but I have to believe he doesn't think a TIGHAR members except him were in on the secret. 

Just saw Mr. Mellon's post.  Based on that post I believe Mr. Mellon is saying he would put himself last for any dollars awarded and available. That suggests its not about the money. Then why?  Philanthropically want to destroy TIGHAR?  Is it personal?  Do any other 2012 expedition contributors feel a fraud was perpetrated?  Anyone?

As I said in my earlier post, I believe the court would have to declare the 2010 video to contain evidence of AE's Electra for Mr. Mellon to win.  If they do then TIGHAR becomes very popular very fast.

Chris, its head bashing time again.  Jeff, you know I'm not joining any class action suit either.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Irvine John Donald on July 23, 2013, 03:46:29 PM
While I understand the need for forum control I also do NOT believe in cutting off discussion for any personal reason.  A person can be banned if they take personal shots at members, or post inappropriate material (pornography, etc). As Jeff says the posts can be channelled for those wishing to follow a particular thread.  But cutting off a thread or discussion is, to me, just wrong. You can't say its an Open forum then cut discussion because you don't want the discussion to continue. Sorry Ric. This is one area I disagree with you on.

Richie, you might very well have hit the nail on the head. That's what Chris is trying to do with his head.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: richie conroy on July 23, 2013, 03:54:37 PM
Hi Jeff

I actually suggested to Tim that i would ask Ric if we could perhaps create a locked to the public thread that we could post images in an Tim thought it was a good idea which i did too.... Not sure why i never.

Jeff u are right on the p_ _ _ them off thing, That is what Tighar is bearing the Brunt ov

But should it be Tighar bearing the brunt or just Ric ?
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: richie conroy on July 23, 2013, 04:14:38 PM
Hi Jeff

I agree totally

Just wanted to know other peoples opinions

Thanks Richie
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on July 23, 2013, 04:59:13 PM
... You can't say its an Open forum then cut discussion because you don't want the discussion to continue.  ...

This is not now and never has been an "Open Forum."  It has been moderated from day one. (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,343.0.html)

I'm the one who assembled and maintain the software to run the Forum.  I know whereof I speak.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Tim Sharpe on July 23, 2013, 05:04:49 PM
Hi All

This Quote from Tim Mellon is exactly what the lawsuit is about

"Can't, Matt: I fully respect Ric's prohibition since 12 January 2013 against any further discussion of underwater images"

12 January 2013

I Believe this was the date that 2 different things happened.

A. Ric had had enough of Tim's claim's of seeing violins, toilet rolls, skeletons etc in 2010 Rov video, And called time due to it damaging Tighar's image and good work.

B. Tim on the other hand believed he was getting close to what he believed to be the truth, And by Ric banning images being posted confirmed this.

So my question is, If we knew then what the outcome of that date means now, What would the solution of been ?
 

7 March 2013

C. Richie Conroy finds the Sonar Target and attention shifts to that.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Irvine John Donald on July 23, 2013, 06:08:19 PM
... You can't say its an Open forum then cut discussion because you don't want the discussion to continue.  ...

This is not now and never has been an "Open Forum."  It has been moderated from day one. (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,343.0.html)

I'm the one who assembled and maintain the software to run the Forum.  I know whereof I speak.

Well I should not have called it an open forum to describe it. In fact it is a moderated forum that is "open" to non TIGHAR members as read-only guests or registered forum participants, as well as TIGHAR members.  That's pretty much anyone who is interested.  That's what I meant by Open.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: richie conroy on July 23, 2013, 06:14:34 PM
D, research bulletin goes up on website

E, Tim Mellon files lawsuit

The high's and low's of Tighar  :)
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Ric Gillespie on July 23, 2013, 06:20:56 PM
Let me be clear.  I let the "camels in the clouds" discussions continue far longer than I otherwise would have out of gratitude for Tim's initial generosity, but it just got weirder and weirder.  When we started to get dismembered bodies, banjos, and rolls of toilet paper reasonable forum members started pointing out that new visitors to the Forum might think that TIGHAR actually endorses such nonsense.  To protect TIGHAR's reputation I shut down the topic, not just for Tim but for everyone.  I, of course, had no idea that Tim would express his anger the way he did, but even if I had had a crystal ball that foretold the consequences of my actions, I would have shut it down nonetheless.  I do not own TIGHAR.  I am merely the custodian and spokesperson for an organization whose researchers and expedition team members have earned the respect of untold thousands of people who genuinely care about finding an answer to the Earhart riddle.  To allow TIGHAR's public forum to become a laughing stock would be to betray everything we stand for.  There is no threat or action that would cause me to do that.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: richie conroy on July 23, 2013, 06:31:50 PM
Agreed

And thank you Ric and Tighar for the way you run the forums  :)
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Tim Mellon on July 23, 2013, 06:48:26 PM
Let me be clear.  I let the "camels in the clouds" discussions continue far longer than I otherwise would have out of gratitude for Tim's initial generosity, but it just got weirder and weirder.  When we started to get dismembered bodies, banjos, and rolls of toilet paper reasonable forum members started pointing out that new visitors to the Forum might think that TIGHAR actually endorses such nonsense.  To protect TIGHAR's reputation I shut down the topic, not just for Tim but for everyone.  I, of course, had no idea that Tim would express his anger the way he did, but even if I had had a crystal ball that foretold the consequences of my actions, I would have shut it down nonetheless.  I do not own TIGHAR.  I am merely the custodian and spokesperson for an organization whose researchers and expedition team members have earned the respect of untold thousands of people who genuinely care about finding an answer to the Earhart riddle.  To allow TIGHAR's public forum to become a laughing stock would be to betray everything we stand for.  There is no threat or action that would cause me to do that.

Lawsuit does not mean anger.

Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Monty Fowler on July 23, 2013, 06:53:43 PM
Lawsuit does not mean anger.

OK, Mr. Mellon, I'll bite *waves hand enthusiastically*! If you sue someone for a million dollars, if it "does not mean anger," then what emotion does it express? Rehatorically speaking, of course. 

Because personally, if that's how you express affection, I'm wayyyyyyyyyyyyy out of your league.

LTM, who thinks Yoda was on to something,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 CER
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Tim Mellon on July 23, 2013, 07:00:20 PM
Disagreement is the word that comes to my mind, Monty.

Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Irvine John Donald on July 23, 2013, 07:19:28 PM
Thanks for the comments Ric.  It can't be easy to moderate every comment and thread but it seems to me that your last post essentially said that if someone sees things in videos or makes a comment that does not conform to what you see then discussion is to be eventually terminated.  This is an oversimplification on my part for the purpose of discussion. 

I know that I have seen contrary reviews here by folks like Mr. Van Asten who went on at very great lengths sometimes and occasionally had his logic shown to be faulty, but that was his way of participating.  If you didn't want to read his responses or threads you could just ignore them.  Ultimately he got banned.  Others have been banished from contributing "in their way".  Yes, sometimes it feels personal I'm sure.  But, read what you wrote. "but it just got weirder and weirder."  It was weird because.... you thought it was.  Did/does Mr.Mellon, whom I disagree with re this lawsuit approach amongst other things, deserve to have his opinion called weird?  Eventually you shut down the thread he was on because of his view. 

Sorry Ric, I know some control must be exercised but should the moderating not be confined to making sure there are no personal attacks, inappropriate materials such as pornography, inappropriate language, etc.  Does an opposing or non conformist view need to be banned?  You have said before in other posts that you let things go on for longer than you really wanted to but why cut it off if people are reading and contributing, for whatever reason they have.  Eventually, if the forum chooses then the thread dries up.  You have lots of threads with no new posts for months. 

It even bothers me to write this post for fear of being banned and that shouldn't be the case.  I didn't post for almost a year because of this subject.

Is this why Mr. Mellon is suing you?  Because you disagree with him and he with you over the moderated forum concept?

 
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Dan Swift on July 23, 2013, 07:25:15 PM
Ric, you did the correct thing.  It was getting worse than "wierd".  It was getting down right crazy and purposeless.   The thread was going into the 'abyss'.  No pun intended......sort of. 
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Tim Sharpe on July 23, 2013, 07:31:10 PM
Disagreement is the word that comes to my mind, Monty.

Well, but we all disagree.  No two people have the exact same opinions.

I admire you and your family's history of philanthropy.  As a fellow "Tim" I ask you to stop this lawsuit.

TIGHAR has a hypothesis and uses scientific methods to pursue that hypothesis. Please do not try to force them to change course based on limited visual data.  There is much more data to be had in the future.

Your contribution last year opened up new avenues for research in the future. I wish I had been in a position to do that last year.  I would be proud of myself today if I had.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Dan Swift on July 23, 2013, 07:38:17 PM
Without a doubt Mr. Sharpe, Mr Mellon made the expedition and it's new finding possible.  Grateful for that.  When the final answer is found, he would have been one of those responsible for it's success.  Now that will be at least tarnished....to say the least.  That's ashamed.  Of course that is just my opinion. 
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Irvine John Donald on July 23, 2013, 07:43:35 PM
Dan,  I happen to disagree with Mr. Mellon's video findings.  I cannot believe that even he sees those items.  Rolls of toilet paper????  But I firmly believe in his right to express that opinion.  In fact if he did not have this forum to express it in then we would not be sharing his thoughts tonight. 
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: richie conroy on July 23, 2013, 07:48:33 PM
Irv

But he does believe he see's those thing's, And that is why we are commenting in the TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund,

And not doing constructive thing's like researching all things Amelia

Thanks Richie
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Tim Sharpe on July 23, 2013, 07:55:01 PM
Dan,  I happen to disagree with Mr. Mellon's video findings.  I cannot believe that even he sees those items.  Rolls of toilet paper????  But I firmly believe in his right to express that opinion.  In fact if he did not have this forum to express it in then we would not be sharing his thoughts tonight.

I think that he is genuinely trying to help, otherwise he wouldn't have donated the money and wouldn't still be active in the Forums. Find some common ground with which both sides can be happy and the problem is solved (Don't ask me, though, I don't have a clue at this point).
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Irvine John Donald on July 23, 2013, 08:05:50 PM
Richie,  do you only want to read posts that support the Hypothesis?  I have a hard time seeing some of the items in the underwater videos but I don't ask that the authors be banned or censored.  I believe you need the opposing side to help validate or disprove opinions.
 
Tim Sharpe, I agree that there is likely a common ground here.  It feels like we don't know the whole story.  There is usually an escalation to the point where lawyers come in.  I don't think we saw that.  Mr. Mellon is an educated man who likely doesn't want this suit anymore than Ric.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: richie conroy on July 23, 2013, 08:08:13 PM
Hi Tim

It's Shocking for me because here in the UK, U can't sue someone or group and still participate in general conversation it's just not viable.

Because the accuser could actually use stuff that is said on forums against the defendant in a court of law

You see it all the time with Facebook Twitter etc
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: richie conroy on July 23, 2013, 08:13:54 PM
Richie,  do you only want to read posts that support the Hypothesis?  I have a hard time seeing some of the items in the underwater videos but I don't ask that the authors be banned or censored.  I believe you need the opposing side to help validate or disprove opinions.
 
Tim Sharpe, I agree that there is likely a common ground here.  It feels like we don't know the whole story.  There is usually an escalation to the point where lawyers come in.  I don't think we saw that.  Mr. Mellon is an educated man who likely doesn't want this suit anymore than Ric.

Erm

I am probably more accountable than most in respect to the 2010 video and what can be seen, Go to the topic and see for your self

But the difference is, I knew when to stop
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Tim Mellon on July 23, 2013, 08:18:24 PM
Hi Tim

It's Shocking for me because here in the UK, U can't sue someone or group and still participate in general conversation it's just not viable.

Because the accuser could actually use stuff that is said on forums against the defendant in a court of law

You see it all the time with Facebook Twitter etc

Richie, maybe that's one reason why we are no longer a colony.

Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Tim Mellon on July 23, 2013, 08:22:52 PM
Jeff, bag lunches are fine.

Just please don't eat that hat prematurely....

Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: richie conroy on July 23, 2013, 08:25:05 PM
Too True Tim  :)
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Tim Sharpe on July 23, 2013, 08:25:27 PM
Hi Tim

It's Shocking for me because here in the UK, U can't sue someone or group and still participate in general conversation it's just not viable.

Because the accuser could actually use stuff that is said on forums against the defendant in a court of law

You see it all the time with Facebook Twitter etc

It's called "Freedom of Speech" over here in the States. We fought a war with you over that.

Congratulations on your royal baby.  And on the Sonar Target. ;)
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: richie conroy on July 23, 2013, 08:37:10 PM
O Ay don't get me started on that

Our fellow men are fighting on the front line defending our countries against terrorists only get a mention when they die in Battle

Yet the royals have a baby and have 24 hour news coverage

What's wrong with this world ?
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Tim Sharpe on July 23, 2013, 08:46:33 PM
O Ay don't get me started on that

Our fellow men are fighting on the front line defending our countries against terrorists only get a mention when they die in Battle

Yet the royals have a baby and have 24 hour news coverage

What's wrong with this world ?

Try living in an Empire that has military bases in over half of the countries in this world and its citizens can do nothing to change that because its national government is owned by corporate interests... but I digress... the royal baby is cute, and this post is off-topic. Delete.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: richie conroy on July 23, 2013, 08:52:32 PM
Deleted  :)

Give peace a chance

Richie
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Ric Gillespie on July 23, 2013, 09:13:23 PM
Sorry Ric, I know some control must be exercised but should the moderating not be confined to making sure there are no personal attacks, inappropriate materials such as pornography, inappropriate language, etc.  Does an opposing or non conformist view need to be banned?  You have said before in other posts that you let things go on for longer than you really wanted to but why cut it off if people are reading and contributing, for whatever reason they have.  Eventually, if the forum chooses then the thread dries up.  You have lots of threads with no new posts for months.

If the purpose of this Forum were merely to provide a Hyde Park for all opinions, then moderation could be limited to making sure that the discourse remains civil, but this Forum has a higher purpose.  The purpose of this Forum is to inform, invite comment, and promote responsible research that will help TIGHAR test the Niku Hypothesis and, we hope, move the investigation forward toward a conclusive solution to the Earhart mystery.  To do that the Forum must be moderated to keep the discourse methodologically and scientifically sound. We are fortunate to have a team of educated, erudite moderators who carry out that mandate.  Senior among them is Martin X. Moleski, Ph.D., SJ, who is responsible for overseeing the organization, civility and appropriateness of the postings.  As TIGHAR's Executive Director and leader of the Earhart investigation it is my responsibility to encourage and promote intelligent discussion that will help move the Earhart Project forward, whether through supporting evidence or soundly researched dissent.  When necessary I will cut off discussions that do not, in my opinion, meet that standard and I will ban individuals who, in my opinion, are harming the legitimate function of the Forum.
Perhaps what you are looking for is a soap box.  This Forum is a research tool.


Is this why Mr. Mellon is suing you?  Because you disagree with him and he with you over the moderated forum concept?

If so, I respectfully suggest that he drop his lawsuit and start his own forum.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Irvine John Donald on July 23, 2013, 09:43:18 PM
Okay Ric. That's probably the clearest definition of this forum's purpose I have read.

Mr. Mellon, is this also your understanding of the forum's purpose? Or was this a clarification for you too?  Does this clarification change your reasoning behind the law suit? 


Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Tim Mellon on July 23, 2013, 11:14:40 PM
Irv,

Ric's Forum, Ric's Rules. No disagreement there.

I think where we differ is more related to what "coral" looks like. Also, my understanding of "methodology" contemplates using the best tools and data  available when seeking evidence. Ric has supplied the tools and data to me, but to no-one else. Nonetheless, I am contrained here from showing or discussing the results of their application.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Brano Lacika on July 24, 2013, 01:16:24 PM
Dan,  I happen to disagree with Mr. Mellon's video findings.  I cannot believe that even he sees those items.  Rolls of toilet paper????  But I firmly believe in his right to express that opinion.  In fact if he did not have this forum to express it in then we would not be sharing his thoughts tonight.

I would tend to agree with you regarding the freedom of opinion expression, but... TIGHAR is known ( even here in Europe ) for its openness, fair attitude and scientific methods of research. Good reputation is much more important for scientists than one would expect... once you lost your credit and you finished... ( maybe little bit of exaggeration here, but still... ). Would you let someone to damage your good reputation to claim the obvious nonsenses on your web site, like seeing the 75 years old toilet paper on the sea bottom? If it´s my forum I wouldn´t... Any forensic expertise should easily prove, that toilet paper simply can not last 75 in the seawater. ( I´m not that sure for human bones, but most probably the same is true for it as well... Hiking boots..., ahem... if of course they are not made of GORE-TEX would be long since decayed. Certain level of seriousness must be kept, otherwise one should not be surprised to be out of the debate...
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Scott C. Mitchell on July 24, 2013, 10:00:34 PM
Before we dismiss any hypothesis out of hand, it might help if we know more about the science.  Take coral formation, for example -- will it assume the shape of the organic object it is formed upon, so that even if the underlying object has long since disintegrated whether that original object is human remains or wood, the coral outline will be a surviving relic of that original object?

Scott Mitchell
Tighar #3292
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Brano Lacika on July 24, 2013, 10:55:18 PM
Before we dismiss any hypothesis out of hand, it might help if we know more about the science.  Take coral formation, for example -- will it assume the shape of the organic object it is formed upon, so that even if the underlying object has long since disintegrated whether that original object is human remains or wood, the coral outline will be a surviving relic of that original object?

Scott Mitchell
Tighar #3292

I would say that this might be true for larger and more solid object and within a bit longer period of time. But, do the coral grow on the surface of soft organic material like paper or leather? ( I assume hiking boot being made of leather ). Paper deteriorate too quickly, coral is not that fast...Having a long enough look into the coral pictures you will see a plenty of interesting shapes. But can you achieve the level of certainty to base the lawsuit on?
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Tim Sharpe on July 24, 2013, 11:00:21 PM
Without a doubt Mr. Sharpe, Mr Mellon made the expedition and it's new finding possible.  Grateful for that.  When the final answer is found, he would have been one of those responsible for it's success.  Now that will be at least tarnished....to say the least.  That's ashamed.  Of course that is just my opinion.

I am hopeful that this is just an issue of "forum decorum" and can be solved.

But have you ever been shut out from discussion on a forum because your viewpoint didn't meet the standards of that forum?  I have.  And for what I feel was a harmless comment.  Pissed me off.  I didn't have the power to take legal action in court, however. I just moved on. "It's someone else's website, they have the right" and all that jazz, despite taking money from their subscribers. It's a delicate balancing act between private property and free speech.

"It's our forum, disagree and don't let the door hit your rear end on the way out."

This is the Internet.  In a way it's freedom and in a way it's censorship.  I don't think humankind has been here before, at least not at this pace.  Both sides of the argument seem valid and at the same time invalid.

Strange times we live in.  Don't get me wrong, I understand both sides.  It only really matters when big money is involved.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Tim Sharpe on July 24, 2013, 11:36:42 PM
... You can't say its an Open forum then cut discussion because you don't want the discussion to continue.  ...

This is not now and never has been an "Open Forum."  It has been moderated from day one. (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,343.0.html)

I'm the one who assembled and maintain the software to run the Forum.  I know whereof I speak.

It's this kind of a post that makes me wonder about TIGHAR. I don't understand how private funds can be solicited in this way. It does not make one feel "welcome."

I know that from "whereof" I speak, this is not indicative of an inclusive club, but an exclusive one.

Please continue to use words that aren't easily understood by the working class to advance the cause if you wish to fail.

As a recent TIGHAR sponsor, I was eager to download the recent Niku high quality images and scrutinize them, but instead I'll just let my sponsorship expire and be done with it. I don't feel part of "the club."  I know whereof I speak.

Moleski: If you hurry you can delete this post before Ric sees it.  Early to bed, early to rise. It wouldn't be the first post of mine you've deleted.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Rob Seasock on July 25, 2013, 12:47:46 AM
 "...75 years old toilet paper on the sea bottom."


 ....mmm....that have to be some pretty tough toilet paper... no way it could...but wait!

 ;D Lets turn the other cheek so to speak.

"My Experience With Her Majesty's Ministry Of Supply Toilet Paper" (I have a feeling that many of our Englander cousins across the pond can relate to this story) it goes something like this.

No Sh#t there I was, a young American airman at RAF Sculthorpe for exercise Flintlock 82, in this WWII hangar.  Ah, in the mens room specifically, ya know sittin down in a stall sending a message to higher headquarters.  Well paperwork time came and I reached over for the TP, it was like thin wax paper, the horror ( :o thinks how's this gonna work ???) and started laughing, sort of.  Stenciled on each and every 1 ply square was "HM Government Property".  To this day I wished I'd have liberated that roll as a souvenir.  End of story.

Turns out this stuff was tough, used from the 1930's to 1989, especially during the UK's time of postwar Austerity, in public facilities, government offices, schools and wasn't very popular with the Brits either. Many users had their own stenciled rolls. Being the diligent Tigharian researcher I've provided some links: 

IZAL Toilet Paper
http://www.dooyoo.co.uk/household-products/izal-toilet-paper/422529/
Click on the 18 reviews some of which are quite humorous such as:
"Best paper in the world provided you know how to use it. Rather than dabbing and mopping with it as you would with conventional "Nancy boy" soft paper you need to do a bit of origami and form it into a small shovel and scoop away at your bum until it is sparkly clean and because of the medicated magic of Izal totally free of all known germs."
 :D Gotta love the English way with words "bit of origami"  "form it into a small shovel"


Lavatory Paper History & Stencils
http://www.ephemera-society.org.uk/articles/cloacopapyrology.html
My favorite TP square stencil ""Edinburgh Cleansing Department", posh, very posh.
WWII propaganda stencil-Hitler "Now I'm brownshirt all over".


TP Sheets inscribed by manufacturers or institutions.
http://bookhistory.blogspot.com/2008/02/collectanea-cloacopapyrologica-1.html


Manufactures List & Suppliers
http://bookhistory.blogspot.com/2005/12/cloacopapyrology.html
;D The manufactures list might be a crucial resource when  we find a screen capture of the toilet paper rolls in the 2010 ROV video.


 ;) Just think folks, we could have a whole CORAL ENCRUSTED DEBRIS FIELD OF TOILET PAPER down there!  :o  There could be rolls stenciled Gallagher, SS Norwich City (probably all burnt in the fire), PISS, NZ Survey.

Martin this is going to take some serious research, we might need a new thread or at the very least transfer this to Artifact Analysis: FAQ Fecal Material  & Coprolite.

LETS ROLL!
Rob





Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Brano Lacika on July 25, 2013, 02:38:49 AM
"My Experience With Her Majesty's Ministry Of Supply Toilet Paper" (I have a feeling that many of our Englander cousins across the pond can relate to this story) it goes something like this.

No Sh#t there I was, a young American airman at RAF Sculthorpe for exercise Flintlock 82, in this WWII hangar.  Ah, in the mens room specifically, ya know sittin down in a stall sending a message to higher headquarters.  Well paperwork time came and I reached over for the TP, it was like thin wax paper, the horror ( :o thinks how's this gonna work ???) and started laughing, sort of.  Stenciled on each and every 1 ply square was "HM Government Property".  To this day I wished I'd have liberated that roll as a souvenir.  End of story.


With all respect to His Majesty´s property... this would still be not good enough to survive 75 years submerged at sea. If you really want to reach that characteristics, I would suggest KEVLAR or NYLON fabric, or better the HDPE foil...   8)

Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on July 25, 2013, 04:13:21 AM
This is the Internet.

No, it is a slice of a server that you access through the internet.

The things you find on the website are put here to serve TIGHAR's work.

If you can't grasp and follow the house rules, you may not stay in this house.

Quote
In a way it's freedom and in a way it's censorship.

If TIGHAR was the government, if TIGHAR ruled the whole of the internet, and if TIGHAR could stop you from publishing your ideas elsewhere, then and only then would it be censorship. 

Your right to free speech does not allow you to go into the TV station of your choice and use their equipment to broadcast your pearls of wisdom.  That is not censorship on the part of the TV station; it is stewardship of its resources.

Similarly, TIGHAR pays the freight to make this website accessible via the internet.  There are good reasons for making the investment and good reasons for protecting the investment.

The moderators (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,343.msg3282.html#msg3282) act as referees do in professional sports.  No organized sport can be conducted without folks who watch over the field of play and who settle disputes on the spot so that play may resume as quickly as possible.  We call 'em as we see 'em, folks, and if you find that intolerable, please do find or create some other website that is more to your taste.  When you do, you may post a link to the "Better Earhart Forums" thread (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,928.0.html) in the Chatterbox.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Monty Fowler on July 25, 2013, 04:14:06 PM
As a recent TIGHAR sponsor, I was eager to download the recent Niku high quality images and scrutinize them ...

Tim, I'm sorry you feel the way you do regarding the TIGHAR forums; I can't change that, but I would like to comment on the above part of your post. We are all waiting eagerly for a crack at the 1938 images - but please stop and think for a minute.

How did TIGHAR get those images? Were they generously donated? Had they been handled or processed in any way while they were being created that, at a later time, might have profound impacts on the information contained thereon? Could we be sure we got the maximum amount of information off of each negatiev if someone else did it for us?

The best answer to all of those questions was for TIGHAR to go to New Zealand itself - and that costs money. Quite a bit of money.   Easily $1,500 for one person to get there and back. TIGHAR was fortunate that a few members and forum contributors decided that this was important enough to be done quickly, and pitched in to help. Do any of them expect accolades for doing so? I doubt it; the ones I know of who pitched in certainly don't, they recognized the value of the information and contributed becuase they recognized the importance that getting this information had to moving our search for Amelia and Fred forward.

Others may have an issue with TIGHAR making the decision that only members at Researcher level or above would have access to the raw information. I have no such issue. To repeat my oft-stated mantra, "Talk is cheap. Answers are expensive." In an ideal world, all information would be freely gathered and freely shared. Unfortunately, none of us live in that world; at least when we're conscious, that is. I donate what I can, when I can, because I believe in TIGHAR's methods and I like the way it does business.

LTM, who knows that The People will find Amelia,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 CER
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Ric Gillespie on July 25, 2013, 06:09:40 PM
Please continue to use words that aren't easily understood by the working class to advance the cause if you wish to fail.

I don't even know how to respond to that except to say that we refuse to dumb-down the information we put out. The very idea that there is a "class" of potential supporters who don't understand big words is repugnant to me.
 
As a recent TIGHAR sponsor, I was eager to download the recent Niku high quality images and scrutinize them, but instead I'll just let my sponsorship expire and be done with it.

Our decision to make the hi-res photos available only to TIGHAResearchers and above was based on the requirement set by the New Zealand Air Force Museum that the photos be used only for TIGHAR research.

I don't feel part of "the club."

Maybe that's because TIGHAR is not a club.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Joshua Doremire on July 29, 2013, 04:48:16 PM
Irv,

Ric's Forum, Ric's Rules. No disagreement there.

I think where we differ is more related to what "coral" looks like. Also, my understanding of "methodology" contemplates using the best tools and data  available when seeking evidence. Ric has supplied the tools and data to me, but to no-one else. Nonetheless, I am contrained here from showing or discussing the results of their application.

My apologies for asking questions you are constrained from answering on here. 
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Matt Revington on July 30, 2013, 10:31:25 AM
Any response from the court on the motion to dismiss?
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Ric Gillespie on July 30, 2013, 10:36:47 AM
Any response from the court on the motion to dismiss?

The other side has until Aug. 15 to file their response to our Motion to Dismiss.  The judge will then review both filings and make his decision. We just learned this morning that the Court has asked for oral arguments on Aug. 27.  This is a bit unusual and we're not sure what it means but we are pleased at this new development.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Monty Fowler on July 30, 2013, 12:04:58 PM
What we can HOPE this means is that the judge smells something rotten emanating from Casper, and wants to clear the air, and his docket, of this matter.

LTM, who never mastered holding his nose,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 CER
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Scott C. Mitchell on July 30, 2013, 05:20:12 PM
'Tim seems to have the burden of proving the bird was found. . .'
He may have a burden greater than that.  If his argument is that a fraud was perpetrated on him, he may have to prove that (1) what he thinks he is seeing is really tantamount to aircraft wreckage, and not just scattered artifacts, and (2) TIGHAR and Ric *knew* it was THE wreckage at the time Ric made his ask for Tim's contribution, and that Ric *intended* to deceive.  Another person's subjective state of mind can be as inscrutable as . . . well, as a seabed of coral.

Scott Mitchell
TIGHAR #3202
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Ric Gillespie on August 06, 2013, 09:04:58 AM
As previously announced (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1219.msg26706.html#msg26706), the Court in Casper, WY has set a hearing for August 27 to hear oral arguments from attorneys on the Motion to Dismiss.   Although my presence is not required, I will be there to demonstrate TIGHAR's absolute rejection and denial of the allegations in Mr. Mellon's complaint.  I am pleased to say that TIGHAR stalwart Monty Fowler has informed me that he plans to travel across the country to be there as an expression of support.  This was entirely Monty's idea and I have no idea whether it would make an difference to the Court, but I'll be surprised if the media doesn't want to interview him.  If anyone else feels inspired by Monty's example please let us know.  I hear that Casper is lovely this time of year. ;D
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Tim Collins on August 06, 2013, 09:30:52 AM
Forgive my obtuseness, and I mean absolutely no disrespect, but, what would the significance of this be beyond any other member of TIGHAR showing up to support the cause? 
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Ric Gillespie on August 06, 2013, 09:37:05 AM
Forgive my obtuseness, and I mean absolutely no disrespect, but, what would the significance of this be beyond any other member of TIGHAR showing up to support the cause?

None at all.  It's nothing more than a show of support (and a chance to have a beer together later).  I'm just throwing it out to let everyone know that they're welcome to come if they want to.  I'm looking forward to hearing the oral arguments.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Stacy Galloway on August 06, 2013, 10:05:37 AM
As previously announced (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1219.msg26706.html#msg26706), the Court in Casper, WY has set a hearing for August 27 to hear oral arguments from attorneys on the Motion to Dismiss.   Although my presence is not required, I will be there to demonstrate TIGHAR's absolute rejection and denial of the allegations in Mr. Mellon's complaint.  I am pleased to say that TIGHAR stalwart Monty Fowler has informed me that he plans to travel across the country to be there as an expression of support.  This was entirely Monty's idea and I have no idea whether it would make an difference to the Court, but I'll be surprised if the media doesn't want to interview him.  If anyone else feels inspired by Monty's example please let us know.  I hear that Casper is lovely this time of year. ;D

Yay, Monty! Your presence on this forum is always an inspiration, and I'm sure you're presence in court will be doubly so!
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Ted G Campbell on August 06, 2013, 10:53:09 AM
Ric,
Would you please give us details for the court appearance i.e. time and location, etc.  I may be in the area and may stop by.
Ted Campbell
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Ric Gillespie on August 06, 2013, 10:58:31 AM
Ric,
Would you please give us details for the court appearance i.e. time and location, etc.  I may be in the area and may stop by.
Ted Campbell

The hearing is scheduled to be held at:
Ewing T. Kerr Federal Courthouse
111 South Wolcott
Casper, WY 82601
Courtroom No. 2

before Scott W. Skavdahl, United States District Judge at 10:30 am on August 27, 2013.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Greg Daspit on August 06, 2013, 06:21:44 PM
I wish I could be there too.
I wonder if we could sign something saying we support TIGHAR that can be submitted?
I already donated to the Legal Defense fund.
I think there is great support for TIGHAR. I know I am not alone in wishing there was something else we could do.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Ric Gillespie on August 06, 2013, 07:50:09 PM
I wonder if we could sign something saying we support TIGHAR that can be submitted?

'Fraid not, and there won't be any fireworks or Jack Nicholson "A Few Good Men" moments.  Just lawyers talking lawyer talk, but so far we have:
Monty Fowler
Ted Campbell
Andrew McKenna
Karen Hoy

This is turning into The March on Casper. I really didn't expect this. Our lawyers can't believe it.  I'll set up a little email list tomorrow for coordinating hotels, transportation, etc.   
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Friend Weller on August 07, 2013, 07:17:23 AM
I'm only seven hours away.....but how to traverse those seven hours?  Coincidentally, I would pass right through Rock Springs!  I look forward to that e-mail list - perhaps it will make my participation in The March on Casper possible!

Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Monty Fowler on August 07, 2013, 10:46:37 AM
"March on Casper" ... way cool.

But we are not going to go down the "Letter from the Natrona County Jail"* route. At least not right away. Although I learned a long time ago to never say Never.

* - with apologies to Martin Luther King.

LTM, who has no fear of flying,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 CER
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Dan Swift on August 07, 2013, 03:38:47 PM
I smell the beginnings of the first (well maybe not the first...I don't know) annual TIGHAR Convention and fund raiser! 
Maybe it should be an annual event (leaving out the lawyers please...no offense to any lawyer members...whoops). 
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Jeff Lange on August 07, 2013, 09:13:54 PM
OOOHHH,....OOOOHHHH- I can see it now, a group of TIGHAR wearables clad persons walking in the street of Casper singing, "We shall overcome....!"

Oh well- someone had to be the first to bring it up! Wish I could come and support the cause too! Will keep up the prayers for all!
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Joshua Doremire on August 07, 2013, 11:03:25 PM
Make sure to obtain any necessary permits if this turns into a march and/or protest...  ;D
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Ric Gillespie on August 08, 2013, 09:53:39 AM
No pitchforks, no torches, no placards, no chanting of slogans (tempting as it may be).  We don't need to do any of that.  Just being there is enough to send the message.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Tim Collins on August 08, 2013, 09:55:33 AM
No pitchforks, no torches, no placards, no chanting of slogans (tempting as it may be).  We don't need to do any of that.  Just being there is enough to send the message.

I suppose tin-foil hats are out too... damn!
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Ric Gillespie on August 08, 2013, 09:57:53 AM
I suppose we could each carry a roll of toilet paper. (I'm going to get in SO much trouble for even suggesting that.)
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Brano Lacika on August 08, 2013, 10:03:33 AM
I suppose we could each carry a roll of toilet paper. (I'm going to get in SO much trouble for even suggesting that.)

His Majesty stuff?  ;D ( sorry...  :-[ )
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Ric Gillespie on August 10, 2013, 08:32:54 AM
In all seriousness, I think TIGHAR's interests will be best served if the TIGHAR delegation at the hearing in Casper wear respectable business attire, i.e. jackets and ties(a shirt would also be nice) for the gentlemen and the equivalent for the lady.  I'll bring TIGHAR lapel pins for everyone.  We'll sit together.  The court will know who we are.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Monty Fowler on August 10, 2013, 08:36:51 AM
*ponders* Well, I suppose I could wear a real shirt and a tie. T-shirts are hard to get a tie to look good on.

LTM, who watches where he tyes is ties,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 CER
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Ric Gillespie on August 10, 2013, 06:52:41 PM
A word of caution before everyone gets too excited:

For the court to ask for oral arguments on Motion to Dismiss is highly unusual but we can't assume the judge is on the verge of dismissing the case.  He apparently has some questions he wants the attorneys to answer.  We don't know what those questions are.  We should not expect an instant ruling "from the bench." At the end of the hearing the judge will probably take the answers "under advisement" and issue a written ruling on the Motion within a week or two.  He might throw out some parts of the complaint and leave others standing.  Or he could dismiss the case, point out the errors, and give the plaintiff an opportunity to re-submit.  Or he could dismiss the case "with prejudice" which would kill it at least within his jurisdiction - that rarely happens. 

That said, hearing the nature of the judges questions should tell us something about how he views the case.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Ted G Campbell on August 10, 2013, 07:22:42 PM
Ric,

I’ll make you a deal.  I will wear a clean pressed shirt and blazer but no tie (heck I think I forgot how to tie the darn thing – if I tried it wouldn’t be pretty) or I’ll sit in the back of the room.  Your call.

Ted Campbell
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Ric Gillespie on August 10, 2013, 08:43:11 PM
Ted, I'll be proud to sit with you whatever you're wearing.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Ric Gillespie on August 11, 2013, 10:49:29 AM
Wyoming man denies plot against Earhart plane recovery group

Read more: http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/wyoming/wyoming-man-denies-plot-against-earhart-plane-recovery-group/article_42dfc090-cb35-54a2-a158-25652b0953b5.html#ixzz2bg1C9DTL

The Casper Star Tribune, Tim's hometown newspaper, contacted me recently to give me more details and get my reaction to this game-changing discovery by a crack investigative reporter.  The private online forum referred to in the article is the Amelia Earhart Forum run by former TIGHAR Forum poster Heath Smith and made up in large part of people who have been banned from this Forum for troll-ism. I now have copies of the entire lengthy thread of discussions by Tim and a number of co-conspirators about how they plan to dine on TIGHAR's carcass. After Tim got a call from the reporter he quickly posted that the thread was only a "spoof" to find out if someone was leaking information - but Tim has a logic problem. If there was no conspiracy, nothing to hide, why the concern about leaks?

Now, for the first time, his previously unfathomable claims and actions make sense. The reason for the failure of the many well-meaning attempts by forum members to reason with him becomes clear as does his "Take no prisoners" motto. 
We are shocked, dismayed, saddened and angered that Tim would stoop to these levels.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Ric Gillespie on August 11, 2013, 11:02:08 AM
Mr. Mellon,

If your documented plan to profit from bankrupting TIGHAR was really a "spoof" as you claim, prove it by dropping your lawsuit and signing an agreement to never again take legal action against me or TIGHAR.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Irvine John Donald on August 11, 2013, 11:48:14 AM
This actually ties in with Mr. Mellon stating that its not about the money in the lawsuit that he posted just a week or two ago. Very sad
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Ric Gillespie on August 11, 2013, 12:04:56 PM
Look at what he did with Pan Am, an iconic and respected name and logo that he purchased after the company went bankrupt.  He then applied the name and logo to his own holdings and even styled his email address "PanAm Captain."  Nothing illegal in any of that, but it speaks volumes.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on August 11, 2013, 12:18:38 PM
After Tim got a call from the reporter he quickly posted that the thread was only a "spoof" to find out if someone was leaking information - but Tim has a logic problem. If there was no conspiracy, nothing to hide, why the concern about leaks?

You just don't have a sufficiently conspiratorial outlook on life, Ric.

Clearly there is a supersecret Forum behind the secret Forum.  In the supersecret Forum, which the reporter failed to find, the conspirators decided what kind of thread they would develop in the merely secret Forum as bait for their enemies.

You have fallen into their trap!  Now they have you exactly where they want you!  Never believe that the first layer you uncover is all there is to a plot.  Churchill understood this perfectly: "Russia is a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma."

Oh, if only you had consulted a Jesuit about these things before launching this premature exposé!   ::)
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Tim Mellon on August 11, 2013, 12:20:27 PM
Mr. Mellon,

If your documented plan to profit from bankrupting TIGHAR was really a "spoof" as you claim, prove it by dropping your lawsuit and signing an agreement to never again take legal action against me or TIGHAR.

Better yet, Ric, I will demonstrate in court with emails pre-dating the post that its sole purpose was to determine if someone was leaking private correspondence.

That you would not place it in the full facetious context of the thread is, IMO, reprehensible. Especially after Father Moleski's sermon about copying materials.

You have taken TIGHAR to new depths.

Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Scott Doudrick on August 11, 2013, 01:28:44 PM
I have been thinking about posting this for a couple of days

http://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2013/06/29/texas-teen-facing-eight-years-after-violent-league-of-legends-threat/

Sarcastic comments on forums can have unfortunate consequences.  I'm not saying that I have encountered anything in this forum akin to what was typed by the teen. However, I AM saying is that the law doesn't necesarially have to take the context of comments into account, or might err on the side of caution or make an example as it seems with this teen. Just don't want folks here to get themselves or TIGHAR into trouble because they are passionate about finding AE.

Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on August 11, 2013, 01:36:40 PM
Especially after Father Moleski's sermon about copying materials.

Ric did not publish the material collected from the website.

He merely adverted to having acquired it as material relevant to defending TIGHAR in court.

This constitutes "fair use" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use) under copyright law.

"Thus far the words for today's holy gospel."
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Ric Gillespie on August 11, 2013, 04:12:42 PM
That you would not place it in the full facetious context of the thread is, IMO, reprehensible. Especially after Father Moleski's sermon about copying materials.

You have taken TIGHAR to new depths.

I'll grant you that it can be hard to tell when people who see 75 year old underwater toilet paper are being facetious, but the context of the thread seemed perfectly serious to me.  With your permission I'll post the complete thread as it was shown to me and people can decide for themselves what is reprehensible.

I'm calling your bluff on this Tim. Shall I post the thread?
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Scott C. Mitchell on August 11, 2013, 04:23:17 PM
This turn of events reminds me of two quotations.

"When someone tells you who they are, believe them."  -- Maya Angelou
"Cui bono?" -- Latin legal phrase for "who benefits?"  -- A way to understand otherwise incomprehensible or secret conduct.

I'm sending in a donation to the Legal Defense Fund first thing tomorrow, which is a practical way to express my reaction to this.

Scott Mitchell
TIGHAR #3292

Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Scott Doudrick on August 11, 2013, 05:49:06 PM
I have been thinking about posting this for a couple of days

http://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2013/06/29/texas-teen-facing-eight-years-after-violent-league-of-legends-threat/

Sarcastic comments on forums can have unfortunate consequences.  I'm not saying that I have encountered anything in this forum akin to what was typed by the teen. However, I AM saying is that the law doesn't necesarially have to take the context of comments into account, or might err on the side of caution or make an example as it seems with this teen. Just don't want folks here to get themselves or TIGHAR into trouble because they are passionate about finding AE.

Nor are you likely to encounter anything here akin to what may be found in the site Chris provided a link for, either.  Perhaps you should share this nugget with that crowd - some of that vitriol at least borders on violent thought.

I hope everyone understands that the link I gave was just an easy-to-see example of on-line comments getting taken out of context - like I am afraid mine may have been - no disrespect meant to anyone on any of the sites, especially not to this one!

Cheers,
Scott
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Tim Mellon on August 11, 2013, 05:50:10 PM
That you would not place it in the full facetious context of the thread is, IMO, reprehensible. Especially after Father Moleski's sermon about copying materials.

You have taken TIGHAR to new depths.

I'll grant you that it can be hard to tell when people who see 75 year old underwater toilet paper are being facetious, but the context of the thread seemed perfectly serious to me.  With your permission I'll post the complete thread as it was shown to me and people can decide for themselves what is reprehensible.

I'm calling your bluff on this Tim. Shall I post the thread?

Go ahead, Ric, as far as I am concerned (all 18 posts), though I am probably not the one whose permission you need.

Bear in mind, however, that you are violating the privacy of others who assumed they were writing in sanctuary.

You must be desparate to think you can win this battle with PR.  My advice to you is to get a competent forensic analyst to review those 8.55 (2010) and 16 minute (2012) high definition videos to verify your opinions about all that "coral".

Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Ric Gillespie on August 11, 2013, 06:09:56 PM
Go ahead, Ric, as far as I am concerned (all 18 posts), though I am probably not the one whose permission you need.

It's good to have your permission but I need to consult our legal team about how to handle the others.  Like you, I'd really like for folks to be able to see what was written.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Tim Mellon on August 11, 2013, 06:18:02 PM
That's kind of hypocritical, don't you think, since you banned most of the others from expressing facts or expertise opinions that don't agree with your opinion on TIGHAR Forum?
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Ric Gillespie on August 11, 2013, 06:41:56 PM
That's kind of hypocritical, don't you think, since you banned most of the others from expressing facts or expertise opinions that don't agree with your opinion on TIGHAR Forum?

Not at all.  They were banned for good reason.  I merely want to shine some sunlight on your conspiracy and let people decide for themselves whether it was facetious as you claim.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Stacy Galloway on August 11, 2013, 07:18:53 PM
I have been thinking about posting this for a couple of days

http://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2013/06/29/texas-teen-facing-eight-years-after-violent-league-of-legends-threat/

Sarcastic comments on forums can have unfortunate consequences.  I'm not saying that I have encountered anything in this forum akin to what was typed by the teen. However, I AM saying is that the law doesn't necesarially have to take the context of comments into account, or might err on the side of caution or make an example as it seems with this teen. Just don't want folks here to get themselves or TIGHAR into trouble because they are passionate about finding AE.

Nor are you likely to encounter anything here akin to what may be found in the site Chris provided a link for, either.  Perhaps you should share this nugget with that crowd - some of that vitriol at least borders on violent thought.

I hope everyone understands that the link I gave was just an easy-to-see example of on-line comments getting taken out of context - like I am afraid mine may have been - no disrespect meant to anyone on any of the sites, especially not to this one!

Cheers,
Scott

Thank you for the link, Scott. I see the comparison you're trying to make. Certain posts have been insulting and someone might respond with something over the top. Your link is a good warning towards not saying something regrettable in the heat of the moment.

LTM~ Who knows TIGHAR will win the lawsuit,
Stacy
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Michael Elliot on August 11, 2013, 10:00:21 PM
Silence.
No more words on the record (and this is the record.)
Silence is your best tactic for now.
Otherwise, you may be dragged through depositions that will be costly, time consuming, and worse. The more words here, the longer those depositions.
Silence.
Sure you can talk about the 1938 pics and the like, the radio transmissions, the Bevington object, and so on, but as to the plaintiff in your suit, and his complaint, silence.
Not a word on the record unless your attorney thinks it may be productive.
(Perhaps he did.)
Just my opinion.
Sorry I can't join you in Caspar. My cousin in Jackson needs a visit, but wife needs me more.
Regards
Mike
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Ted G Campbell on August 11, 2013, 10:07:10 PM
Ric and Tim,

You both are escalating this issue to a point where one or the other is in danger of crossing over that line of character assassination.

Ric, I would like you to stop – Tim, if you feel good about it keeping going.  I have confidence in our court system wherein public comments will be taken into account in the final determination of this matter.

To other TIGHAR members I also would suggest ratcheting back the criticism on this case so that you individually won’t be brought into the fray.

I can honestly say that with the photos/video technology that I am using nothing suggests to me that the 2010 viedio had any definitive determination that aircraft wreckage was found.  Maybe Tim Mellon had available to him and/or his advisors more sophisticated software – if this is the case why didn’t he 1) announce this technology to the Board of Directors of TIGHAR and to the Earhart Forum members at large and 2) publish the photos/video so to enhance the original charge of “fraud” with respect to the current litigation?

With respect to the latest activity on the Earhart Forum relative to the “second anti - Earhart forum” I would suggest that the quotations noted be taken in full content of the conversation site i.e. do not paraphrase a posting  - show the entire content of the subject.  This keeps the potential of future litigation out of the realm of prejudice testimony by others.

Remember in the U.S. Justice system Tim Mellon must prove he was singularly targeted for a major contribution to the 2012 program, and subsequently defrauded, as opposed to the rest of us who also contributed

Finally, most of you know that I contributed to funds which allowed Ric and Jeff to fly to N.Z. in order to obtain “hi-res” photos of Niku from the museum down there:  Does this give me an advantage over equivalent donors – I don’t think so as I didn’t put any limitations or restrictions on how or to whom the final product would be distributed or to how the product would be used in the furtherance in the basic investigation.  Did Tim Mellon put such a limitation on his contribution?

In closing, this entire legal issue, in my opinion, is a case of “post expedition disappointment” i.e. you spent $1,000,000 and nothing immediately jumps out to you that resolves the question of “where is the A.E. airplane.”  Why didn’t Tim insist on going back to the 2010 area and “mow the lawn” with more sophisticated hardware?  Why wait until you are state side to make your issue known to all?

Ted Campbell
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Dan Swift on August 12, 2013, 08:59:55 AM
Chris, read this guy's ("Trolls) article and he strikes me as the type that also believes that Global Warming is real and is completely man's fault.....because some "expert" says it's true.  You can find "experts" on both sides of any issue.  Why it was just 35 or so years ago, the "experts" were screaming we were headed into another ice age and the globe was cooling too fast.  Unfortunately, some people make issues too political and take credibitily away...from the issue and themselves. 
It always falls down to evidence and how it is received and reviewed.  This guy is spinning Tighar's hypothisis with some mis-information.  Turning this into a political issue instead of a reasonable debate.  Twisting facts, and twisting evidence, and twisting words.  Maybe I am wrong, show me where Ric ever said that AE flew 10 degrees off course to end up at Gardner?  Did he conveniently just miss that part about 157-337?  Just one of many examples in that article.   
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Brano Lacika on August 12, 2013, 09:23:33 AM
Chris, read this guy's ("Trolls) article and he strikes me as the type that also believes that Global Warming is real and is completely man's fault.....because some "expert" says it's true.  You can find "experts" on both sides of any issue.  Why it was just 35 or so years ago, the "experts" were screaming we were headed into another ice age and the globe was cooling too fast.  Unfortunately, some people make issues too political and take credibitily away...from the issue and themselves. 
It always falls down to evidence and how it is received and reviewed.  This guy is spinning Tighar's hypothisis with some mis-information.  Turning this into a political issue instead of a reasonable debate.  Twisting facts, and twisting evidence, and twisting words.  Maybe I am wrong, show me where Ric ever said that AE flew 10 degrees off course to end up at Gardner?  Did he conveniently just miss that part about 157-337?  Just one of many examples in that article.

To me it looks like he missed the 157/337 part simply because he is not really good in mathemathics/navigation and thus was unable to understand it. ( See his "vector" argument ) hence he did not realize the importance of the point. The same is valid for not understanding of radio direction finder failure... The less one know, the more easily he dismiss anything...
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Dan Swift on August 12, 2013, 09:43:24 AM
You are right Brano.  And therefore letting someone else think for him instead of thinking for himself.  A little research and understanding could have made his opinion slightly different.  It's laziness.   
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Ric Gillespie on August 12, 2013, 10:20:39 AM
To all who have expressed concern about my recent exchanges on this Forum with Tim Mellon, please be assured that I am working closely with our legal team. The recent revelations about conspiratorial discussions on Heath Smith's Amelia Earhart Forum are a serious matter and potentially devastating to Tim Mellon's lawsuit.  Tim maintains that they were all facetious. They don't look facetious to us but we want to be sure we have everything that was said and make it available so that everyone can judge for themselves.  Tim has said there are emails that prove his assertions but he has not produced them.  I will reach out to Heath Smith and ask him to voluntarily provide a full transcript of any correspondence or postings he has that bear on this issue.  If his forum members have nothing to hide or be ashamed of they should be eager to clear their name.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Jeff Buttke on August 12, 2013, 12:03:34 PM
My advice to you is to get a competent forensic analyst to review those 8.55 (2010) and 16 minute (2012) high definition videos to verify your opinions about all that "coral".

Tim, Why would TIGHAR do that?

Since your lawsuit hinges on your providing irrefutable analysys of that footage, it makes no sense that TIGHAR waste resources to do it.
They can just wait and get it as part of the record of the court case.

And if that dosen't happen.... after the big stink that has been made.... maybe it is just coral...

-Jeff
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Jeff Buttke on August 12, 2013, 12:08:19 PM


Go ahead, Ric, as far as I am concerned (all 18 posts), though I am probably not the one whose permission you need.


Ric since you have permission please post TM's postings.
I would enjoy reading them.  I do not require the context or any email thread.

Megan Cassidy told me all I needed to judge them irregardless of their content
"Mellon went on to say that he wrote the post as a test to see if other members of the private forum were leaking information"

I mean either....

a. It was an attempt to find the mole who is leaking confidential information.
Information so secret it was willingly and freely posted to a forum on the internet.

b. It is what it appears to be, without any alternate or hidden purpose.

I see one of these as possible/plausible and the other as yet another non sequitur.
I am sure the context is not required to know whether it is A or B.

-Jeff
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Greg Daspit on August 12, 2013, 01:40:18 PM
Maybe the other posters can be assigned a number and context then provided.
That way the secret forum members won’t be embarrassed that they were scammed by the super-secret forum members, if that was the case.
 :)
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Nancy Marilyn Gould on August 12, 2013, 04:35:15 PM
OK, here's something that I don't understand.  Why the need for a SECRET or private forum?  Most forums that I've seen, you need to register to post, but anybody can browse it.  Why would a forum dedicated to Amelia Earhart need to be secret?
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Ric Gillespie on August 12, 2013, 06:09:40 PM
Why would a forum dedicated to Amelia Earhart need to be secret?

Exactly.  I can see a private forum for a particular group.  TIGHAR's Earhart Project Advisory Council (EPAC) for example is a select group of researchers who communicate via a private forum, but they don't have any secrets and we don't worry about members of the group leaking information to outsiders. 
What could be so important to hide that you would set a tap to catch an informer?  I was in a club like that once. I think I was 12 years old.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Nancy Marilyn Gould on August 13, 2013, 06:54:53 AM

So these serious researchers can hide their 'Ric/TIGHAR kicking sessions' for one.

Chris:
I got onto the link you posted a few days ago.  I couldn't get over #1. how LONG it was, and #2. All it seemed to be was a bunch of guys griping about TIGHAR.  It went on and on and on.  I ended up skimming through a lot of it because there just didn't seem to be much of substance there.  Very little about alternative theories, points of view, etc.  Just a group of guys complaining ad nauseum.

I was left wondering:  Don't these guys have a life?  Seriously, if I got banned from a forum, I might be initially PO'd, but then I'd get on with my life.  If I felt that strongly about it, I'd simply start a new forum of my own (and I wouldn't make it secret!).  These guys remind me of someone who gets divorced and goes on and on about their ex, even years later.  Get over it already! 

These guys give new meaning to the words "having an axe to grind"!

--Nancy
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Monty Fowler on August 13, 2013, 08:15:18 PM
The phrase "Hoisted on your own petard" comes to mind. Hamlet.

LTM, who remembers the classics,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 CER
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Ric Gillespie on August 13, 2013, 09:16:26 PM
To all who have expressed concern about my recent exchanges on this Forum with Tim Mellon, please be assured that I am working closely with our legal team. The recent revelations about conspiratorial discussions on Heath Smith's Amelia Earhart Forum are a serious matter and potentially devastating to Tim Mellon's lawsuit.  Tim maintains that they were all facetious. They don't look facetious to us but we want to be sure we have everything that was said and make it available so that everyone can judge for themselves.  Tim has said there are emails that prove his assertions but he has not produced them.  I will reach out to Heath Smith and ask him to voluntarily provide a full transcript of any correspondence or postings he has that bear on this issue.  If his forum members have nothing to hide or be ashamed of they should be eager to clear their name.

I have corresponded with Heath Smith.  He has not provided a full transcript of forum postings but he has been kind enough to share information which, he contends, proves that Tim Mellon intended his comments about a for-profit "tourist play" as a "spoof" to smoke out a suspected "spy" on Heath's forum. Heath sent me what appear to be screen shots of a private email and a Facebook message - in each case the sender's name has been blurred out (the term of art of these days is "redacted.")

The email was sent by an unidentified person to Tim Mellon at 12:40pm on June 1, 2013 subject "Re:ALERT!!!". The email appears to be a continuation of a conversation about the possibility that information was being leaked from the private forum.

"I would lean toward a spy rather than hacking.

How can we solve that?

The only thing I can think of is to do what spy agencies do...Plant bogus information, one at a time to different individulas and see what story pops up at the other side.

I am not sure how we could do that in the public forum."


It is not clear from what Heath sent whether the above represents a back and forth conversation or a single individual answering his own question.

At 04:17pm that same day, Mellon posted to Heath's forum under the topic : "Confidential..."

"If and when TIGHAR goes bankrupt, I am considering the formation of a for-profit company with the purpose of purchasing whatever rights and assets that estate might hold. I see a real opportunity to parlay Ric's incompetence into a profitable travel tour play.

 Two questions:

(1) If members here could invest, would there be any interest in doing so?

(2) Has anyone got a clever idea for a name?"


Some time later - Heath says it was the same day - an unidentified person sent what appears to be a Facebook message to Heath Smith saying,

"Look at Tim's new post.  I wish he wouldn't have put in the 'If and When TIGHAR goes bankrupt" but I guess that is a start. He wants me to save his email to me as proof that his comment was a spoof."

I asked Heath to send actual copies of the correspondence and he replied:

Ric,

I contacted one of the originators of the emails that made one of the statements and he said that it was not Ok to release the entire email that includes his name and private email address. I do not believe I have the right, especially under Michigan law, to forward private correspondence with without their permission.

Other than what I have already sent, I have no other information in private email or forum messages, not even a single sentence, that can add more to the proof that what Tim said was a spoof.

Heath


I'm grateful to Heath for sharing this information.  We want to be fair to Tim but this correspondence raises more questions than it answers.
• Why such concern about secrecy and leaks on what was acknowledged to be a "public forum"?
• This was two days before Tim filed his lawsuit. Was there a leak at that time? The Star Tribune article did not come out until over two months later.
• Tim apparently sent the originator of the Facebook message an email specifically designed to cover him if the "tourist play" posting was leaked.  Is that proof that it was a spoof?
• Although there were some facetious comments, it's certainly appears from the responses to Tim's proposed "tourist play" that, regardless of how he meant it,  several members of Heath's forum took him seriously.

I'm still hoping to get permission to share the verbatim content of those responses. 


Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Irvine John Donald on August 13, 2013, 09:57:56 PM
Ric. Please note this post. #118 in this thread.  Mr. Mellon is suggesting he is putting himself last to recover damages. It suggests its not about the money. If not then what?  Ulterior motive?  Bankrupt TIGHAR?  Hmmm. Check the date of the post.

 
Quote
Perhaps we are just not seeing the overall reason for Mr. Mellon's lawsuit.  If he was a victim of fraud then weren't we all?  I hesitate to say this but should Mr. Mellon have brought a class action suit on behalf of all the other contributors?  Or did Mr. Mellon simply not think about anyone else?  Or not care?  Or couldn't rustle up the interest?  etc.

Actually, Irv, "class action" was my initial instinct, and putting myself at the end of the queue as far as any recovery.

But I was advised to hold off until the sentencing phase, as "too many attorneys spoil the broth."
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Doug Giese on August 13, 2013, 10:07:38 PM
Ric,

I agree with Michael Elliot. No private information or opinions about the case should be shared publicly. This lawsuit isn't going to be won by information posted here, or in any public venue (such as opposing strategies posted to Facebook). The only thing you can do is provide ammunition to the opposition. I'd recommend closing this thread and dealing with Mr. Mellon in the courtroom. At any rate, take it offline.

Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Carolyn Hasenfratz on August 14, 2013, 11:19:16 AM
Is it possible for one party in a lawsuit to ask the judge for a mental health evaluation of the other party? It's starting to sound like that might explain a lot of things.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: James G. Stoveken on August 14, 2013, 12:45:23 PM
Now Carolyn.  I'm sure Ric's under a lot of stress but he's shown no signs of cracking.  He'll be fine!   :)
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Ric Gillespie on August 14, 2013, 01:20:02 PM
The real question is - Does looking for Amelia you crazy or do only crazy people look for Amelia?
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Jim Doughty on August 14, 2013, 01:53:52 PM
When posting things online intersects with the real world of potential legal consequences, I think of this:
http://youtu.be/-vl9WfOdSkM (http://youtu.be/-vl9WfOdSkM)

...of course, Ric, technically, you outrank us...

 :)

-Jim
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Scott Doudrick on August 14, 2013, 03:56:49 PM
I see a few other directions for this:
1) Aren't these types of things settled out of court a lot of times?  All that one would need is a reason to get on a judge's docket.  Then the game of chicken begins.  At some point the plaintiff settles for something less than the original demand, which incidentally was the original desire - you have to start negotiations above what you are willing to give...  I have not been around long enough to know what that might be.
2) There has been some reference to this, but not directly I think.  Could the litigation could just be drug on forever so that TIGHAR is paralyzed even if they never actually 'lose.'  Not sure how final a judgement like this is, or if it can be appealed forever?
3) Can the reason for the suit and secret forum be that someone thinks they can go there themselves if TIGHAR is paralyzed.  One could plan a trip out there in secret to explore.  For some that are not completely in on the story, a luxury tour exploration could seem just as plausible?
4) Finally, related to 3), when did this litigation come up relative to the discovery of the anomaly?
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Charlie Chisholm on August 14, 2013, 08:05:00 PM
At some point the plaintiff settles for something less than the original demand

Tighar should not offer a dime to settle this. If anything, Mellon should be made to pay all expenses incurred by Tighar in defending against this clearly frivolous lawsuit.

Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Scott Doudrick on August 14, 2013, 08:34:09 PM
At some point the plaintiff settles for something less than the original demand

Tighar should not offer a dime to settle this. If anything, Mellon should be made to pay all expenses incurred by Tighar in defending against this clearly frivolous lawsuit.

I'm not saying anyone should pay anything.  I was wondering what the plaintiff might desire other than money?  I'm positing that the money issue was just used as a way to get into court so the game of chicken could begin.  I can't imagine the plaintiff actually needs the money - I understand in fact that he has said he would be last in line for any potential damages received.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Stacy Galloway on August 14, 2013, 09:03:40 PM
At some point the plaintiff settles for something less than the original demand

Tighar should not offer a dime to settle this. If anything, Mellon should be made to pay all expenses incurred by Tighar in defending against this clearly frivolous lawsuit.

I'm not saying anyone should pay anything.  I was wondering what the plaintiff might desire other than money?  I'm positing that the money issue was just used as a way to get into court so the game of chicken could begin.  I can't imagine the plaintiff actually needs the money - I understand in fact that he has said he would be last in line for any potential damages received.

I agree. The plaintiff's main motive is not 'for the money'. I believe he was mad about his ideas being shut down and decided to sue to prove his point.

He has all the time (and loads of money) to let this fester in the court system.

He knows there was no discovery in 2010. If he's smart enough to cover his 'spoof' plot with an e-mail trail, then he's smart enough to know TIGHAR wouldn't find AE's plane and not announce it to the world.

This is a game of chicken- but he's going to be shocked when TIGHAR doesn't back down.

LTM~ Who's trying to keep her rants "G Rated",
Stacy
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Dan Swift on August 14, 2013, 09:08:30 PM
Right on Charlie! 
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on August 14, 2013, 09:13:45 PM
I was wondering what the plaintiff might desire other than money?

He has indicated more than once that he is interested in the discovery phase of the court case.  If what he really wants is a duplicate of TIGHAR's research, any plausible litigation to make that happen via discovery will do.

Mellon has not hinted on this Forum why he wants to paw through TIGHAR's files.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Tim Collins on August 15, 2013, 06:38:47 AM
Frankly, I think he just wants to be in charge.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: richie conroy on August 15, 2013, 06:39:28 AM
Wow what a turn of events

What ever will be next ?

Richie
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Chuck Lynch on August 15, 2013, 07:41:21 AM
You all have been a lot nicer to this "gentleman" than I would have been.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Ric Gillespie on August 15, 2013, 08:43:47 AM
Fred Noonan worked for Pan Am... Tim owns Pan Am... there may even be some lineage to an old airline Earhart had been associated with - maybe they are Tim's 'kids' in a corporate sort of way.

If anything, Tim is their corporate "kid", having bought the name - but, as far as I know, that's his only connection to those airlines.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Dave Potratz on August 15, 2013, 09:28:37 AM
I always wanted to be Batman myself.  8) :D

Dang Jeff, I knew we had something like that in common!  He's the best!

Can't help but think we could use The Dark Night on our side right now . . . maybe The Green Hornet?

LTM, who's son is no super hero . . . but wanted to play one on TV . . .
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Monty Fowler on August 15, 2013, 08:07:56 PM
And on a totally related note, I have just discovered that a brain-eating parasite shares my last name - Naegleria fowleri. There has to be a larger message in there ... somewhere.

LTM, who marvels at being almost famous,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 CER
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Dan Swift on August 15, 2013, 08:54:20 PM
Ric is right, we may all be "crazy", but it is to rush of the quest and the eternal hope of solving this mystery.  Why was it so important that Ballard find the Titanic?  That, and so many subsequent discoveries and investigations have come closer to solving the mystery of "why".  It's all about the "why".  And until you discover the "where", it's tough to get to the "why".  I guess I am "crazy" too.  Guilty as charged.  And loving it! 
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: John Balderston on August 15, 2013, 10:46:21 PM
Why was it so important that Ballard find the Titanic?

I'm pretty sure we all know Dr. Ballard's Titanic search was a cover for something else (http://www.examiner.com/article/titanic-revelation), right?  There is a pretty decent Nat Geo program (http://natgeotv.com/ca/bob-ballard-special) covering this if anyone is interested. . .
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Dave McDaniel on August 16, 2013, 01:58:45 AM
Why was it so important that Ballard find the Titanic?

I'm pretty sure we all know Dr. Ballard's Titanic search was a cover for something else (http://www.examiner.com/article/titanic-revelation), right?  There is a pretty decent Nat Geo program (http://natgeotv.com/ca/bob-ballard-special) covering this if anyone is interested. . .

Yes, That research was paramount to the search for Titanic and part of a deal with DoD and the Navy. They gave him his day for his subject knowledge and the importance of visiting these sites to do a forensic analysis of the hulls. In speaking with (nuke) submariners that were around at the time, that it wasn't sunk by the Soviets or any reactor/structural  problems. The consensus was a "hot running torpedo". In otherwords a torpedo that is still on board that thinks it has been fired. Doesn't have to be in a firing position (torpedo tube) to arm itself. This was fairly easy to discover if the "fish"was in the racks and not in the tube due to the fact that props on the torpedo would spin up and make enough noise to draw someones attention, hopefully. IIRC after the Scorpion accident they posted guards in the torpedo rooms for this  reason specifically. If the fish went hot in the tube the only way to know would be to hear it. It would take a trained ear. These torpedoes had a built in safety device. It is a mechanism that prevents the torpedo from exploding in close enough proximity of the sub as to cause the obvious. The only course of action is for the crew once they have discovered the problem is to try and "out run" the torpedo by adjusting the speed of the ship to be as fast or faster than the speed that the torpedo thinks it's going until the torpedo either runs out of power or can be disabled. It's a little more complicated than that but that in essence is what happens. It is thought that the crew of the Scorpion had this situation, was aware of it and were performing this maneuver and ran out of time and the torpedo exploded on board before it could be disarmed. Speculation also has it that they may have hit a seamount while maneuvering. That was what Dr. Ballard's mission was to help determine. Among others. 
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Tim Mellon on August 16, 2013, 06:41:59 PM
Ric, now that Heath has provided you the evidence you sought relative to the AEForum thread designed to smoke out a mole, I invite you, respectfully, to take down the inflamatory rehtotic on your Forum homepage that suggest I had other motives. Not to do so leaves you open to additoinal charges of libel.

Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Ric Gillespie on August 16, 2013, 07:04:58 PM
Heath Smith did not provide the full documentation we sought and, in my opinion, your motives remain open to interpretation.  Nothing libelous has been posted on this forum.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Dan Swift on August 16, 2013, 07:36:14 PM
You are right Ric. Anyone can, and many do, express opinions and concerns.  But I haven't observed anyone stating an opinion as fact in this 'case'...big difference. Opinions are like, well rear ends (cleaned that up), everybody has one.  And a right to express such, especially on a limited forum like this one.  But it is nothing more than that.  Well, that's my 'opinion' anyway.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Monty Fowler on August 17, 2013, 05:22:46 AM
... Not to do so leaves you open to additoinal charges of libel.

Good grief ... that statement is beyond dismaying to me, Mr Mellon. Where are you going to stop?

LTM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 CER
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Stacy Galloway on August 17, 2013, 02:26:54 PM
Not to do so leaves you open to additoinal charges of libel.

More threats? How sad...
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Scott Doudrick on August 17, 2013, 08:39:10 PM
I'd like to try a different tack.

Mr. Mellon, please drop the lawsuit.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Ted G Campbell on August 17, 2013, 09:08:47 PM
All,

I hope TIGHAR’s attorneys are looking at this whole matter as it verges on the boundary of a “grand conspiracy” on behalf of Tim Mellon et al.

The reason I suggest this is:  If you look at the correspondence that “Heath” has provided (ref. Ric’s post of Aug 13, 2013 @ 09:16 (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1219.msg27175.html#msg27175)) it appears that this entire “lawsuit” matter has been in the works for a long period of time.  My guess would be it started shortly after returning from the 2012 expedition.

My assumptions:  Tim Mellon, after making his major contribution, completing the expedition and returning “empty handed” is really pi--ed.  Tim Mellon goes to his “secret” web site and vents his spleen and is encouraged by “someone” to file suit against TIGHAR on the basis of what we now see in the filed complaint.

The “someone” convinces Tim Mellon that based upon the 2010 expedition videos there is ample evidence to suggest that the A.E. aircraft has been found and his contribution is a result of a major ruse.

Tim Mellon believes in the sympathy offered in his plight and buys into the suggestion and begins legal proceedings.

What assumptions and logic do I suggest the above?

•   The time in finding an attorney to take on this case, the time the attorney needs to research the allegations made in the suit and the effort to put arguments into a petition to the court takes a great deal of time and effort i.e. the assumption this whole affair goes back to the time shortly after returning from the 2012 expedition.

•   Tim Mellon finally confides in “someone” that he has indeed started the litigation process:  This communication to “someone” goes out over the “secret” forum and in return is leaked/discussed within that forum.

•   This leak/discussion gives Tim Mellon great concern because the suit is not quite ready to be filed and Tim Mellon wants to know who spilled the beans.

•   Hence the hunt (vis a vis Heath’s correspondence suggesting this was to smoke out the leaker)
             “Someone” – “I would suspect a spy”,
             Mellon – “how can we solve that?”
             “Someone” – plant bogus info”,
             Mellon – “how do we do that in a private forum?”

•   Tim Mellon then comes up with the spoof of  “if and when TIGHAR goes bankrupt etc.,etc., "     
             "Someone" says he wants “me” to save the email as proof of a spoof.

Bottom line I would suggest:

•   Tim Mellon felt defeated and sorry for himself after the 2012 expedition

•   Another “secret forum” member sympathizes with Tim Mellon and suggest legal action

•   Tim Mellon agrees and proceeds to hire the attorney(ies) to proceed.

•   The legal proceedings are leaked shortly before the suit is ready to be filed.

•   Finally, Tim Mellon goes into defense mode to find out who is leaking the suit info.

In summary:
   
   I would suggest that if we would go back into the A.E. forum just after the 2010 video was released to all, we could determine the “someone” by name.

This “someone” convinced poor ole Tim Mellon to spend more money to get his just reward in order to sooth his (Tim Mellon’s) bruised ego and hence the lawsuit to be addressed in a few days.

Sad situation!


[Modified to include link to Ric's post; each Forumite's own time zone is used to affix time stamps, making it problematic to refer to previous posts by the posting time that's displayed. Creating such links is covered by Marty's tutorial in the FAQs (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,127.0.html).]
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Jeff Lange on August 17, 2013, 09:13:10 PM
And of course we can't forget the rolls of toilet paper, the musical instruments and cases, and lord knows what else Tim has "seen" in the  video footage. Interesting that none of those items were ever listed in the Luke Field inventory, and why would you leave parachutes behind, yet take along a banjo???

Oh- of course, that was to entertain the Japanese soldiers while trading military secrets with them in the Marshall Islands! How could I forget.

Hopefully, the murkiness of this whole matter will be somewhat cleared up in a few weeks!
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Greg Daspit on August 17, 2013, 10:53:52 PM
Maybe I'm just confused, but it strikes me to wonder which it is that Tim contends?  Which be ye, TIGHAR, thief, or knave?  On one hand, the suit alleges that TIGHAR is accused of 'knowing' it is the wreck in that footage, and on the other that she is merely too incompetent to see what is so obviously there to Tim and his own expert(s).

I don't think you are alone in being confused by this. I think that may be one of the things the Judge wants clarified on the 27th.
The lack of evidence and vague nature of the lawsuit is probably the reason to paw thru TIGHAR's research. It looks like a fishing expedition.
All IMHO.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Greg Daspit on August 17, 2013, 11:59:14 PM
And of course we can't forget the rolls of toilet paper, the musical instruments and cases, and lord knows what else Tim has "seen" in the  video footage. Interesting that none of those items were ever listed in the Luke Field inventory, and why would you leave parachutes behind, yet take along a banjo???

Good point. Bringing bulky musical instruments on the flight and toilet paper surviving being exposed to water for 73 years or if sealed not imploding at 300 meters shows lack of credibility and should not be forgotten when considering the other claimed objects. Not to mention that the image Tim suggests is a toilet paper roll doesn't even look like a toilet paper roll. It has a hole and a part of a curve next to it from the lines he drew over it. The other shapes with it and around it that don't fit the shape of a toilet paper roll are ignored.  So you have a bit of a curve and a hole in the same image. So is this curve and hole that has the color and texture of the other coral around it toilet paper or coral? Every image I look at that Tim posted has these same problems. Lack of scale, texture of coral, color of coral, lack of proportion, lack of a 3rd dimension and lack of features.
I just can't see how someone, "expert" or not, can claim to be 100% sure that these are airplane parts. And so sure they sue someone for not seeing the same thing or sue someone for seeing the same thing and not telling them. (You're right Jeff. It cannot be both)
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Monty Fowler on August 18, 2013, 11:39:10 AM
*dusting off a bad haiku he remembers from somewhere* Forum members can decide for themselves who this is directed at:

"Know, stranger, that all you will confront is strange - and in your own image."

LTM, who knows with side of strange that he is firmly on,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 CER
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Ric Gillespie on August 18, 2013, 11:51:32 AM
I don't pretend to know Tim's motives but I do know a couple of undeniable facts:
• For all his talk about the full-resolution 2010 video, Tim first saw what he says is airplane wreckage in the 2 minute half-resolution Wire & Rope video.
• Tim, by his own admission, is not an expert in imagery interpretation but the wreckage was, and presumably still is, visible to him in that 2 minute video.
• At the time Tim decided to make his contribution in March 2012, the Wire & Rope video had been publicly available on the TIGHAR YouTube channel since December 8, 2010.

The evidence which, according to Tim, made the expedition he decided to help fund unnecessary was publicly available for over a year before he decided to help support the expedition.  Regardless of whether there is airplane wreckage, etc. visible in the 2010 video (which I firmly maintain there is not) it would appear that Tim is suing me and TIGHAR for his own failure to do due diligence before making a one million dollar contribution to a nonprofit.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Ted G Campbell on August 18, 2013, 09:20:15 PM
Jeff.
You are one silver tongued devil!
Ted Campbell
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Wayne O'Neill on August 18, 2013, 10:01:48 PM
Speaking of Watergate, I was watching some music videos with my kids on the weekend including the Beastie Boys “Sabotage” (lyrics include “I can't stand it, I know you planned it, I'm gonna set it straight, this Watergate…”). Well, this suspicious character appeared in the video (see attached pic) & I thought, “Hey, he’s kinda familiar”. So, the jig is up Gillespie or Sir Stewart Wallace or whoever you are…  ;)
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Ted G Campbell on August 18, 2013, 11:30:01 PM
Jeff Neville,

Just received your 8/18/2013 @ 11:49 PM email.

Jeff, I can feel your frustration as a “moderator” and at the same time trying to stay neutral on the subject at hand.  However, Jeff you also have an obligation to keep everything pertinent to the subject of the web site up to date that deals with the TIGHAR hypothesis.

If there is someone in the TIGHAR camp that confesses his good intentions that went awry all of us will eventually find out who that person is and appropriate action will take place.  Nothing you can be held accountable for – there are bad apples among all of us, been there done that!

Regarding the “cloak and dagger” issue concerning the lawsuit against TIGHAR what less should we do to protect our interest?  The interest I am talking about is more then the “TIGHAR’s hypothesis” it is about the freedom of expression, the freedom of questions,etc.

I have to agree with you with regard to Ric’s sometimes intolerant reactions to certain postings.  He has a tendency to go off the deep end if it reflects directly on him or a decision he has made.  However, giving some time to reflect I have found that Ric will modify his stance on an issue to a more moderate perspective and take into account the more conservative input from others.  If you pass this onto Ric I am in big trouble, just kidding I think he knows where I come from!

In closing Jeff, you have done an admiral job of keeping the Web on a level keel and I don’t know anyone else with the patients and tactility that could do a better job.

With regard to your question of whether or not I have sent my estimation of where this lawsuit began, where it is currently or where it’s going directly to Ric.  The answer is no – I thought you were forwarding the significant postings on the web to Ric.  Give me the internet means to do so and I will.  However, Jeff if these postings came directly from you to Ric I would expect that your appreciation of your contribution to the overall program will be greatly enhanced – do it.

Ted Campbell
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Ric Gillespie on August 19, 2013, 07:10:44 AM
Ted,
The above looks like a private message that you posted to the forum by mistake.  Feel free to remove it or not as you choose.  In any case, I'm not offended by your comments about me. 
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Ric Gillespie on August 19, 2013, 07:37:36 AM
In the end where such a passionate pursuit is involved, I realize somebody has to have some backbone about keeping it clean or we'll be overrun with trolls creating ghost discussions and stick man arguments.  I also got worn out trying to be a 'friend' to every malcontent that 'just needed to be more civil'.  It doesn't work.

You and Marty and the other moderators do a great job, but a year ago this forum was troll-infested due to my absence for several months while I was preparing for and conducting Niku VII. I'm the only one with the authority to do what needed to be done and as soon as I was back and had the time - I did it.  It got pretty bloody there for a while but I don't regret anything I did.  The forum is now a friendly, entertaining, intelligent and productive venue for honest debate and sound research.  The trolls still spew their invective but they're a distant howl from outside the walls.  I intend to keep it that way.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Carolyn Hasenfratz on August 19, 2013, 09:30:28 AM
Quote
I don't think you are alone in being confused by this.

That's why I brought up the issue of a mental health evaluation. It wasn't TIGHAR I was wondering about. I wasn't trying to be snarky, I was serious. We know the mental health of a defendant is an issue in a criminal trial. Since I don't know much about the law, can that be brought up in a civil trial, if one side has concerns about the other? Unfortunately I know more about mental health than I care to know and there appear to be signs here of something really wrong. But I'm not a doctor any more than I'm a lawyer - so I'm just asking questions.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Carolyn Hasenfratz on August 19, 2013, 11:22:40 AM
Thanks Jeff for your thoughtful response. I'm a member of a couple of non-profits (not TIGHAR, just a forum member and lurker of many years only posting recently). I'm watching how this case plays out with great interest because although the amounts of money involved are not as large, the non-profits I'm involved with engage in activities that are sometimes successful and sometimes not - historic preservation is the field. As you can imagine we engage in some campaigns that don't get us what we wanted. We try to be as true to the purpose of what donations were meant for as we can if a project falls through. Something in common with TIGHAR even if the fields and methods are different. We don't have many large donations but for example we did get one from (redacted) and fortunately that project worked out as planned. (redacted) didn't want us to publicize his donation at the time but since he's unfortunately not with us any more I guess it's ok to mention.) I will be learning from observing how this proceeds.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Joshua Doremire on August 19, 2013, 11:49:50 AM
You and Marty and the other moderators do a great job, but a year ago this forum was troll-infested due to my absence for several months while I was preparing for and conducting Niku VII. I'm the only one with the authority to do what needed to be done and as soon as I was back and had the time - I did it.  It got pretty bloody there for a while but I don't regret anything I did.  The forum is now a friendly, entertaining, intelligent and productive venue for honest debate and sound research.  The trolls still spew their invective but they're a distant howl from outside the walls.  I intend to keep it that way.

Great leaders delegate. May I suggest for your next leave of absence that you turn your dog’s loose on the trolls? Give yourself the final say when you get back if they get taken from the brig and walk the plank, but at least let them be thrown into the brig. Just make sure everyone shows some consideration for the new people who don’t have years of exposure to this project or forum.

Entertaining as this thread is it also shows me what TIGHAR is about.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Joshua Doremire on August 19, 2013, 12:12:44 PM
Thanks Jeff for your thoughtful response. I'm a member of a couple of non-profits (not TIGHAR, just a forum member and lurker of many years only posting recently). I'm watching how this case plays out with great interest because although the amounts of money involved are not as large, the non-profits I'm involved with engage in activities that are sometimes successful and sometimes not - historic preservation is the field. As you can imagine we engage in some campaigns that don't get us what we wanted. We try to be as true to the purpose of what donations were meant for as we can if a project falls through. Something in common with TIGHAR even if the fields and methods are different. We don't have many large donations but for example we did get one from (redacted) and fortunately that project worked out as planned. (* didn't want us to publicize his donation at the time but since he's unfortunately not with us any more I guess it's ok to mention.) I will be learning from observing how this proceeds.

I doubt it. Loose lips sink ships. Sometimes it is the one you are on. Think of the future donors you just told that ‘I will blab about you all over the internet’ after you are dead. If someone wants something done without their name on it they have their reasons. Their heirs or remaining trust may have a different opinion about going public.

Just ask the Harry Potter author JK Rowling who just settled a lawsuit against the law firm partner Gossage and the woman who made her pseudonym information public. 
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Jeff Victor Hayden on August 19, 2013, 12:16:23 PM
Don't know if it will be of any help but I found this today. You have to scroll down past the Amazonian expedition to get to it...
http://kirkomrik.wordpress.com/ (http://kirkomrik.wordpress.com/)


Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Jeff Victor Hayden on August 19, 2013, 12:47:32 PM
Yes, I have just been informed of that Chris. Nice to see GL still posting though given the recent sad news. I'm in the same position regarding navigation, it's all a bit of a mystery to me without GPS. :(
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Victor Russell on August 19, 2013, 03:16:59 PM
Jeff,

Assuming it's you who converted all mentions of Carolyn's anecdotal donor to "(redacted)", please note that you missed one in Joshua's quote from Carolyn's original message, in his reply #313 on this thread. Once done, that should leave the rest of the story suitable for sharing.

Best,
Victor
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Jeff Victor Hayden on August 19, 2013, 04:16:25 PM
Don't know if it will be of any help but I found this today. You have to scroll down past the Amazonian expedition to get to it...
http://kirkomrik.wordpress.com/ (http://kirkomrik.wordpress.com/)

Yer killin' me...

This is Lloyd Manley's piece, with Appendix B showing "airplane debris" (same pix we have seen about 9,000 times) with great confidence.

Did I miss something?



Yes, you did miss something Jeff. The point of posting the link was to see if it would be of help in the search for 'moles/informants/spies' or whatever this thread is about, not about the content of the 2010 video. Sorry for any confusion.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Jeff Victor Hayden on August 19, 2013, 04:46:02 PM
No problem Jeff, this thread makes a John Le Carre novel look like easy reading  ???
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Jeff Victor Hayden on August 19, 2013, 07:43:08 PM
Ok Tim. How's the old ticker?
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Tim Mellon on August 19, 2013, 07:58:56 PM
Ok Tim. How's the old ticker?

Thanks, JVH, Aok. 64 tics per minute, lost 10 pounds, walking 1.4 miles per day, feel brand new.

Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: C.W. Herndon on August 19, 2013, 09:42:15 PM
Congratulations Tim. Great that you're healthy again. :D
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Tim Mellon on August 20, 2013, 06:24:09 AM
Thanks, Woody. Friday I get to drive again, but no flying for minimum 6 months, per FAA.

Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Lisa Anne Hill on August 21, 2013, 07:48:42 PM
*off topic note*

Jeff, I'm worried about potential digestive upset in your future...first having to eat your beloved travel hat; raw crow for Mr. Gary LaPook, and now bloviation?? Say it ain't so! LOL.

I enjoyed your satire too  ;D

LTM,
Lisa
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Tim Mellon on August 25, 2013, 06:17:28 PM
Jeff, I'm ready to provide the steak knife and fork. Do you need Worcestershire Sauce?

Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: John Balderston on August 25, 2013, 10:34:07 PM
Jeff, I'm ready to provide the steak knife and fork. Do you need Worcestershire Sauce?

LOL!!!

Well, I do appreciate the generosity, if it comes to that...  :P  But you know where I am on that one in heart and mind, I like that hat ON my head a great deal! ;)

I also regret the differences and hope something better will come out of this for all concerned somehow yet.  You did a great deal to help something great happen for us, and no matter what, if the Lockheed is found out there you are a big part of that.  We certainly share a desire to find it, and apparently agree very much on a likely area, at least.

I do also continue to wish you well with your recovery!

Tim,

I second Tim's heartfelt good will and kind words.  If you will permit me, may I please encourage to spend your time here with some reputable gents who think highly of you.  And yes, I trust that each day you are tuning up that fit fiddle!

With warm regards, John
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Tim Mellon on August 26, 2013, 07:26:15 AM
John, thank you.

Did you ever receive the 16GB full definition video from the 2012 expedition first ROV dive? If so, may I respectfuly call your attention to what appears to be the full cockpit in several frames at about the 3 minute mark (of 16 minutes).

In earlier months I might have been allowed to post it here.

Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Ric Gillespie on August 26, 2013, 11:38:49 AM
If you will permit me, may I please encourage to spend your time here with some reputable gents who think highly of you.

I'm curious. Exactly who are these reputable gents who think so highly of the man who is trying to destroy TIGHAR and put me in prison?

Is there some feeling that if we flatter him enough he will drop his lawsuit? Do we beg for mercy from a man whose motto is "Take no prisoners"?

Anyone on this forum is free to express their agreement with Mr. Mellon. I've made the full resolution video available to anyone who wants to see it. It would be good to know if anyone here can see what he sees.

I'm presently in a little town in the middle of Wyoming with a delegation of dedicated TIGHARs who have come here at considerable trouble and expense to demonstrate their support for our efforts to get the court to dismiss this abuse of the legal system. We don't really expect the judge to throw out the case at this hearing but we want him to know there are people who care about justice. 
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Dan Swift on August 26, 2013, 12:40:08 PM
Ditto's Ric! 
Keep us posted. 
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Irvine John Donald on August 26, 2013, 12:54:06 PM
Good Luck to Ric and gang.  My hope is that the judge sees reason and lets sanity prevail by tossing this lawsuit out.  I know that he will probably disqualify himself as an expert in photo analysis if he watches any videos.  But will he be shaking his head wondering what Mr. Mellon's Video experts are seeing that he can't see. Sanity needs to prevail.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Lisa Grinnell on August 26, 2013, 01:55:56 PM
Well said as always Jeff. Best to all TIGHARs tomorrow.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Stacy Galloway on August 26, 2013, 02:21:30 PM
If you will permit me, may I please encourage to spend your time here with some reputable gents who think highly of you.

I'm curious. Exactly who are these reputable gents who think so highly of the man who is trying to destroy TIGHAR and put me in prison?

Is there some feeling that if we flatter him enough he will drop his lawsuit? Do we beg for mercy from a man whose motto is "Take no prisoners"?

Anyone on this forum is free to express their agreement with Mr. Mellon. I've made the full resolution video available to anyone who wants to see it. It would be good to know if anyone here can see what he sees.

I'm presently in a little town in the middle of Wyoming with a delegation of dedicated TIGHARs who have come here at considerable trouble and expense to demonstrate their support for our efforts to get the court to dismiss this abuse of the legal system. We don't really expect the judge to throw out the case at this hearing but we want him to know there are people who care about justice.

A big thank you to the delegations of dedicated TIGHARs! Thank you one and all for being there! :) I know the chances are small that the case will be dismissed at this hearing, but I'm hoping that is exactly what happens!

LTM~ Who knows TIGHAR will win this sooner or later,
Stacy
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: richie conroy on August 26, 2013, 04:41:33 PM
Good Luck for tomorrow Ric  :)

Well let's hope it's not about luck but plain common sense  ;)
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: C.W. Herndon on August 26, 2013, 04:47:00 PM
.... and yet still suggest 'airplane' by way of a wing - down to registration numbers (red by the way tends to disappear underwater  (http://www.idofishing.com/forum/showflat.php/Number/507915/fpart/1/if-red-disappears-underwater-then-why) - it's a light wave-length thing (http://www.chacha.com/question/what-color-disappears-from-visibility-under-water-first)...) - and yet not one speck of clear 'airplane' stuff ....

Jeff, I'm not sure exactly what you were trying to say here, but I wanted to be sure that everyone understands that a "red object" does not disappear as the water depth increases, but rather the "red color" of the object is no longer visible. Any object will start to lose its color as the depth increases, red is the first, and all will appear to be black below a certain depth. For anyone interested, here is a very good article (http://library.thinkquest.org/28170/35.html) that explains this well.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: C.W. Herndon on August 26, 2013, 06:51:52 PM
Thanks Jeff. I was a little confused myself and thought someone else might also be.

I can't answer the second part of your observation. Looks to me as if the "crud" should be about the same on everything, in the immediate area at least.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Tim Mellon on August 26, 2013, 06:53:04 PM

Godspeed to TIGHAR and Ric tomorrow.  No offense to anyone - but gloves off tomorrow, no apologies for that, and I pray for headway toward this suit being dismissed.  If I were a juror it would have no merit.  With any decency in the justice system, it will never go that far.

Jeff, I'm glad you are not a Wyoming juror. To judge before the evidence has been presented is not the American form of jurisprudence.

You may "bloviate" all you want about what you can see or not see, but you have not been privy yet to the full extent of the evidence.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: JNev on August 26, 2013, 07:29:05 PM

Godspeed to TIGHAR and Ric tomorrow.  No offense to anyone - but gloves off tomorrow, no apologies for that, and I pray for headway toward this suit being dismissed.  If I were a juror it would have no merit.  With any decency in the justice system, it will never go that far.

Jeff, I'm glad you are not a Wyoming juror. To judge before the evidence has been presented is not the American form of jurisprudence.

You may "bloviate" all you want about what you can see or not see, but you have not been privy yet to the full extent of the evidence.

I wouldn't qualify in this case, Tim - I've been looking at the 'evidence' too long and cannot escape having prejudice.  I'd be struck in a heartbeat and we both know that.

You may also recall that I was looking at the same quality of presentation as you at the time, too, so far as I know, when you were naming things in detail.  I remain very interested to see what your experts claim to see, and how they know it is Electra stuff, that is a fascinating prospect.

'Bloviating' is all I intend - I'm merely expressing my own opinion, as one who has looked and looked again at that stuff.  You've expressed yours in your suit, I suppose.  I would also like to think that the American form of jurisprudence would preclude someone laying title to something like this with no more 'evidence' than TIGHAR's footage is capable of producing to the eye, but we both know that funding is the key to access to the courts, and that a 'foe' can potentially be out-papered if someone has the means and determination. 

Well, the first day in court is tomorrow.  I suppose we will see where it all goes, won't we?
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: richie conroy on August 26, 2013, 08:19:42 PM
Ay Tim

According to following documents Ric misled the discovery channel you Andrew Sanger and others http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/wyoming/wydce/1:2013cv00118/25406/1/

Really ?
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Randy Conrad on August 26, 2013, 10:32:14 PM
Ric....Just wanted to wish you and you're defense team the best of luck tomorrow in court. You have alot of supporters who are backing you on this one and many of those supporters are diligent researchers who truly believe in this quest that you are undertaking. Many of us have seen the video footage and many of us are scratching our heads as to what Mr. Mellon is truly seeing. Anyway, I was totally appalled a few minutes ago when I clicked on the link of the actual court document that richie conroy had posted. The thought of using the word "Culpable" by Tim Mellon's team is downright wrong!!! To me that's like saying you're already guilty before anybody has a chance to speak. Anyway, I'm praying that the court sees it fit to dismiss and that we all can get back on the same page to finally solving the last riddle of this puzzle!!! GO TIGHAR!!!!
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: John Balderston on August 26, 2013, 10:40:19 PM
If you will permit me, may I please encourage to spend your time here with some reputable gents who think highly of you.

I'm curious. Exactly who are these reputable gents who think so highly of the man who is trying to destroy TIGHAR and put me in prison?

Is there some feeling that if we flatter him enough he will drop his lawsuit? Do we beg for mercy from a man whose motto is "Take no prisoners"?

Anyone on this forum is free to express their agreement with Mr. Mellon. I've made the full resolution video available to anyone who wants to see it. It would be good to know if anyone here can see what he sees.

I'm presently in a little town in the middle of Wyoming with a delegation of dedicated TIGHARs who have come here at considerable trouble and expense to demonstrate their support for our efforts to get the court to dismiss this abuse of the legal system. We don't really expect the judge to throw out the case at this hearing but we want him to know there are people who care about justice.

Ric,

Please allow me to apologize for my post.   TIGHAR has my full and enduring respect and support, doubly so on this eve of a most regrettable legal proceeding.  I stand with you and my TIGHAR colleagues today, tomorrow and for the future. 

In my post I was attempting to highlight the positive spirit and strength of discourse in this forum.   Over the past several days I've clicked the hyperlinks and had a look at the alternatives.  It was a short look - I found little substance and large doses of sarcastic and mean-spirited rhetoric; debasing and withering to the spirit - no way to spend one's time.  What a contrast to participating here, and IMO what a fall for those that have landed there!

Yes, If there is any possible path for reconciliation I continue to hope that it is found.  I continue to hope that the antagonist in this suit finds it possible to recognize TIGHAR's sustained high standards of integrity and sound methodology.  Further, given TIGHAR's hard-earned knowledge and expertise, I hope for a realization that there is far more to be gained by supporting TIGHAR than could possibly be gained by tear it down. 

I firmly believe that through dedication and discipline TIGHAR now stands on the brink of solving the Earhart mystery for posterity.  I also believe this legal proceeding is writing an indelible legacy for the personalities involved.  I stand with TIGHAR, and will be thinking positive thoughts tomorrow.  And I yet hope for a change of heart that results in an enduring positive legacy for our antagonist.

Very respectfully, John
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Joshua Doremire on August 27, 2013, 01:20:04 AM
Good luck in windy and hilly Wyoming.

 :P I feel bad for Tim's attorneys already.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Tim Collins on August 27, 2013, 06:48:56 AM
Perhaps I missed something, but why is this all taking place in Wyoming?  I thought Mellon lived in Connecticut. Are Wyoming judges easier to sway with frivolous law suites that Ct. judges?
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Lauren Palmer on August 27, 2013, 07:12:24 AM
My prayers with Tighar today
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Monty Fowler on August 27, 2013, 07:33:35 AM

You may "bloviate" all you want about what you can see or not see, but you have not been privy yet to the full extent of the evidence.

I would just like to gently point out that neither has anyone else seen the "full extent of the evidence," Mr. Mellon, because you steadfastly refuse to do anything to change that situation. Other than say, "See you in Casper."

TIGHAR is and always has been an open book. Everything the group has ever said, thought, wondered about or found is out there, in the public domain, for anyone and everyone to evaluate for themselves. And to believe, or not. I think that speaks a lot for the kind of organization TIGHAR is and to the character of that same organization.

Compare that with someone who is a member of a members-only, closed forum; who asserts that their evaluation can be the only correct one; who declines to make available the qualifications, or even names, of their experts; and who engages in killing a gnat with a sledgehammer tactics with anyone who does not enthusiastically agree with them.

We're all here to solve a 70-plus-year-old mystery. That should be the overarching goal. 'Nuf said.

LTM, who knows that the truth will always set you free,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 CER
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Steve Schlutt on August 27, 2013, 07:56:18 AM
DARTH VADER? 
I hope for a good outcome of this suit, although i don't think much will become finally resolved today. 
With respect to the discussion about manners, I'll go on record as saying most of the regular posters have been decent towards Tim Mellon, almost too kind in my estimation.  It's an odd situation, where Tim is still allowed to participate, read posts and reply even while he is attempting to damage Tighar with this suit.  Ric has shown admirable restraint and good judgement, he seems to be extremely fair.  I think Tim's real motives have begun to be understood, and if Tighar has good attorneys, will soon be completely revealed.  While it's kind to wish Tim well in his recovery, it's a bit like wishing Darth Vader to get over that annoying wheeze...

After this suit & situation is resolved, I DON'T see a way in which Tim can be an active participant in further research or discovery.  He has abused the trust and inflicted much damage. 
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: richie conroy on August 27, 2013, 07:57:13 AM
Maybe Tim

Should bring is arsenal to the battlefield of his making, Create a forum open to ALL 1 topic 1 discussion and let us all debate the so called evidence 
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Tim Mellon on August 27, 2013, 08:46:56 AM

I would just like to gently point out that neither has anyone else seen the "full extent of the evidence," Mr. Mellon, because you steadfastly refuse to do anything to change that situation. Other than say, "See you in Casper."



Mr. Fowler, I would respectfully remind you that since January 12, 2013, when Ric shut down any thread to do with underwater images, I have not been allowed to post any evidence. I have respected his decision, and have sought alternate avenues to express my opinions.

Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Ric Gillespie on August 27, 2013, 08:56:34 AM
Tim,

Let's make this simple. If I re-open the thread and promise to leave it open, will you drop your lawsuit?
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Dan Swift on August 27, 2013, 10:43:32 AM
I may have lived a sheltered life, but it makes no sense to sue someone because you didn't like the way they ran an event or their business for that matter.  Only if it was a direct service to you, such as an auto repair, paint job, maybe even a medical procedure.  But when you donate to a non profit....that's it.  If you don't like the way it operated, you just don't donate again.  If I don't like the Church, I don't go and give anymore.  If I think the Pastor is misleading his congregation, I don't sue, I just go somewhere else.  Won't he have to prove you purposely deceived him to aquire the donation?  How on an opinion of what you see vs evidence (proof) of what you see.  No chance. 
And Ric, your offer is almost too good (nice).  You take away your right to counter sue.  Which you should unless a full and very public apology is written and printed in all appropriate media.   
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: James G. Stoveken on August 27, 2013, 11:02:49 AM
Quote from: Tim Mellon
Mr. Fowler, I would respectfully remind you that since January 12, 2013, when Ric shut down any thread to do with underwater images, I have not been allowed to post any evidence. I have respected his decision, and have sought alternate avenues to express my opinions.

So just what/where are these alternate avenues Tim?  Let us all see them.

Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Tim Collins on August 27, 2013, 11:44:03 AM
Perhaps he's referring to the Skeptoid discussion (http://skeptoid.com/blog/2012/03/20/more-amelia-earhart-nonsense/#comment-35006).  Was going to print it off to entertain myself in the car as I wait for my son, but jeepers! the damn thing is 398 pages long! I'll listen to the radio instead.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Andrew M McKenna on August 27, 2013, 12:07:49 PM
Quote
So let's say that the 2010 footage showed a piece of aircraft with a legible matching N-number.
Assuming no maliciously placed evidence, it would be quite conclusive.  Would even that eliminate the need for the next expedition?
Instead it would increase the need, value, and excitement of that mission.
After all at that point it moves TIGHAR's theories to the brink of confirmed fact.
This type of footage would change the next expedition in what activities and methods are used.
It would also change the possible out-come of success to the certainty of success.
But in no way would it eliminate the need for it.

Mr. Buttke, the point in time you are referencing in the above quote is now.

This point in time, given all the video information collected in 2010, should have occurred latest 2011, and should have led to the successful expedition you envisage in 2012.

TIGHAR failed, instead, to apply enough proficient analysis to the data. The 2012 expedition was, therefore, ill-conceived and ill-managed, employing the wrong equipment supplied by a less than competent sub-contractor.

In short, the goal line should have been crossed by now.

Above may be the clearest personal summation Tim has given as to his personal and public motives in this suit.  That was posted in this panel a few weeks ago by Tim himself in response to the post he quoted above it.


Mr. Mellon is accusing TIGHAR of being incompetent in the analysis of the 2010 data, and the conduct of the 2012 search.  He is essentially saying, "TIGHAR should have seen the wreckage I see in the 2010 video, and organized the search around that data."

The problem as I see it for his case is that TIGHAR cannot be both incompetent at analyzing the data AND ALSO fraudulent in not advising him that the wreckage had been conclusively discovered prior to his donation.  On one hand he says TIGHAR should have, but didn't find the wreckage, and on the other he's saying TIGHAR did find the wreckage but didn't disclose it.

Can't have it both ways.  Being incompetent does not mean being fraudulent.  His own words quoted above undermine his case.

Hopefully, the Judge will be competent, and this will all be over today with a dismissal.

Andrew

Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Leon R White on August 27, 2013, 12:11:55 PM
May I receive an update?
I thought there was a moment in time when tim mellon was banned from the forum. Was that the case and is he now being permitted to post again? Or did I imagine all that?

thnks
Leon
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Tim Collins on August 27, 2013, 12:15:51 PM
Any word yet from Ric about this morning's activities?
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Greg Daspit on August 27, 2013, 12:34:37 PM

Can't have it both ways.  Being incompetent does not mean being fraudulent.  His own words quoted above undermine his case.

Hopefully, the Judge will be competent, and this will all be over today with a dismissal.

Andrew

Agreed, and since it can’t be both, a lawsuit that claims both can’t prove either IMHO.

If the evidence is relying on a different opinion of underwater footage then it is not evidence of fraud or incompetence. It is only a difference of opinion.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: John B. Shattuck on August 27, 2013, 01:10:54 PM
Quote
Quote from: Andrew M McKenna on Today at 12:07:49 PM


Can't have it both ways.  Being incompetent does not mean being fraudulent.  His own words quoted above undermine his case.

Hopefully, the Judge will be competent, and this will all be over today with a dismissal.

Andrew




Agreed, and since it can’t be both, a lawsuit that claims both can’t prove either IMHO.

If the evidence is relying on a different opinion of underwater footage then it is not evidence of fraud or incompetence. It is only a difference of opinion.

I think it is important to remember that Mr. Mellon's suit also accuses Ric of racketeering; a criminal offense with potential jail time.  While I admire the civil discourse with which we, as a forum community, have entreated Mr. Mellon; there is more here than a simple difference in interpretation of video.  Mr. Mellon is accusing Ric of knowingly and deliberately presenting false information to deceive him for the purpose of gaining funds for a fraudulent purpose.  In short, he is calling Ric a liar and a fraud.  I for one have decided, after reading the case file kindly provided by Richie, not to read nor respond to any more of Mr. Mellon's posts; I'm siding with Tighar.  My decision for myself, others may of course make their own decisions.  While I admire and appreciate our spirit of informed debate, and tolerance for alternate and diverse opinion; this is not a case of point/counterpoint debate over an interpretation of a clue toward the resolution of the Earhart mystery.  Personally I'm amazed that Mr. Mellon is present in the forum at all, considering what he is accusing Tighar of doing.

Respectully,

JB
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Matt Revington on August 27, 2013, 02:14:37 PM
The AP story

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/judge-weighs-request-dismiss-earhart-suit
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Dan Swift on August 27, 2013, 02:40:55 PM
"........the recovery group also could have been negligent in failing to recognize the wreckage of Earhart's aircraft in underwater video it took on the 2010 expedition." 

So which is it, are they liars, or just not very good at what they do?  You can't have it both ways....as Andrew said so well. 

In fact, the case is neither.  TIGHAR does the best it can with what it has to work with, and there is NO proof that ANY artifact or 'vision' in any video is anything other than just that...a 'vision'....an opinion....of what something MAY be.  Because no serial number has been read.  No piece has been brought up and identified as from the Electra.  Good grief! 
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Elisabeth Bennet on August 27, 2013, 04:41:45 PM
Hello, everyone. I have been lurking on and reading through the TIGHAR Amelia Earhart Project and Forum for a long time and finally felt compelled to register today after following the events in Casper this morning. Since I am brand new, please bear with any inadvertent mistakes I make in posting (there's an awful lot to learn in the "How to post" section of the Forum introduction!).

First, as I have wanted to do any number of times over my months of reading the research, articles, and forum discussion, I just want to thank all here for the incredible knowledge, education, insight, educated theorizing, and attention to detail (that means you, Richie) that everyone contributes -- that is, donates -- to this Research Project and Forum.  I can't tell you how many times I have marveled over the six (and often more) new things I have learned before breakfast in a wide range of topics of which I know nothing, from celestial navigation to radio communications to South Pacific history to sonar radar to the depth and dynamics of bereavement...and more. (Oops, sorry for that run-run-run-on sentence.)  I'm beginning to think that a year of daily study here at TIGHAR and the Amelia Earhart Project could beat any four-year college education, hands down.

Second, speaking of hands, after reading the news today, I'm keeping my fingers crossed re: a speedy end to the lawsuit.

And third... beyond the plaintiff's mutually exclusive accusations, which have already been well elucidated here, it suddenly occurred to me: if Ric and the TIGHAR team allegedly knew in 2010 that they had found the plane, why, after 25 years and millions of dollars of research would they spend a donor's $1M on yet more laborious, tedious, easily thwarted underwater searching and filming and side-scan sonar in 2012?  After all the time, effort, and funds invested in trying to investigate and prove the Nikumaroro landing theory, wouldn't TIGHAR have spent the donor's 2012 donation on technology that could bring the plane, or at least some "smoking gun" evidence of the plane, up from its location as quickly as possible?... to show the world that TIGHAR's hypothesis had been right all along? Hasn't that been the whole point of searching the waters off the reef for the plane... to prove that it's there, and that the TIGHAR theory that Amelia and Fred landed on the reef was in fact the true answer to the mystery?  If the Electra had truly been found, what's the point of using any donations for anything other than recovering it, or at least for protecting it and publicizing the discovery?

Common sense and our delightfully mercenary, fame-seeking, celebrity-fawning culture suggests that if the alleged TIGHAR "dark side" the plaintiff is complaining about knew that they'd found the famous Earhart plane in 2010, they would have "taken" the alleged plaintiff’s money, rented underwater recovery equipment with it, zipped right back to Amelia and Fred's alleged "grave" ASAP (which was 2012), and brought that Electra up lickety-split, claiming all the victory, glory, instant world fame, and gazillions of dollars in book, TV, and movie rights, as well as the title of Principal Investigator Of All Time in the relevant professional journals— with or without including the surprised donor in the glory.   Instead, TIGHAR went back and quietly, patiently, painstakingly mowed the reef water again, graciously, repeatedly thanking the donor for the opportunity to do so. 

It’s not clear yet if TIGHAR got too much more out of Niku VII than a whole lot more very expensive work to do, so how did they “benefit” from an alleged 2010 discovery that they allegedly “withheld” from the allegedly aggrieved Mr. M?

Respectfully wondering, with apologies for making up for all my long-unsaid comments....
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Ric Gillespie on August 27, 2013, 05:03:47 PM
The hearing went well and lasted for just under an hour. There was no ruling from the bench. We'll probably have a decision within two weeks on our Motion to Dismiss.
Present were:
- Two attorneys for Mellon
- Two attorneys for me and TIGHAR.
- I sat at the Defense table with our attorneys.

In the gallery were The Magnificent Seven:
- TIGHAR board member and expedition veteran Capt. Skeet Gifford
- Expedition veteran Tom Roberts and his wife Maria
- Researcher Karen Hoy
- Forum stalwarts Monty Fowler and Ted Campbell, and Ted's wife Suzanne.

The judge impressed me as intelligent, engaged and fair. He had obviously read the complaint, the motion and the reply to the motion. He asked good questions.

Each side had 15 minutes for oral argument. Our attorney gave an excellent recap of our Motion to Dismiss pointing up the lack of specificity in the complaint and the sheer implausibility of its allegations.
During the plaintiff's attorney's rambling presentation the judge picked up on two key weaknesses in the complaint and asked:
- What does the law say about a donee's obligation to a donor?
- You allege that Mr. Gillespie committed fraud by not telling your client that the Earhart airplane had been found in the 2010 video, but then you claim that Mr. Gillespie was negligent in not finding the airplane in the same video. Which is it?

The lawyer's answers sounded vague and labored to me. I don't think His Honor was buying it.

At the end of the hearing the judge said he had problems with some of the arguments on both sides and wanted to study the complaint before making a ruling. We're cautiously optimistic that he will throw out at least part(s) of the suit.

I want to thank The Magnificent Seven for being there. They were an imposing presence in the court room. They did us all proud. We had a great dinner together last night; a thorough briefing from our attorney this morning before the hearing; and an informative debriefing afterward - after which he took us all to lunch.

We don't know where the case will go from here but we'll go there together.



Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Irvine John Donald on August 27, 2013, 06:11:02 PM
Thanks for the update Ric. Much appreciated. We will probably hold our breath a little in the meantime while our collective thoughts wish for the desired outcome.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Russ Matthews on August 27, 2013, 07:10:09 PM
Proud of the Magnificent Seven, too (and now can't get that tune out of my head...  8))!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9iteRKvRKFA
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Dave Potratz on August 27, 2013, 07:22:57 PM
Best wishes for a speedy dismissal.

LTM, who taught us to never submit to a bully.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Bruce Thomas on August 27, 2013, 08:11:08 PM
Here's a TV news report (http://www.k2tv.com/news.php?id=3446) on today's day in court, from K2TV - "Wyoming's News Leader."
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Monty Fowler on August 27, 2013, 09:52:32 PM
Well ... finally getting to take a breather today after attending to some family matters in Casper.

Thanks to Ric for being so effusive in his praise - all I did was show up (in a suit, no less) because, for me, TIGHAR represents a 15-year investment. I happen to think it's a winner, and I stick by my winners when they are threatened in any way.

Mr. Mellon - Ric Gillespie today offered an honorable way out for all parties concerned, that will stop the senseless bloodshed and get us back on a productive path. If you choose to take it, that will speak volumes for your strength of character. If you choose to continue on your chosen path, well, that speaks volumes too.

LTM, who now has the theme song for The Magnificent 7 stuck in his head,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 CER
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: manjeet aujla on August 28, 2013, 05:45:15 AM
It's good the judge seems to be a fair, smart guy. His picking up on the seeming inconsistency in the suit of whether it is fraud or negligence shows he is thinking.

A lot of people (esp in liberal SF) think midwesterners are hicks etc, but I know they have a good head on their shoulders. As they say about southerners - they speak slowly but their minds are razorsharp.

An aside - the best C/W bands are from the midwest, not Nashville.  :)

Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Tim Collins on August 28, 2013, 03:03:52 PM
Proud of the Magnificent Seven, too (and now can't get that tune out of my head...  8))!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9iteRKvRKFA

Arrrrrrrrrgggghhhh!  It's not enough that my wife is walking around humming it - now THIS!!!  I won't sleep a wink tonight!!!  ;)

Seriously, great find Russ - absolutely hands-down the coolest western theme EVER!!!  8) (Sorry Frankie Lane...)  :D

I absolutely LOVE that theme!!!!  It never fails to raise my spirits no mater how low I feel. 

On that note, does TIGHAR have an official (or unofficial ) theme song?
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Russ Matthews on August 28, 2013, 03:18:11 PM
On that note, does TIGHAR have an official (or unofficial ) theme song?

My suggestion for the (unofficial) Earhart Project theme ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BnD6ojjA0OA
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Steve Lyle Gunderson on August 28, 2013, 08:56:57 PM
On that note, does TIGHAR have an official (or unofficial ) theme song?

My suggestion for the (unofficial) Earhart Project theme ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BnD6ojjA0OA

Russ,
Here's another suggestion (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NEztjhzBoYo) for Unofficial Theme song consideration.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Lisa Grinnell on August 28, 2013, 09:50:17 PM
Speculation alert...

Whatever the judge decides will be precedent setting. If he doesn't dismiss or something near it, the way would be paved for disgruntled donors everywhere to file a lawsuit just because.

A search for the truth is powerful. May TIGHAR resume that business at hand soon.

Now I'll go check into the Magnificent Seven's plot. The music sure seems appropriate.

Lisa
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Jeff Victor Hayden on August 28, 2013, 11:17:47 PM
Tim,

Let's make this simple. If I re-open the thread and promise to leave it open, will you drop your lawsuit?

There is room for another approach to the issue in that statement. Rather than re-open the thread for more 'possible aircraft wreckage' postings. Why not re-open it for some expert input from the marine biology, habitat and coral taxonomy angle instead. Get some input from people from that field of work rather than the 'aircraft wreckage' side instead, just to see if there is some common ground between the two camps in any of the videos. Just a thought.

Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Russ Matthews on August 28, 2013, 11:33:04 PM
Here's another suggestion (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NEztjhzBoYo) for Unofficial Theme song consideration.

Love it!

How about "Eye of the TIGHAR?"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VP-SF1NqrE
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Brad Mackey on August 29, 2013, 03:54:44 AM
Like many others I've been lurking on this site for at least two years now.  I've decided to put my two cents in about this frivolous and potentially destructive lawsuit.  What gets my blood boiling is the racketeering charge against Ric Gillespie. We can sit here typing away about theme songs, bloviating about motive or agenda's ( I'm a huge fan Jeff), or even extend a gracious hand out to the offending party. It's in my best nature to extend grace to my fellow man but it's very hard to think of this when one party seems to want to end a lifelong work of an individual who has most of the blood, sweat and tears invested in it. I'm just venting right now because it can be very easy to lose sight of these facts.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Monty Fowler on August 29, 2013, 10:17:10 AM
Speculation alert...

Whatever the judge decides will be precedent setting. If he doesn't dismiss or something near it, the way would be paved for disgruntled donors everywhere to file a lawsuit just because.

Lisa

Whoa ... I don't think anyone has picked up on that. Very, very interesting. Can you envision itty-bitty non-profits, like TIGHAR, having to make everyone who donates fill out a "I promise to never, ever, sue you" document before they can accept the money? If you took the extreme approach, that could apply to a donation as small as 1 CENT (anything can be be basis of a lawsuit, as we have seen here). The paperwork burden would be enormous, the reporting and record-keeping requirements positively gagging. I wonder if there is a way to get this thought to the judge?

LTM, who tries not to judge,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 CER

 
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Ric Gillespie on August 29, 2013, 10:31:41 AM
I wonder if there is a way to get this thought to the judge?

The judge is already there.  if you will recall, the His Honor asked Tim's attorney what the law says about a donee's duty to a donor.  The lawyer didn't have a good answer. 
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Tim Collins on August 29, 2013, 11:18:04 AM
Is caveat emptor an actual legal term of just a saying?

When I first heard about this lawsuit my first impression was - Really? What attorney would actually take on such case? I know my attorney would have said "dude, grow up and take your lumps, you DONATED the money!"

I don't suppose there'll a transcript of Tuesday's proceedings?  I know where TIGHAR stands but would be interested to actually hear how the other side is fleshing out their argument. 

Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Ric Gillespie on August 29, 2013, 11:25:41 AM
Is caveat emptor an actual legal term of just a saying?

Cavate emptor means "let the buyer beware."  In this case there was no buyer.  A donation was made to help fund a specific event.  The money was used exactly as intended. The donor received exactly what was promised - participation in the event and a tax deduction (if he chose to take it).

I don't suppose there'll a transcript of Tuesday's proceedings?  I know where TIGHAR stands but would be interested to actually hear how the other side is fleshing out their argument.

I'm sure there is a transcript but I don't know if we have access to it.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Tim Mellon on August 30, 2013, 03:12:42 AM
Speculation alert...

Whatever the judge decides will be precedent setting. If he doesn't dismiss or something near it, the way would be paved for disgruntled donors everywhere to file a lawsuit just because.

Lisa

Whoa ... I don't think anyone has picked up on that. Very, very interesting. Can you envision itty-bitty non-profits, like TIGHAR, having to make everyone who donates fill out a "I promise to never, ever, sue you" document before they can accept the money? If you took the extreme approach, that could apply to a donation as small as 1 CENT (anything can be be basis of a lawsuit, as we have seen here). The paperwork burden would be enormous, the reporting and record-keeping requirements positively gagging. I wonder if there is a way to get this thought to the judge?

LTM, who tries not to judge,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 CER

Hardly precedent setting (http://www.conservativeactionalerts.com/2013/01/nature-conservancy-embroiled-in-another-land-grab-scandal/), Ms. Grinnell. Here are some useful guidelines (http://www.cbwealthadvisory.com/nonprofits.php).

And Monty, please take care not to get caught with your fingers in the ex parte cookie jar.

Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Tim Collins on August 30, 2013, 06:50:36 AM
Point of inquiry: what do the forum guidelines say about veiled threats?
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: JNev on August 30, 2013, 08:26:04 AM
Point of inquiry: what do the forum guidelines say about veiled threats?

Marty prepared an excellent outline for civil discourse. (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,377.0.html)  It is worth the review.

At the very least 'veiled threats' should clearly not be tolerated - that is not a civil means of discourse.  If one has a direct criticism at the individual level one should use a PM.  This writer also hopes that we'd all avoid such threatening tones, but if one cannot help one's self, then one should perhaps consider private means of conveyance.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Jerry Simmons on August 30, 2013, 12:28:19 PM
I have now ruminated all I care to - what's left for me is to decide whether I am living or dead - then I can take the next steps to deciding if I should take offense.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Jerry Simmons on August 30, 2013, 12:43:52 PM
I am honored to be in a group of such importance; plus with someone who obviously has such a high standard of humor.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: richie conroy on August 30, 2013, 07:44:23 PM
Hi Tim

I have added a snapshot of a comment you made in november 2012 stating that everyone was unaware of debris field until John Balderston post Aug 22nd 2012

Your words not mine

So, If debris field was discovered in august 2012 How the hell did Tighar be dishonest in it's theory of no plane being found ?
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: richie conroy on August 30, 2013, 10:34:54 PM
Hi Jeff

As usual your critical analyse shines through, If Tighar knew about the supposed wreck site why was it not target 1 in 2012 search ? Because in-spite of my and Jeff Hayden's insistence there was wreckage in the 2010 video, Ric on the other hand dismissed it out of hand and rightly so in my opinion, I have recently learned a hard lesson being a member of the volunteer group.

Jpeg images are like Google predictive text, It fills pixels with what it believes should be there, However in reality those pixels are corrupt and should be disregarded 
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Jeff Victor Hayden on August 30, 2013, 10:55:37 PM
I always used TIFF files Richie but, you can't upload them to the forum. The size of the files was very restrictive as well but, you can do more with TIFF file imaging software. Converting to JPEG was the only alternative. I'm still content with the 2010 video footage though, time will  tell, there's no rush.
 I'm currently working on a couple of new angles to old problems from the 281 message and the 2010/2012 footage, interesting to say the least.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Tim Mellon on August 30, 2013, 11:41:42 PM
Hi Tim

I have added a snapshot of a comment you made in november 2012 stating that everyone was unaware of debris field until John Balderston post Aug 22nd 2012

Your words not mine

So, If debris field was discovered in august 2012 How the hell did Tighar be dishonest in it's theory of no plane being found ?

Actually, Richie, I have been led to believe that John Balderston originally posted his findings prior to the Niku VII expedition, but was prevailed upon by "the authorities" to remove his post so as not to embarass Ric at a time of maximum PR coverage. I was unaware of this until January, 2013, so my comment of last November was made with incomplete data.

I also had not read the long thread alluded to in my post wherin you, Jeff Victor Hayden, and others spotted many man-made objects in the 2010 video as early as January, 2012, but were too timid to press your case when confronted by Ric's assertion that the squigglie was too small to be anything but a piece of insulation.

Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: richie conroy on August 31, 2013, 12:18:06 AM
Hi Tim

Just checking weather you were up to date with posts, And wondering why you hadn't responded to Ric's question:

Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
« Reply #366 on: August 27, 2013, 08:56:34 AM »
ReplyQuote
Tim,

Let's make this simple. If I re-open the thread and promise to leave it open, will you drop your lawsuit?

Thanks for reply
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Jeff Victor Hayden on August 31, 2013, 12:29:57 AM
Tim

'I'm still content with the 2010 video footage though, time will tell, there's no rush.'

Whatever it is, it isn't going anywhere fast. It will still be there in a years time, two years or however long it takes. Of course, the most obvious point above all else is until something is actually lifted up from the depths this debate will rumble on Ad infinitum.

Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: richie conroy on August 31, 2013, 12:33:43 AM
Hi Chris

If you seen my wife's scrambled eggs you would retract that comment  :o

Basically her thought process is scrambled don't taste any different to fried so why bother

 :)
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Jeff Victor Hayden on August 31, 2013, 12:42:24 AM
You haven't been married that long Richie. I wouldn't let the other half see that comment Richie you're still not out of the '24 month guaranteed replacement if not happy' period  ;)
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: richie conroy on August 31, 2013, 12:49:55 AM
To be honest Jeff

My thought process is, Ric and maybe Tom King and co will go to Niku next year and bring back with them something we can touch and feel drool over even etc.

If that is not the case, Tim will have to wait until Tighar do go back and see what my sonar Anomaly is, An the longer he drags this un-called for Court case out, The longer it will be before any of us get to see the pot at the end of the rainbow.

Richie

I hate when people steal my Lime Light   
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Jeff Victor Hayden on August 31, 2013, 01:06:11 AM
I have great faith in both Tighar and your sonar anomaly Richie. It is a logical step to get back there and check quite a few things and, hopefully pick something up that isn't 'coral'. Once that is achieved and, the result is found to be positive, then the real work begins.
Yes, it's a tragedy we all find ourselves in the current situation and, I still hold out for a sensible compromise but, it shouldn't deter the continued efforts being made by everyone here.
I'm all for offering options which will halt the current situation from continuing. I like the offer Ric made but, do not want the 2010 ROV to continue to focus on 'aircraft wreckage' rather, it would be more useful if it was studied from a marine biology point of view instead. Sometimes a different approach to the same problem can bring a clearer understanding of things.


Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: richie conroy on August 31, 2013, 01:16:08 AM
Wow i just clicked post and it sed error

I log back in and you's have replied already  :o
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: richie conroy on August 31, 2013, 01:53:08 AM
Hi Jeff

Before the 2012 expedition there was no sonar anomaly only the 2010 Rov video what we believed showed aircraft wreckage Every one else found a solution to what our objects were and how to analyze them.

Tighar had mounted 6 expeditions to Niku before any of us had even heard of Tim, Tighar's hypothesis for the last 25 years was plane went over edge after maybe 6 days, everyone has dismissed this theory as being no more than a story!!

Then in 2013 a sonar image showing an anomaly in a place were Tighar speculated there would be one. NOT THROUGH 2010 VIDEO But through the hypothesis they have maintained over the last 25 years

Bottom Line This is just a chapter in this epic story 

Richie
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Jeff Victor Hayden on August 31, 2013, 03:53:46 AM
"Every one else found a solution to what our objects were and how to analyze them."

Richie, to be perfectly honest it was and, still is everyone else's opinion and, at this stage that's all it is, opinion. Nothing can be proven either from any video footage or sonar anomaly. The only option left is to bring something up.
IMHO
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Ric Gillespie on August 31, 2013, 08:45:02 AM
Actually, Richie, I have been led to believe that John Balderston originally posted his findings prior to the Niku VII expedition, but was prevailed upon by "the authorities" to remove his post so as not to embarass Ric at a time of maximum PR coverage. I was unaware of this until January, 2013, so my comment of last November was made with incomplete data.

"The noble Brutus hath told you Caesar was ambitious.  If so it was a grievous fault, and grievously hath Caesar answered it."

If such a thing as you describe actually happened I can see how you might be misled into thinking that TIGHAR was trying to hide something,
but that is not the case. The sequence of events is very clear and available for anyone to check.

John Balderston registered to post on the Forum on July 4, 2012 (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php?action=profile;u=712) - the day AFTER the Niku VII expedition departed Honolulu.
Sometime before 4:30pm that day he apparently posted two or more annotated screen-captures in which he pointed out what he believed to be Electra components in the Wire & Rope video.  At that time Richie Conroy and Jeff Victor-Hayden were posting similar screen-captures and speculating about various shapes in the coral.

At 4:30pm (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,571.msg15582.html#msg15582) and again at 5:27pm (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,571.msg15582.html#msg15582), Jeff Neville posted IMO excellent cautions about the of scale and depth perception in the video.

At 5:57pm (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,571.msg15600.html#msg15600) John Balderston posted:

"Hi all,

I took down my previous posts and replaced with single image of Niku reef slope.  No colored circles, arrows and annotations.  And oh yeah, I guess I pasted an aircraft image adjacent to the coral formation.  Hmmm, maybe they are there for comparison purposes.  Compare an airplane with coral?  How weird, right?

Oh, and while I think of it, it’s a real shame that TIGHAR's AE search is baseless.  Just think of all that money being spent, and nothing to see but coral! 

Cheers, John"

At 6:34pm (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,571.msg15612.html#msg15612) Jeff Neville took issue with John's comment that TIGHAR's search was "baseless."  He also wrote, in part:
"All the clambor for 'wanting' stuff to 'be Electra stuff' in this footage and by so much written over it now as 'record' can be unseemly if we're not careful.  It could almost make one wonder about folks wanting to be sure they are seen as calling it 'right' before anyone else should fruit eventually be found - a bit of a turn-off, I admit."

 At 7:12pm (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,571.msg15617.html#msg15617) John Balderston replied:
"Jeff, well said and appreciate your articulating.  I get it - immediate change in tone."

Two days later, at 4:47pm on July 6, John Balderston replied to a query from Greg Daspit (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,571.msg15772.html#msg15772) and re-posted an image:
"Greg, I'm putting the still image back up, but passing on what I believe this is.  I'm standing by for Niku VII team to explain what they've found.  I will offer opinions regarding interpretation of this image: 1) the configuration in the foreground is proportionate and recognizable, 2) the round object is neither a tailwheel or a pulley.  Cheers, John"

Nobody pressured John into doing anything and nobody suppressed anything.  There was a free and open discussion on the Forum. I have searched my emails and the Forum records and can find no communication with John Balderston in July 2012 other than what is publicly available on the Forum.  If John or anyone else has any correspondence that relates to this please make it public. 


I also had not read the long thread alluded to in my post wherin you, Jeff Victor Hayden, and others spotted many man-made objects in the 2010 video as early as January, 2012, but were too timid to press your case when confronted by Ric's assertion that the squigglie was too small to be anything but a piece of insulation.

As I explained at the time, aboard KOK we were able to exactly match the "squiggle" in the video to an example of insulation that was in common use aboard KOK and many other vessels.  I held the example in my hand.  It was a no-brainer. Apparently you weren't in the room at the time.  If I had had any idea it would become a big issue I would have taken photos or, better yet, held on to a piece of the stuff.  I don't remember what it was called but I'll try to find out from the folks who were there.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Jeff Victor Hayden on August 31, 2013, 10:26:14 AM
I would draw ever ones attention to the fact that the 2010 video footage thread went beyond the initial black squiggle, which was the object that invited further investigation of the footage. I believe that thread attracted 1721 replies and currently 110,547 views, not all focused on the black squiggly thing.
We learned much from that thread which we should really be applying to later 'debris field' discoveries and photographs, scale, armchair experts, be they of the aircraft wreckage or coral type, alternatives like the discarded fishing gear, junk tossed over the side of passing ships. Applying the same criteria to all videos and images gives us all a clearer understanding of what, if anything, is down there.
Of course there are a few other methods of identifying coral versus aircraft wreckage other than scale and possible alternatives. How about research into how aluminium actually deteriorates and looks like after 75 years submerged in seawater? e.g. Colour, appearance, separation, chemical breakdown/reactions.
Finally, and it's only my opinion but, I do think the environment around the Gardner seamount is quite unique and believe that this is hampering the search no end. Why didn't they put it into the lagoon, job done and dusted!!!  :-\
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Ric Gillespie on August 31, 2013, 10:45:57 AM
People have alleged seeing inflated tires and tail wheels without considering what water pressure at those depths would do to an inflated tire. 
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Jeff Victor Hayden on August 31, 2013, 01:45:13 PM
It is difficult to tell whether a tyre is inflated or not unless whatever it was supporting still has it's weight pressing down on it. A sure sign that a tyre is deflated in that case would be the flat section of tyre where it is contact with the ground.  'objects' being coated in a veneer of coral accretion in one area of the reef slope but in a different area of the same reef slope they are definitely 'coral', mmm. I don't recall anyone suggesting that the wreckage of a complete Lockheed Electra had been found in one area either, just bits of 'aircraft wreckage' scattered about the reef slope. It would be nice if it was the Lockheed Electra, in a nice tidy pile, but it isn't and, no one would expect it to be, not in that location.
The main point to take on board is that, until something is brought up then, various 'debris fields' and sonar anomalies will remain open to interpretation and debate, all subjected to the same criteria, as in a controlled test exercise. IMHO of course.




Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Ric Gillespie on August 31, 2013, 01:58:11 PM
It is difficult to tell whether a tyre is inflated or not unless whatever it was supporting still has it's weight pressing down on it.

In sea water, the pressure is 0.485 psi per foot of depth.  At 850 feet, the pressure is 412.25 psi. What do you think is going to happen to a tire subjected to that kind of pressure?

Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Jeff Victor Hayden on August 31, 2013, 02:34:30 PM
It is difficult to tell whether a tyre is inflated or not unless whatever it was supporting still has it's weight pressing down on it.

In sea water, the pressure is 0.485 psi per foot of depth.  At 850 feet, the pressure is 412.25 psi. What do you think is going to happen to a tire subjected to that kind of pressure?

I would expect a deflated tyre to look exactly the same as an inflated tyre, round. As in when you take your vehicle in to have a tyre puncture repaired/tyre replaced. The guy takes a sharp intake of breath, tells you that you need a new tyre, and then charges you an arm and a leg for it. He takes the punctured one off your vehicle and puts it in the stack of previously removed punctured/worn tyres, all round, none with flat bits. All the ones removed from vehicles all look the same, round. It is only when you try to inflate them that you can tell they are useless. When he fits the new tyre to your wheel, it looks the same, round, even when deflated. When it is fully inflated it also looks the same, round. Exceptions to this general rule of ripping off customers maybe high speed blow outs and car crashes in which case the tyre suffers visible trauma, i.e. it's been shredded  :)
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Jeff Victor Hayden on August 31, 2013, 03:02:11 PM
"But what can we expect aircraft aluminum – specifically 24ST ALCLAD – to look like after 75 years in an active coral-growth environment? Douglas TBD-1 Devastator BuNo 1515 in Jaluit lagoon, Marshall Islands, (see To Save A Devastator) survives intact because it is in a benign lagoon, but it too has been in an active coral-growth environment for 70 years. The aluminum on that aircraft has accretions of coral growth over much of its surface."

So, why not in the 2010 video footage? It was dismissed as being definitely coral by our armchair coral experts (as opposed to our armchair aircraft wreckage experts  ;) )


"survives intact because it is in a benign lagoon"

Unlike the side of a seamount so, why would anyone expect to see all of an aircraft wreck in one small area? Not me that's for sure.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Jeff Victor Hayden on August 31, 2013, 03:24:59 PM
And again...

"Is the object in the debris field that seems to resemble a fender from the Electra landing gear merely a slab of coral or are we looking at aluminum with a veneer of coral accretion? On the edge of the object facing the camera there are two places where the color is lighter than the surrounding material. One small area, marked A, is quite bright. The other area, marked B, is larger but not as bright. Are these light-colored accretions on top of the coral or are they chips that expose the aluminum beneath the coral veneer?"

Just pointing out the discrepancies in how the latest debris fields are viewed in comparison to the 2010 video footage. A number of images were posted showing exactly the same phenomenon but, were simply dismissed. Again, the mention of a coral veneer in one debris field but, not another in which it was described as being definately coral. Not that we should go over old ground again as it would not be very productive as a totally different approach to analysing what was seen in the footage is needed.
Now, I am not a supporter of one camp or another in the legal wrangling which is ongoing as I feel the main objective should be to find out just what it is that is stuck to to the side of this seamount. However, I do feel that the same criteria should be applied to all potential leads, no matter who originated them. That's why I have a lot of confidence in Richies sonar anomaly, he's not an expert in sonar imaging but, he spotted it and, good for him, it looks very promising indeed.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Jeff Victor Hayden on August 31, 2013, 03:45:20 PM
"The one I am still trying to track down is any mention of Earhart taking her banjo along on the trip - I know she was a fan and played one, but so far no mention, no pictures of a banjo with other goods around the plane, and every evidence that she discarded everything possible of any weight before leaving Lae.  Another daunting problem with a banjo under water for 76 years is that a natural drum-head, as used in the day, may not have survived; likewise, the other organic stuff like wood might not either.  But what the hey... what even makes us credibly believe that a banjo was ever aboard..."

Now,you see Jeff I missed out on the latter stages of the 2010 video footage thread as I was involved in the setting up of a young persons project over here. When we retire our CV's are sent out to various organisations, charities etc... to see if they would be interested in utilising our experience and expertise to help them in any way. I was offered this position in setting up a project for homeless 16 to 25 year olds who come from troubled backgrounds and, their lives are basically tragic to say the least. So I missed quite a few months of the final stages of the thread while I was otherwise occupied. So, imagine my surprise when I get back to forum to discover that AE was a keen banjo player? and so on.

The thing I have about coral encrustation, coral veneers etc... is that, we all know so little about marine biology. I for one will be first to put my hand up and say 'help'. Which is why I put forward the suggestion that we really need people who are experts in marine biology/coral taxonomy on board to give their opinion on all video footages/images, it's common sense really given the location and environment we are dealing with. Who knows, they might take one look at a video footage/image and say 'you really do have something here guys'.
IMHO of course.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Jeff Victor Hayden on August 31, 2013, 04:00:00 PM
"I think your point about the area of 'wreckage' is apt - if the airplane was as demolished as has been suggested, how in the world would it all be gathered to such a small area?  See my post above regarding 'Japanese capture and disassemble Electra and dump remains of same on calm day'."

Agreed Jeff. My best estimate for the 2010 footage was 30% of wreckage at the most. Which would leave 70% of it still to be located either further up or lower down the seamount.
The Japanese connection has always intrigued me but, knowing how well diciplined and efficient the Japanese were and, still are, I find it remarkable that they didn't record anything at all, anywhere, at any time about a captured plane/aviators. Not like them at all. You would expect at least one report at the least.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Jeff Victor Hayden on August 31, 2013, 04:21:58 PM
Another point to note in favour of there being something down there is the fact that locations of debris fields and sonar images are in close proximity to each other, a matter of tens of metres not hundreds. 2013- 227 metres, 2010- 265 metres, about 38 metres, not bad for a coincidence and, both "right off the 'nessie' location". Very promising indeed for a complete debris field spread.

2010
"Aboard VvS1, the ROV found the first underwater man-made objects seen on this trip. On the ledge right off the “Nessie” location at about 265 meters they spotted a length of rope or line, and a semi-circular piece of wire. The wire is two to three millimeters in diameter, and light enough that the ROV’s thrusters made it stir. But this is very exciting: the reef slope and ledge are not littered with debris and to find something right off the location where we have a photograph of something is huge. They are planning to retrieve the wire today."

2013
"It wasn’t until March 7, 2013 that Richard Conroy, a member of TIGHAR’s on-line Amelia Earhart Search Forum, spotted the anomaly in a sonar map that was included in the Niku VII report in TIGHAR Tracks. Richie has no training in interpreting sonar images but that was probably his biggest advantage. Once you know what to look for, the anomaly is painfully obvious. It gives the impression of being an object that struck the slope at the base of the second cliff at a depth of 187 meters (613 feet), then skidded in a southerly direction for about 40 meters (131 feet) before coming to rest.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Jeff Victor Hayden on August 31, 2013, 04:27:05 PM
Which is the correct spelling of metres/meters? I have always used metres as I usually associate meters with gas or water. :-\
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Bruce Thomas on August 31, 2013, 05:06:03 PM
Which is the correct spelling of metres/meters? I have always used metres as I usually associate meters with gas or water. :-\
Check Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metre#Spelling).
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Jeff Victor Hayden on August 31, 2013, 05:35:09 PM
Which is the correct spelling of metres/meters? I have always used metres as I usually associate meters with gas or water. :-\
Check Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metre#Spelling).

Thank you Bruce, I had an inkling I was using the right spelling after all these years. It's quite ironic that, after having to learn BOTH imperial and metric systems in primary school all those decades ago, here we are in the year 2013, 48 years later and we're still using both! Ggrrr!!!
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Steve Lyle Gunderson on August 31, 2013, 08:30:59 PM
"But what can we expect aircraft aluminum – specifically 24ST ALCLAD – to look like after 75 years in an active coral-growth environment? Douglas TBD-1 Devastator BuNo 1515 in Jaluit lagoon, Marshall Islands, (see To Save A Devastator) survives intact because it is in a benign lagoon, but it too has been in an active coral-growth environment for 70 years. The aluminum on that aircraft has accretions of coral growth over much of its surface."

So, why not in the 2010 video footage? It was dismissed as being definitely coral by our armchair coral experts (as opposed to our armchair aircraft wreckage experts  ;) )


"survives intact because it is in a benign lagoon"

Unlike the side of a seamount so, why would anyone expect to see all of an aircraft wreck in one small area? Not me that's for sure.
Jeff Victor,
I found the following government report  (http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADB805386) from 1942 regarding corrosion testing of ALCLAD 24ST. Looks like it was only for 3 years, but it's a start.

LTM, who giggles when she Googles.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Jeff Victor Hayden on September 01, 2013, 12:07:50 AM
Thanks for the link Steve. That will take a while to digest and, it's the type of report that is useful in cases like this. This link is one I posted earlier. A thesis on saltwater corrosion on aluminium from an actual aircraft wreck and, how to recover, restore and Preserve said material...Some excellent images, see photograph of sample 6, the aircrafts skin.
http://repository.tamu.edu/bitstream/handle/1969.1/ETD-TAMU-3002/GUJARATHI-THESIS.pdf (http://repository.tamu.edu/bitstream/handle/1969.1/ETD-TAMU-3002/GUJARATHI-THESIS.pdf)

http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1267.0.html (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1267.0.html)
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Jeff Victor Hayden on September 01, 2013, 02:55:11 AM
That's quite a comprehensive report Steve, thanks again for uploading the link. The graphics let it down a bit but, it was a long time ago so that was to be expected I guess.
First point that jumps out from the whole report is the use of paint and, how effective it was in preventing corrosion to some extent. When you consider the paint scheme on the surface of AEs Electra, or lack of it, that may be a significant factor in the deterioration of material over time. That said, the nice shiny Lockheed Electra did look pretty spectacular, in hindsight though that may have been it's Achilles heel. Still, they weren't to know that it would eventually end up swimming in the ocean.

Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Carolyn Hasenfratz on September 01, 2013, 09:23:02 AM
...it was and, still is everyone else's opinion and, at this stage that's all it is, opinion. Nothing can be proven either from any video footage or sonar anomaly. The only option left is to bring something up.

I've read almost every thread on both the old and new forums avidly, having been a lurker for many years. The thread containing speculation about what is in the video images did not hold my interest because the images seemed pretty vague to me. I remember the Face on Mars photo from many years ago. From one angle, depending on the shadows, it looked pretty convincing. When the image of the same rock formation surfaced many years later with different shadows, it seemed clear that it was an ordinary rock formation that had been photographed with a freak shadow effect at one time. I did not do research on what the provenance of either image was, like TIGHAR does with everything they get, so I may have the facts wrong but I'm sure everyone knows what photo I'm talking about. It made me not have much faith in what something might be from one photo or video still unless it's really clear. I agree that the best use of such images seems to be clues on where to look.

It appears that all such efforts may not have been in vain since the Conroy anomaly seems worth exploring to me, but I'm not an expert. That's why I never posted until recently - not much useful for me to contribute since almost every other poster has more expertise than I do. All I have is a reasonably well-rounded education, a layperson's interest in archaeology, and Midwestern common sense (I like to think). I know TIGHAR wants to teach investigative practices as part of their mission and although I may not have much opportunity for practical application in my own life I certainly have learned a lot from reading here. I'll put what I've learned to use if I'm ever called to serve on a jury but I know that is highly unlikely!
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Irvine John Donald on September 01, 2013, 09:57:39 AM
Well said Carolyn.  I feel I fall into the same category having learned much here at the forum.

Don't forget that the Romans had a forum too. But they used wildlife to weed out the strong and the weak.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Monty Fowler on September 01, 2013, 09:58:35 AM
That's why I never posted until recently - not much useful for me to contribute since almost every other poster has more expertise than I do. All I have is a reasonably well-rounded education, a layperson's interest in archaeology, and Midwestern common sense (I like to think).

Welcome, Carolyn! No need to lurk. My own "qualifications" are far below yours. Remember, The People are going to find Amelia and Fred.

LTM, who has never had his own entourage,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 CER
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Jeff Victor Hayden on September 01, 2013, 10:11:08 AM
And yet people STILL believe that there is a face on Mars, despite the number of sweeps over the same spot that show nothing more than a natural formation. I personally couldn't see anything other than a natural rock formation in the original image but, it obviously tickled quite few people's fancy and no doubt, sold many books. Now for the man in the moon! :)
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Ric Gillespie on September 01, 2013, 10:24:28 AM
And yet people STILL believe that there is a face on Mars, despite the number of sweeps over the same spot that show nothing more than a natural formation.

We could compile a long list of things people believe despite overwhelming contradicting evidence.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Jeff Victor Hayden on September 01, 2013, 06:07:00 PM
Time will tell Jeff, no one can be sure of anything until something is brought up. As I mentioned before in this thread, I have high hopes for Richies sonar anomaly, although come to think of it, the 'experts' missed that one didn't they?
Never mind, there's still lots to do.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Ric Gillespie on September 02, 2013, 11:15:19 AM
Here's a photo of the delegation to Casper, WY for the hearing on August 27.  Left to right: Capt. "Skeet" Gifford, Suzanne Campbell, Ted Campbell, Karen Hoy, Tom Roberts, Maria Roberts, Monty Fowler, your obedient servant, John Masterson Esq.
As a group, we clean up pretty nice.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Bruce Thomas on September 02, 2013, 12:14:00 PM
Here's a photo ...

Photo?
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Ric Gillespie on September 02, 2013, 12:17:12 PM
Here's a photo ...

Photo?

DUH!  Sorry.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: John Balderston on September 02, 2013, 01:53:55 PM
". . .John was very excited early on. . .but like me, not an expert (that I know of) at photogrammetric analysis in the least.  None-the-less, I eventually came to see the faint signs of shadowing and contour of multiple rocks that make up the 'gear' image with the squiggly, and realized also that scale was an issue (I am mystified as to why scale is constantly dismissed as unimportant - that is an absolute non-starter).  That was on my own - no one 'made' me see it that way. 

. . .It is like this. . .being in a technical field I'm not about to go on public record stating absolutes about stuff that cannot for now [rise] above speculation.  Tim, I know you disagree with that as you've made clear here and in your suit.  But as a guy who has worked the technical side of aviation from A&P through a senior engineering position, I know that it is a 'show me' world.  John knew that too, I believe - but it is easy to get caught up here and allow what we 'feel' to be stated as 'fact' because it is 'only a forum', kind of a blog on steroids, I guess." 

Dear AE Forum colleagues,

I'm writing in response to the several recent posts discussing my participation in the "Still from ROV Video" thread.  I am extremely disheartened to learn that my amateur observations may have been part of the decision-making calculus for legal proceedings.  I'd like to share my recollection of events, as well as a couple thoughts and feelings.  I apologize in advance for a lengthy post.

As Jeff Neville mentioned, I am employed in aerospace.  I am participating in TIGHAR as a private individual with no relation to my employment.  I joined TIGHAR in 2012 after the Niku VII expedition was announced, and I followed the run-up for Niku VII with great interest and anticipation.

No one has ever directed the content of my posts.  My first posts were in the "Still from ROV video" thread during the weekend of 30 June - 1 July 2012.  I remember this well - an extended business trip kept me on the road, and I was looking forward to getting home for the July 4th holiday.  On Saturday morning 30 June I was drinking coffee and perusing the forum.  I was intrigued by the 2010 ROV video thread started by J.V. Hayden, and the 90+ pages of interesting observations by Jeff Victor, Richie and others that followed.  Then I found the reference to the "Wire and Rope" ROV video out on YouTube.   After looking at the video several times, like Jeff Victor, Richie and others I began to see what I believed were man-made, aircraft-related items as well.  I was transfixed.  In my excitement and enthusiasm I spent most of that weekend, staying up well into the wee hours on Sunday 1 July, annotating screen shots with circles, lines, arrows and text, and posting my observations to the thread.   (Warning - amateur image interpretation can be addictive. . . :))

I "came to my senses" as a result of two events - first, Dr. Malcolm McKay's posts, which made me realize one could actually be derided for one’s speculations, and second, Jeff Neville's post, which quite rightly cautioned not to state so firmly about what was observed.  Those two things caused me to go overboard in the other direction - I deleted all of my posts of the previous two days, and in fact posted nothing further under that forum account (neither my initial excitement or my withdrawal was an appropriately measured approach, I readily admit).  After I returned home, during the 4 July holiday weekend, I signed up for the forum again.  From that point I have endeavored to be more measured, skeptical, scientific, . . . .reasonable . . about my participation in the forum.   

Do I believe that there are objects visible in the 2010 ROV video that are worthy of further analysis?  Yes.  Am I an authority on this subject?  Absolutely not. 

First, my technical knowledge of digital imaging is minimal.  I couldn't begin to compare and contrast the different digital formats - "jpeg", "tiff", "bitmap", etc. or explain how the multiple attributes of an individual digital pixel are determined or saved.  Second, I have only the most cursory photogrammetric analytical skills (i.e. how to measure objects in relation to on another).  Finally, I don't know anything about the imaging system used to capture the 2010 ROV video.  Aperture, focal length, distortion, etc.

In my amateur "arm chair" opinion (which, because of my lack of knowledge in image interpretation, is no more valid than any other amateur's opinion on this forum) there is "Electra" down there on that reef slope.  I will not be surprised if, when the sonar anomaly that Richie identified is investigated, the supposed debris in the 2010 video and the sonar anomaly are one and the same.  If we compare TIGHAR's sense of where the 2010 ROV video was taken  (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,571.msg20739.html#msg20739)and the location of the sonar anomaly (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/66_NikuVIIUpdate/66_NikuVIIUpdate.html), the two fall within the same area of probability.  If the musings on the 2010 ROV are correct, they will be self-evident then.

In any case, the AE mystery will never be solved without further investigation.  Ric and TIGHAR's 25+ years of tenacious and disciplined effort, including important advocacy and sponsorship by TIGHAR's benefactors, have brought us to this point.  There cannot possibly be anyone better qualified than Ric and TIGHAR to bring this quest to successful conclusion for posterity.  I cannot conscience how a legal proceeding furthers this effort or brings about anything positive.

Very respectfully, John
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: richie conroy on September 02, 2013, 04:16:03 PM
quote from John Balderston...... Ric and TIGHAR's 25+ years of tenacious and disciplined effort,

And no complaints from any sponsors benefactors etc...

If only we had a time machine  :-X
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Ric Gillespie on September 02, 2013, 05:42:58 PM
John,

Thank you.  Your recollection of events tracks with the Forum records.  Reasonable people can differ on the interpretation of evidence.  The question is not whether there are shapes present in the video that we amateurs may interpret as being aircraft wreckage, coral, or Our Lady of the Deep.  The question at issue in the lawsuit is whether aircraft wreckage conclusively identifiable as being from Amelia Earhart's Lockheed Electra is so obvious in the video that I was actionably negligent in not recognizing it. 
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Andrew M McKenna on September 02, 2013, 08:54:57 PM
Ric

I don't think you have it right.  The lawsuit is that you knew conclusively that the wreckage was there, and you raised money to continue the search anyway, ie fraudulently. 

Negligent is not fraudulent, and this is where Tim's reasoning seems to break down.  He's described TIGHAR on the Forum as being negligent, yet the lawsuit is about racketeering and fraud.  It doesn't work both ways.

Andrew
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Stacy Galloway on September 02, 2013, 09:41:42 PM
Thank you John, Jeff, Ric and the others for clarifying the sequence of events on the video threads. It is a tragic set of circumstances when someone vents their frustration via lawsuit rather than cordial discussion. I truly hope the judge determines this lawsuit to be frivolous and throws it out. There's no doubt that TIGHAR is in the right, its just a matter of how long lady justice will take to make that determination.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Stacy Galloway on September 02, 2013, 09:43:45 PM
Here's a photo ...

Photo?

DUH!  Sorry.

Beautiful ladies and handsome men! That's quite a delegation that descended on Casper. Thank you one and all for being there! :)
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Jeff Victor Hayden on September 03, 2013, 01:08:08 AM
"At the end of that, if that stuff is of the Electra, then everyone wins.  Tim would forever be a huge part of what was accomplished, too - Niku VII could not have been done on the scale it was without such generosity.  I wish we could have wrapped things up on that trip - no more so I am sure than Ric or Tim, but life is full of tragic twists; there are no perfect leaders, contractors, ships or equipment."

There will be a next time Jeff and, when an agreement is reached the real work can start again with hopefully everyone looking ahead this time. What's gone on in the past can't be changed but the future can be. Niku VII came back with plenty of prospects for the next trip and, thanks to Tim that was made possible so, if the outcome we all hope for materialises, Tim played his part in the effort. One final push? together?

Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Ric Gillespie on September 03, 2013, 07:04:06 AM
I don't think you have it right.  The lawsuit is that you knew conclusively that the wreckage was there, and you raised money to continue the search anyway, ie fraudulently. 

Negligent is not fraudulent, and this is where Tim's reasoning seems to break down.  He's described TIGHAR on the Forum as being negligent, yet the lawsuit is about racketeering and fraud.  It doesn't work both ways.

Count One in the complaint is Fraud - that I lied to Mellon when I said we had not yet found the plane.
Count Two in the complaint is Negligent Misrepresentation - that I should have known that we had already found the plane.
You are correct in that the allegations are mutually exclusive.  They cannot both be true (and, of course, neither is true), but that is nonetheless what the suit contends.  The judge spotted the contradiction.

This is probably just an example of the old lawyer's axiom "just throw all the sh-- at the wall and see if any of it sticks." 
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Monty Fowler on September 03, 2013, 08:40:52 AM
This is probably just an example of the old lawyer's axiom "just throw all the sh-- at the wall and see if any of it sticks."

I thought that was what they taught them in law school as a perfectly valid "strategy"? I shall have to consult with our law students on the proper legal term for this.

LTM, who never wears Teflon,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 CER
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Dan Swift on September 03, 2013, 01:53:00 PM
"The judge spotted the contridictions"......?  My Dachshund could have spotted that one!  Put his ears back, rolled his eyes, and shaken his head......huh!!   
Well in this case, they threw a lot of sh.. against the wall, but they must not have known the 'fan' was in the way. 
   
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: richie conroy on September 03, 2013, 05:04:22 PM
My Apologies in advance

But i Actully find this comment on another forum a compliment  ;D http://languish.org/forums/index.php?topic=9914.0

Also, the CNN story on this said an "analyst" spotted the sonar anomaly.  The "analyst" in question is a goof on their forums named Richie Conroy who is in essence the Raz of TIGHAR (no offense, Raz).... dude is obsessed with the TIGHAR theory and pretty much spends all day looking at imagery and data and posting on the forums.  He's a weird British dude... maybe more accurately described as a cross between Raz and Tyr.  99% of what he posts is utter rubbish; he just got lucky this time.

Jealousy gets ye no were

Am not british am Scouse

Thanks Richie
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Ted G Campbell on September 03, 2013, 07:08:33 PM
Richie,
If you get drawn into this whole thing (Tim's laysuite) please let me know.  If you are required to come to the U.S. re the suite let me know - fly into Atlanta, Ga and you can stay with us until you have to go to Wy.

I'will help you with any expenses to get you from Atlanta to Casper and back to the U.K.

Keep me posted on the events that may develope.

Ted Campbell
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: richie conroy on September 04, 2013, 04:16:28 AM
Haha av been called sum things but a goof. Really glad I annoy him so
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Jeff Victor Hayden on September 04, 2013, 08:34:24 AM
Haha av been called sum things but a goof. Really glad I annoy him so

Richie, a while back there was also some unkind things posted about you on another forum by an 'expert' who used to post on the Tighar forum. When you discovered the sonar anomaly I couldn't but help a little wry smile as I thought back to what the 'expert' had said. What goes around comes around, way to go Richie! Let's hope it's the one.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Monty Fowler on September 04, 2013, 11:01:32 AM
Haha av been called sum things but a goof. Really glad I annoy him so

As the immortal Black Knight would say, "I've had worse."

LTM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 CER
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Carolyn Hasenfratz on September 04, 2013, 11:46:58 AM
Although I stated that the spotting objects in video stills thread did not hold my interest, that doesn't mean that I look down on those who thought it interesting or think they deserve to be ridiculed. I'm glad someone was willing to put in the effort. We don't know yet whether such efforts are or were in vain - or not.

I wish I could be confident that a side in a legal dispute that presents self-conflicting evidence or theories will always be on the losing side. I can think of one recent high profile murder case in which the defense presented mutually exclusive theories but still won the case.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Ric Gillespie on September 04, 2013, 11:49:51 AM
I wish I could be confident that a side in a legal dispute that presents self-conflicting evidence or theories will always be on the losing side. I can think of one recent high profile murder case in which the defense presented mutually exclusive theories but still won the case.

We're not going to go there - but we do feel confident that, in this case, justice will prevail.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Monty Fowler on September 04, 2013, 01:23:53 PM
I have complete confidence that the Magnificent 7 will prevail. It worked for that Hollywood Western; we were out West. They were a rag-tag band with hidden agendas; we, I thought, cleaned up pretty good. The parallels are endless.

That makes sense, right? Far more than some of the stuff being lobbed around in a certain federal building in downtown Casper, I'll wager.

LTM, who still has that theme song stuck in his head,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 CER
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Kevin Weeks on September 04, 2013, 01:43:51 PM

We're not going to go there - but we do feel confident that, in this case, justice will prevail.

forget the Magnificent Seven.... I know another group with seven members.... How do you guys feel about tights??  ;D

(http://justiceleague.warnerbros.co.uk/index.jpg)
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Nancy Marilyn Gould on September 04, 2013, 03:02:54 PM
Reading through the latest comments on this thread, I have to wonder:  is the only thing the other AE threads do is talk about people and make snide remarks?  I'd like to hear some other perspectives, but it's hard to take people seriously when they do that.

Rock on, Richie!

Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Ric Gillespie on September 04, 2013, 05:57:02 PM
We do have our detractors, that's for sure.

I'm very proud of our detractors. 

You have no enemies, you say?   
  Alas! my friend, the boast is poor;   
He who has mingled in the fray   
  Of duty, that the brave endure,   
Must have made foes! If you have none,           5
Small is the work that you have done.   
You’ve hit no traitor on the hip,   
You’ve dashed no cup from perjured lip,   
You’ve never turned the wrong to right,   
You’ve been a coward in the fight.

("No Enemies," Charles MacKay)
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Harry Howe, Jr. on September 05, 2013, 01:07:31 PM
I think that there us a saying, I don't know who to attribute it to (to whom to attribute it?), that goes something like,  Keep your Friends close, but keep your Enemies closer.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Dan Swift on September 06, 2013, 12:00:17 PM
"It's nothing personal Sonny....it's strictly business."...Michael Corleone   
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Ric Gillespie on September 19, 2013, 07:19:48 AM
Any news? Must be almost time for a decission.

Nothing yet, which is interesting in itself.  Judge Skavdahl has a reputation for promptness and everybody expected a ruling on our Motion to Dismiss within a couple weeks of the hearing - but next Tuesday will be full month since the hearing.  Why the delay?  We can only speculate. It could be that he has just been too busy with more urgent criminal cases to address our little civil action, but Casper, Wyoming is not exactly a hot-bed of judicial activity and the fact that he asked oral argument on a Motion to Dismiss (very unusual) suggests that he finds the case worthy of special attention.  Remember, a 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss is not about the merits of the case but, rather, about whether there is a triable case at all.
At the hearing it was clear that he had read the Complaint closely and had some problems with it.  He asked Tim's attorney about the Complaint's fundamental contradiction. On one hand, it alleges that I knew the airplane had been found in the 2010 video and defrauded Tim by not telling him.  Then the Complaint does an about-face and alleges that I was negligent because I didn't know the plane is visible on the 2010 video. You can't have it both ways.  The judge also zeroed in on another basic flaw in the case.  When someone makes a voluntary charitable contribution to a recognized nonprofit organization, what is the donee's obligation to the donor?  TIGHAR solicited contributions in order to conduct a specific expedition/search. We used the money we raised exactly the way we said we would use it.  At the close of the hearing, the judge said that he didn't buy the answers he had heard and wanted to give the motion some more thought before making a ruling.

Motions to Dismiss are rarely granted because a judge is basically saying to the plaintiff, "You don't even get to try to make your case."  Denying a Motion to Dismiss is easy and safe for a judge, and that's what they usually do.  If that's what Judge Skavdahl had in mind, it seems like we'd know by now.  But Judge Skavdahl has to know that if he grants all or part of our motion, the other side is likely to appeal.  They threatened as much in their reply to the motion.  No judge wants to get reversed on appeal so, if Judge Skavdahl is seriously considering dismissing the case he would do well to take the time to do the research to makes sure his legal ducks are in a row.

So we're keeping our fingers crossed that the delay is a good sign.

What next if the judge dosn't throw it out? 

If the judge doesn't throw it out we keep fighting.

Could take years  >:(

Probably not, but you'll excuse me if I don't discuss legal strategy here.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: don hirth on September 19, 2013, 06:15:18 PM
Hello, all. I haven't posted for awhile but 'have been following with great interest! First, I believe Mr. Mellon's suit is strange, unjustified, mean spirited and just plain senseless. As, IMO we are PROBABLY
one expedition away from proof positive, the timing of this farce is unfortunate, to say the least. So much time and effort WILL PREVAIL, finally, in the Niku hypothesis! I hope that decision comes soon
and that the case is 'tossed out.' Then, a full effort toward the next (and hopefully) final Niku venture
will be enabled.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Ric Gillespie on September 19, 2013, 06:44:58 PM
Thanks Don.  Yes, we will prevail, but this lawsuit is a huge drain on resources, time, and money that should be spent on planning and research.  This period between the end of one expedition and the completion of planning for the next one is always tough for fund raising.  Having this lawsuit to contend with makes it that much worse.  At the moment, TIGHAR is seriously cash-strapped.  We need to raise  about $15,000 in the next 30 days to keep bad things from happening.  There are currently 1,104 registered subscribers to this Forum and untold thousands who just lurk. If everyone who finds value here were to make a small donation, $15, $25, $50 - whatever doesn't hurt - we could get over this hump and keep moving forward.   There are those who will read this and smile.  There are others who will resent being asked to help pay for something they're accustomed to getting for free.  What will you do?

Please donate to the Legal Defense Fund (https://www.paypal.com/us/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_flow&SESSION=bdnMMKsy-qhQh5iwV3IHqmj3a0gHkdJPqUIKeR17iCo1YBVtZ3ZO8HSAGC4&dispatch=5885d80a13c0db1f8e263663d3faee8d0038486cd0d9a2f30f3a21df7b0d0cee) or the Earhart Project (https://www.paypal.com/us/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_flow&SESSION=Pj2ZlqvXBKXzwYcnB6dL1w1XttN8do9XROZtIRb5U58F3Ue2MzHpP97TYS4&dispatch=5885d80a13c0db1f8e263663d3faee8d0038486cd0d9a2f30f3a21df7b0d0cee) as you choose, but please donate.  I'll let everyone know how it's going.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: John Balderston on September 19, 2013, 07:11:57 PM
Please donate to the Legal Defense Fund (https://www.paypal.com/us/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_flow&SESSION=bdnMMKsy-qhQh5iwV3IHqmj3a0gHkdJPqUIKeR17iCo1YBVtZ3ZO8HSAGC4&dispatch=5885d80a13c0db1f8e263663d3faee8d0038486cd0d9a2f30f3a21df7b0d0cee) or the Earhart Project (https://www.paypal.com/us/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_flow&SESSION=Pj2ZlqvXBKXzwYcnB6dL1w1XttN8do9XROZtIRb5U58F3Ue2MzHpP97TYS4&dispatch=5885d80a13c0db1f8e263663d3faee8d0038486cd0d9a2f30f3a21df7b0d0cee) as you choose, but please donate.  I'll let everyone know how it's going.

I've just responded to the call.  I wish I could have done more, but we do what we can!  The only cost to TIGHAR - I'm going to subject all to MY favorite quote from The Bard:

"Love all, trust a few, do wrong to none" - All's Well That Ends Well (Act 1, Scene 1)
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Chris Owens on September 19, 2013, 07:16:38 PM

Please donate to the Legal Defense Fund (https://www.paypal.com/us/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_flow&SESSION=bdnMMKsy-qhQh5iwV3IHqmj3a0gHkdJPqUIKeR17iCo1YBVtZ3ZO8HSAGC4&dispatch=5885d80a13c0db1f8e263663d3faee8d0038486cd0d9a2f30f3a21df7b0d0cee) or the Earhart Project (https://www.paypal.com/us/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_flow&SESSION=Pj2ZlqvXBKXzwYcnB6dL1w1XttN8do9XROZtIRb5U58F3Ue2MzHpP97TYS4&dispatch=5885d80a13c0db1f8e263663d3faee8d0038486cd0d9a2f30f3a21df7b0d0cee) as you choose, but please donate.  I'll let everyone know how it's going.

Long time but sporadic reader of the forums; first time donor as of 2 days ago.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Ric Gillespie on September 19, 2013, 07:52:42 PM
The only cost to TIGHAR - I'm going to subject all to MY favorite quote from The Bard:

"Love all, trust a few, do wrong to none" - All's Well That Ends Well (Act 1, Scene 1)

Thank You!  Nice touch.  Anyone who donates gets to enlighten us with their favorite quote from literature or Hollywood.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Ted G Campbell on September 19, 2013, 10:49:50 PM
Ric,
A check for $1,ooo is on its way.
Ted Campbell
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Ted G Campbell on September 19, 2013, 10:59:52 PM
give me a  addresse.
T
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Ric Gillespie on September 20, 2013, 08:20:31 AM

A check for $1,ooo is on its way.

Thank you Ted. 

So far we have five contributions from forum members totaling $320 - plus Ted's generous contribution, puts us at $1,320.  That's a good start.  $13,680 to go. 
I'm going to assume that if you want to be recognized as having contributed you will say so, as John Balderston, Chris Owens and Ted Campbell have done.  No need to announce the amount unless you want to.  It's also fine to remain anonymous if you prefer. The important thing is to make a contribution.
 
Donations via the TIGHAR website are made via PayPal.  If you prefer to send a check, the mailing address is:
TIGHAR
2812 Fawkes Drive
Wilmington, DE  19808

If you prefer to use a credit card please call us with your information at 302-994-4410 during regular business hours.  If you miss us leave a message and we'll call you back. We accept VISA, Mastercard, and Discover.

Who's next? 
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Ric Gillespie on September 20, 2013, 01:23:33 PM
if you don't mind me asking is this for the legal fund or essential day to day running costs (both important IMO)?

Day-to-day running costs are the more immediate concern but the legal bills are piling up.  I leave it up to the individual where they want their contribution to go.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Ric Gillespie on September 20, 2013, 05:41:52 PM
Four more contributions today totaling $100.  Total is now $1,420 with 11 contributors.  That's 1% of registered Forum members.  We can do better than this.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Karen Hoy on September 20, 2013, 07:50:14 PM
Donation sent via PayPal. Please use however you see fit.

Karen Hoy  ;D
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Lisa Grinnell on September 20, 2013, 09:44:35 PM
Check in mail Monday, modest amount, what I can afford. Wish it could be more!

From Hollywood:

May the force be with you.

Lisa
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Gloria Walker Burger on September 20, 2013, 09:56:48 PM
I'll call next week with a credit card number. Wish I had the money to match my belief in what you're doing...

"You don't pay me? You're going to get your thumbs broken again."
Movie: The Hustler
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Ric Gillespie on September 21, 2013, 04:16:16 PM
Hats off to the ladies!  Three in a row!  Awesome!
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Tim Gard on September 22, 2013, 05:44:54 AM
Ric,

$100 via Paypal just paid. Happy landings.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Ric Gillespie on September 22, 2013, 11:49:57 AM
We're on a roll. Seventeen contributors so far totaling $3,205.  Only $11,795 to go.

Joining TIGHAR counts.  If you've been thinking of joining this would be a good time.  ;D

Who's next?
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Monty Fowler on September 22, 2013, 05:45:32 PM
When I donate, unless I'm feeling really specific, i.e. the New Zealand trip - I usually put "greatest need" on the "FOR" line of my checks. I trust Ric, and trust TIGHAR, to apply the money where it will do the most overall good. Why do I do it this way:
1) By sending TIGHAR a check, I know that they are getting 100 percent of my money.
2) By leaving where to spend it up to TIGHAR, I don't have to think about it. Doing to much of that can make my head hurt, and it's the (rapdily deminishing) weekend. Thinking takes too much effort.

LTM, who wants eveyone to give something,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 CER

P.S. - the check really is in the mail.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: George Lam on September 23, 2013, 03:24:41 AM
Not sure if becoming a member counts for donations, but I joined as an Associate.  Glad to do it!

Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: don hirth on September 23, 2013, 02:30:57 PM
Contributors: I too sent a check for an associate membership. (Finally felt guilty enough after 1 1/2
years of "lurking.")
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Ric Gillespie on September 23, 2013, 04:07:13 PM
Thanks Don.  Welcome aboard.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: jgf1944 on September 23, 2013, 08:52:18 PM
J Guthrie Ford, 200 USD (check forthcoming) for "as you see fit."
Lock 'n Load.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: James Stephen Magers on September 23, 2013, 11:09:18 PM
$50.00 Contribution made to the cause. Hope it helps!
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Ric Gillespie on September 24, 2013, 08:55:25 AM
It just keeps getting better.  Contributions now total $3745.  $11,255 to go.  Let's keep the momentum.  We can make it.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Ric Gillespie on September 25, 2013, 05:55:40 PM
BREAKING NEWS

Today the court handed down its ruling on TIGHAR's Motion to Dismiss the Mellon lawsuit.  The court dismissed the RICO (racketeering) and Negligence counts "with prejudice" (meaning that Mellon is barred from re-filing).  The court let stand the Fraud and Negligent Misrepresentation charges so the case is now whittled down to whether TIGHAR found the Earhart Electra in 2010.
When we've had a chance to study the 15-page ruling I'll comment further - but this is a good day for truth, justice and the American way.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Tim Collins on September 25, 2013, 06:12:21 PM
That's fantastic news. Congratulations Ric.

Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: George Lam on September 25, 2013, 06:29:38 PM
Great!  I lack much knowledge in legal processes (and the 15 page ruling), but I'm curious if the decision on whether or not the 2010 debris is legitimate comes down to reasonable doubt, like in a jury case.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Chuck Lynch on September 25, 2013, 07:01:05 PM
May I ask if the burden of proof is on the accuser, Tim Mellon?
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Glen Henderson on September 25, 2013, 07:20:45 PM
That is great news Ric!  Count me in for $50 towards the cause.  Let the "battle of the image experts" begin.  We are confident in our interpretations and stand by our conclusions.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: George Lam on September 25, 2013, 10:43:15 PM
May I ask if the burden of proof is on the accuser, Tim Mellon?

Absolutely.  The party making the claim always has the burden of proof in a court case like this.  In the entire U.S. legal system if I'm not mistaken.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Rob Seasock on September 26, 2013, 12:19:48 AM
Congratulations Ric and Tighar that is great news, continue fighting the good fight.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Bruce Thomas on September 26, 2013, 06:40:11 AM
The text of the Associated Press article (http://www.northjersey.com/news/national/225273851_Judge_tosses_some_claims_in_Earhart_wreckage_case.html) that appeared last night, about the judge's ruling, on NewJersey.com
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Monty Fowler on September 26, 2013, 09:52:14 AM
Great! Each side "won" something - feel free to declare victory!

Can we all go back to the more important matters at hand, namely finding Amelia and Fred? 76 years is far too long for them to have waited.

LTM, who keeps his eye on the prize,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 CER
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Greg Daspit on September 26, 2013, 12:14:59 PM
Good news on what was dismissed outright.
And one of the movies likley to be made can now include an antagonist and a courtroom scene. Goliath just has money to force the fight. TIGHAR has its sling filled with hard facts and will win.

Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Dave Potratz on September 26, 2013, 12:17:42 PM
A Good Day!  With confidence and best wishes for more to come!


LTM, who would much more want to know what happened to her daughter than to endure a frivolous lawsuit.

dp
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: John Wallace on September 26, 2013, 02:47:21 PM
Judge's order. Not small file but could not reduce it. Did not see this posted elsewhere.
(ADDENDUM: To avoid confusion, I removed my copy of the order since Mr. Mellon also ended up posting the judge's order below in this thread. Our copies were the same, Document 28 on the Pacer list for the case.)

fyi, Pacer, www.pacer.gov (http://www.pacer.gov), holds court case documents. You have to register and then copies are 10 cents per page. You do get basically $15 per quarter for free. Ostensibly, court orders are required to be available for free but I could not find the order in this case other than thru Pacer.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Gloria Walker Burger on September 26, 2013, 05:25:32 PM
Wish he'd thrown out the whole thing, but still this is good news. Glad to hear it!
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Ric Gillespie on September 26, 2013, 05:47:43 PM
Judge's order. Not small file but could not reduce it. Did not see this posted elsewhere.

It's important for everyone to understand what a 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss is and what it isn't.  This court order is a huge victory for TIGHAR in ways that may not be apparent to the non-lawyer reader. I'm going to put together a paper that includes all of the court documents related to this case along with brief plain-language explanations of their significance.  I'm thinking of calling it Lawsuits 101. 
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Ted G Campbell on September 26, 2013, 07:00:57 PM
Ric,
This is indeed great news.  How on earth is anyone going to be able to prove that TIGHAR in fact found the plane in 2010?
Crazy!  Just drop the suite!
Ted
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Tim Mellon on September 27, 2013, 04:18:53 AM
"The document speaks for itself."

Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: John Klier on September 27, 2013, 09:09:05 AM
"The document speaks for itself."

Yes, I think it's saying "put up or shut up".
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Jeff Buttke on September 27, 2013, 01:50:13 PM
Tim,

Thanks for posting the document, I enjoyed the read.

However, you never fail to supirse me.

Why would you want to post a document in which the inpartial judge using "the light most favorable to" your claims, describes them with "actual proof of those facts is improbable, and that a recovery is very remote and unlikely."

You are right "The document speaks for itself."
Cosnidering the caution the judge undoubtedly used while crafting it, it does not really bold well for you.


Just Sayin' :)
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: JNev on September 27, 2013, 04:53:03 PM
"The document speaks for itself."

Yes, I think it's saying "put up or shut up".

It might be as well for us to not 'try' this so much here, just MHO.  What may be obvious in someone's view today could easily morph into an unforeseen and costly struggle later - so why poke at litigants here?  I don't see the point, plus I hate the taste of well-worn wool hat... 

I'm truly sorry for the division between a man who did a great thing for us not so long ago and another who has been the core of building this site and the stuff we enjoy here and learn from.  But the fact is there still remain two counts for TIGHAR and Ric to defend themselves against, however unfounded some may think them.  This stuff doesn't come cheap, no matter how 'right' one believes his 'side' is so it remains serious business, I'm sure.

No rancor toward either Ric or Tim, or anyone here - I still hope for a better day and that whatever got us here might yet find a more reasonable remedy.

I well understand why this string was started and respect that - but as Ric said only yesterday, "The primary purpose of this forum, as I've said before, is to be a research tool for TIGHAR's testing of the Nikumaroro Hypothesis. Its secondary purpose is to educate." (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1334.msg28273.html#msg28273)

Scientific analysis does suggest a higher and calmer verbal road than many may have been traveling here of late, IMO - YMMV, of course - but I guess Ric had a point in that post. 

And I wonder - why are we even arguing?  Seems like this one's for the lawyers; Tim's done us a favor by placing the order where we can see it, and it does speak for itself clearly enough.  Maybe we ought to follow Ric's advice and get back to analysis...
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: richie conroy on September 27, 2013, 05:49:32 PM
It was me and JH that speculated there was aircraft debris in 2010 video no one else,

If it were not for Jeff and myself bringing it to attention of forum Tim would not have a case in reality,

Similar to getting lines in school, You write them out and some one else hands them in and gets the credit for it.......

According to american law that is  ;D however up until Tim donated 1 million in stocks i had not contributed my self and due to Tim donating i decided to my self He was my ace card/mascot so to speak

But i myself had to post image showing an anomaly in a sonar image in the area Tighar speculated there would be wreckage, So why Did I have to point it out to Ric Tim Jeff Wolfgang ETC ?

My point is we should not judge people,  But accept there opinion  ;)   
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Tim Mellon on September 27, 2013, 06:08:07 PM
Richie, I have always given you and Jeff V. Hayden credit for your early observations, although, honestly, it was John Balderston's analyses that really got me looking carefully at the 2010 (substandard) video. I was amazed when I later investigated the thread that first called the "squigglie" to our attention. I was even more amazed when the suggestion of its relevance was summarily dismissed and pooh-poohed.

Your discovery of the anomaly in shallower water is no less important, and I think not in any way mutually exclusive with whatever I have pointed out. They are, literally, only yards apart, and both in an area consistent with an aircraft sliding off the slope near the "alleged" Bevington Object.

In the end, as I have always maintained, it is Ric who deserves the ultimate credit for figuring out the final landing location of NR16020. All the "smoking guns" in the world won't change that, one way or another.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: richie conroy on September 27, 2013, 06:36:18 PM
Hi Tim

It Is all Jeff Hayden's Debris field not Johns, Richie's, Burt's, Ernie's  Ric's, However while i respect all including you TIM, it is Ric i respect most because he is the one who has been able through thick and thin to put Gardner island down as a possible ending for the Earhart flight, And if it weren't for Ric this discussion may only be seen on Dr Who or something or by a shrink haha

No seriously am in AWE of You and Ric, Due to the fact in spite of all the stuff in law cases, news etc you's are still man enough to hold a conversation not like were i live...

Anyway be Good all And you TIM!!!! only cos Ric has been able to demonstrate through all odd's, That all odd numbers make even numbers he did not know 2010 video contained Earhart debris   
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Tim Mellon on September 27, 2013, 06:44:33 PM
Anyway be Good all And you TIM!!!! only cos Ric has been able to demonstrate through all odd's, That all odd numbers make even numbers he did not know 2010 video contained Earhart debris

I offered to show Ric everything I could see. The offer has gone unanswered.

Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: richie conroy on September 27, 2013, 06:56:19 PM
Me Too Tim

But then, When you take into account the harsh bitter environment  of the web do you not think if people/science were not a bit more forgiving Ric would jump at the chance to be able to say yer that is a airplane debris field.....

Your a business man, Would you put all on the line to say 2010 Rov video show's Amelia Earharts Lockheed Electra ?

Ric/Pat don't even make anything from what they are trying to prove maybe if you were part of the team in 2010 we would have been able to get the best people onto case but we never and only for me an Jeff the 2010 video would just be another video
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Tim Mellon on September 27, 2013, 07:15:11 PM

Your a business man, Would you put all on the line to say 2010 Rov video show's Amelia Earharts Lockheed Electra ?


I have put a lot on the line already, Richie. And more every day.

Yes, I firmly believe the 2010 High Definition Video shows components of an Electra. And the only Electra capable of filling the bill is NR16020.

Please don't forget: these two people worked for companies that I have come to steward. Their case deserves resolution, and that is my goal. Ric has pointed the way, and it is my firm intention to prove that he has been correct.

Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: richie conroy on September 27, 2013, 07:53:05 PM
Tim

Can we all work to that conclusion by our selves though ? With out having to get a judge to do a scientists/photography diploma in order to get a result ?

Me more than anyone believes the 2010 video shows aircraft parts covered in encrusted mud from mountain slides in previous years, And was devastated at the end of 2012 expedition that Ric didn't even bother trying to find wire/rope from 2010 which is why i am so adamant that if Ric for one second thought any of the objects in 2010 were Electra parts he would be on it like a car bonnet..

Instead Am/We woe what could have been so in spite of continued parts of lawsuit ongoing we can work side by side to convince next donor's that even though WE believe there is wreckage in 2010/2012 there is still that smoking gun opportunity window still available..

Thanks Richie
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Jeff Victor Hayden on September 27, 2013, 08:43:29 PM
Richie/Tim

It's not my debris field, it's just a debris field.
It's not robust enough to be from a sea going vessel.
It looks to be from something that was constructed using methods/materials to save weight.
IMHO, aircraft, TBC.

Here's an interesting page from the Huffington post with some super pictures of AE, 38 in all and very good quality. This  article is about a year old so some of you may have seen it already...


"Amelia Earhart Plane And Flight 19 Wreckage Could Be Found By New NOAA Technology"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/28/flight-19-and-amelia-earh_n_2377908.html#slide=1930398 (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/28/flight-19-and-amelia-earh_n_2377908.html#slide=1930398)


Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: richie conroy on September 27, 2013, 09:23:08 PM
It looks to be from something that was constructed using methods/materials to save weight.
IMHO, aircraft, TBC.

Can u advance on this assumption please i.e what in the video provides this evidence ?
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Greg Daspit on September 27, 2013, 09:56:53 PM
A Debris Field was identified by Jeff Glickman in 2012 video taken at 200'
The wire rope video from 2010 has shapes claimed to be "debris" . I think it is confusing to call the shapes some say may be something a "debris field". IMHO.
I respect others right to have a different opinion
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Jeff Victor Hayden on September 27, 2013, 10:55:11 PM
It looks to be from something that was constructed using methods/materials to save weight.
IMHO, aircraft, TBC.

Can u advance on this assumption please i.e what in the video provides this evidence ?

Not really Richie as there is to be no more postings regarding the 2010 footage. The thesis I posted earlier on the Sikorsky S-38 aircraft after 60 years+ submerged in seawater and its subsequent recovery and restoration gives you some idea of what to look out for. It's not my thesis by the way  :-\ CORROSION OF ALUMINUM ALLOY 2024 BELONGING TO THE
1930s IN SEAWATER ENVIRONMENT, A Thesis by KEDAR GUJARATHI

"Wreckage of ‘Carnauba’, a 1930s vintage Sikorsky S-38 aircraft, a beloved icon
of SC Johnson's early history, was found on July 5, 2000, in seawater off of an
Indonesian island of West Irian Jaya"

I just posted it to show what to expect and, it is very thorough but hard work to read and absorb it all, very useful material though.
The photographs of parts of the wreckage are really excellent, take a look.

http://repository.tamu.edu/bitstream/handle/1969.1/ETD-TAMU-3002/GUJARATHI-THESIS.pdf (http://repository.tamu.edu/bitstream/handle/1969.1/ETD-TAMU-3002/GUJARATHI-THESIS.pdf)

(http://)

In the 2012 video footage of the wreckage from the Norwich City it was clearly seen that ship wreckage was still recognisable as such even after 80 odd years underwater, no mistaking that lump of steel and iron for anything else but ship wreckage. Where as the wreckage of the 1930's Sikorsky photographed in the thesis...well, judge for yourself but, it's hard to believe that it is actually parts from the 1930's Sikorsky S-38. So, if the smoking gun proof needed is a recognisable part with serial numbers and the like then images, photos and videos aren't going to provide it, they can only provide clues as to where to look.
IMHO of course
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Jeff Victor Hayden on September 27, 2013, 11:03:14 PM
They are all opinions I'm afraid Greg, nothing has been proven in any video or image. Until something is actually brought to the surface that's the way it will stay.  :'(
Again, IMHO.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Ric Gillespie on September 28, 2013, 10:17:04 AM
I offered to show Ric everything I could see. The offer has gone unanswered.

Care to tell the folks the rest of your offer?

Ric
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Brad Mackey on September 29, 2013, 12:02:21 AM
Since this seems to be such an open and free discussion about what has taken place then it's only fair that we know what other "offers" are on the table Mr. Mellon.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Tim Mellon on September 29, 2013, 12:50:51 AM
Mr. Mackey, there are no offers on the table at this time.

Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Glenn McInnes on September 29, 2013, 03:45:11 AM
My guess- Mr Mellon wants exclusive rights to conduct his own search,but needs TIGHAR's approval to do so as they have the permission from that Countries Government to do so.


But maybe I am "all wet".



Glenn
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Brad Mackey on September 29, 2013, 10:41:01 AM
Chris,  yes, you are correct sir.  I take people at face value and if Mr. Mellon says that there are no offers on the table then I believe him.  I believe offers have been de-tabled.  According to Mr. Gillespie there was an offer.  Mr. Mellon, do you care to let us know what this offer was?  If Ric Gillespie is lying then will you say as much?   
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Scott C. Mitchell on September 29, 2013, 02:56:32 PM
Let's not poke the bears.

Scott Mitchell
TIGHAR #3292
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Brad Mackey on September 29, 2013, 10:38:46 PM
Let's not poke the bears.

Scott Mitchell
TIGHAR #3292

I don't like beating around the bush.

My guess- Mr Mellon wants exclusive rights to conduct his own search,but needs TIGHAR's approval to do so as they have the permission from that Countries Government to do so.


But maybe I am "all wet".



Glenn

Neither am I into conjecture.  That's why I never joined the discussion about all the coral shapes. It all looked and still looks like coral to me.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Chris Austin on September 30, 2013, 08:58:21 AM
"Diddle-ding-dong-ding-dong-ding-dong-ding."

Name that tune.   
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Chuck Lynch on September 30, 2013, 09:42:12 AM
Best. Banjos. Ever. :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrlqQ1_vZVE
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Don Dollinger on September 30, 2013, 11:43:42 AM
My guess- Mr Mellon wants exclusive rights to conduct his own search,but needs TIGHAR's approval to do so as they have the permission from that Countries Government to do so.

Ric can correct me if I am wrong.  TIGHAR does not have the authority to give anyone approval to do anything at Niku.  Kiribati is the only one with that authority. 

LTM,

Don   
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on September 30, 2013, 11:55:13 AM
TIGHAR does not have the authority to give anyone approval to do anything at Niku.  Kiribati is the only one with that authority. 

I am not privy to the details of TIGHAR's relationship with Kiribati.

If TIGHAR has exclusive rights for exploring Niku for the remains of our heroes, than TIGHAR might be able to cede that right to another or, at least, give up that right, making room for someone else to go exploring.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Ric Gillespie on September 30, 2013, 12:17:44 PM
Ric can correct me if I am wrong.  TIGHAR does not have the authority to give anyone approval to do anything at Niku.  Kiribati is the only one with that authority. 

Here's how it works.  Anyone who wants to do anything Earhart-related within the national borders of Kiribati must come to TIGHAR first and tell us what they want to do and how they plan to do it.  We then make our recommendation to Kiribati as to whether the request should be approved, modified or denied - but the final decision is, of course, up to Kiribati.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Tim Collins on September 30, 2013, 12:22:23 PM
TIGHAR does not have the authority to give anyone approval to do anything at Niku.  Kiribati is the only one with that authority. 

I am not privy to the details of TIGHAR's relationship with Kiribati.

If TIGHAR has exclusive rights for exploring Niku for the remains of our heroes, than TIGHAR might be able to cede that right to another or, at least, give up that right, making room for someone else to go exploring.

I suspect that if and when TIGHAR stops searching, that will be the end of that. TIGHAR has a well established and, I can imagine, a mutually respected relationship with Kiribati in this matter and I just don't see it being recreated with another entity (unless a governmental entity perhaps?). Either way, once TIGHAR is out of the picture, by circumstance or design, it's up to the Kiribati, and I can't imagine a solution to AE's disappearance is very high on their list of priorities.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: don hirth on September 30, 2013, 02:56:22 PM
Hello, Jeff and other members.
I like the sound of your speculation regarding one (or more) working partners uniting with
TIGHAR to prove the Niku hypothesis on the NEXT VENTURE! I believe it was already 'tough going'
financially prior to the nonsense suit by Mr. Mellon. Surely, one or more entities can be joined
with TIGHAR to make this happen. (I'm getting pretty old.)
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Ted G Campbell on September 30, 2013, 08:05:36 PM
Yep, Jeff you are a wordsmith!
Ted Campbell
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Joe Cerniglia on October 01, 2013, 04:51:59 AM

Then, we'd "know".  It's either there - or it isn't.  If not, new hypothesis, move on.


Not finding the airplane or definitive pieces of it would not, in the opinion of some, including Dr. King, invalidate the Nikumaroro Hypothesis.  See Tom King's article (http://ameliaearhartarchaeology.blogspot.com/2010/12/why-i-dont-think-well-find-airplane-and.html) for reasons why.

Joe Cerniglia ~ TIGHAR #3078ECR   
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Nancy Marilyn Gould on October 01, 2013, 07:56:31 AM
While there are many differences in this lawsuit vs. the lawsuit against TIGHAR, I thought this might cheer up TIGHAR members if only because the billionaire filing the lawsuit saw the case dismissed and was ordered to pay the organization's legal expenses:
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/09/sheldon-adelson-defamation-lawsuit-97564.html

Quote of note:
“We’re obviously very, very, very pleased. This is an instance where David stood up to Goliath...

Stanley said the ruling was a win not just for the NJDC, but for other organizations that backed down to Adelson over fear of expensive lawsuits.

“This is a great instance where money doesn’t win,” Stanley said.

Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Ric Gillespie on October 01, 2013, 09:20:23 AM
Tom King's view may well be the thinking man's way to freedom in all this; for me (not always a thinking man...) it is compelling, but I have a sense of remaining doubt.  ...
So with all due respect to the hard work and rational intelligent view of the aggregate story ferreted out by Tom King, Ric and others with him - for me it remains that for a 'victory', someone still needs to produce 'airplane stuff' that is definitively of Earhart's or Noonan's belongings or ship.

Tom King and I have fought about this (and other aspects of the Earhart Project) for years. Sometimes our disagreements get pretty heated but, so far, neither of us has sued to try to force the other to accept an opinion.  I think Jeff's description is a fair assessment of the realities involved in widespread public acceptance of the Nikumaroro Hypothesis as the definitive solution to the Earhart Riddle.  Tom correctly argues that historical mysteries are seldom solved with "smoking guns" and any "proof" that relied exclusively on a single but apparently compelling piece of evidence would be far weaker than one that was supported by preponderance of circumstantial evidence from disparate avenues of investigation.  But Jeff is also correct in pointing out that what convinces scholars is not necessarily what convinces the general public.  For proof of that one need only take note of the thoroughly debunked baloney that much of the public still believes and the abundance of solid scientific fact that many reject.  Anyone seeking widespread acceptance of a solution to the Earhart mystery must accept that it is going to take something simple - something I dubbed years ago as "the Any Idiot Artifact."

I guess most of us have our pet beliefs, biases and articles.  What stands out the most strongly for me (YMMV, of course) are two artifiacts that could be of Electra origins and that are in-hand:

1) Dural 'skin' bearing pre-war stamped markings and evidence of early-style brazier-head rivets (http://tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/1992Vol_8/2_2_V-1.pdf) - this is something I have chased a bit myself as intriguing.  I have wondered whether it might have been a cover over the aft-RH larger window in the Electra's lavatory, which was covered over in Miami  (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,717.msg14267.html#msg14267) before departure for the second attempt.  It is light material (.032") and bears indications of light-weight stiffeners being attached with #3 rivets in an 'expedited' manner (hand patterned / hand drilled, etc.) and thereby appears to have been no more than a light cover riveted over a fairly large aperture.  The mystery of how that window was covered is intriguing - especially given that such a piece of metal as this artifact would turn up where Earhart was being searched for.

2) A shard of plexiglass of the right contour and thickness to match the cabin windows  (http://tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/1996Vol_12/40552.pdf?wwparam=1380630369) of the Electra.  Plexiglass does not appreciably change dimensions and shape with time after the initial heat-forming, and this piece does bear some specific qualities that are consistent with Electra windows part number 40552 - interesting.

There are others - the 'dado' panel  (http://tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/1995Vol_11/dado.pdf) among them.  It is consistent with such panels long installed in the cabins of airliners and exectutive transports.  Earhart's airplane was austere, but these are still useful sound-damping and FOD prevention closure items at the floor level.

These are interesting artifacts and they deserve further discussion, but not here.  When I get a minute I'll start a new topic called "Smoking guns in our pocket?"
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Ric Gillespie on October 01, 2013, 07:34:00 PM
I still favor the lavatory over-sized window cover as a possibility for reasons I have stated.

But - I'm wandering off string - just wanted to alert you and others to that string.

Yes, you're wandering off string and that's not where it fits.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Ted G Campbell on October 01, 2013, 08:42:44 PM
If I understand the status of the current Tim Mellon vs. TIGHAR/Ric Gillespie law suite there are two remaining issues that need to be litigated:
   Fraud
   and
   Negligence Misrepresentation

I am not an attorney but there seems to be something missing in the defense's i.e. TIGHAR/Ric's argument in getting this case completely dismissed.

If the charges of " Fraud and Negligence ..." are applicable then one would have to assume that Niku VII did not happen as a stand alone venture but did take into account consideration of earlier endeavors in the search for AE plane.

Let's take the "Fraud" charge first:

The very fact that earlier expeditions (going back to the original visit to Niku - 1980?) and the finding of circumstantial evidence of AE's presents on the island kept adding to the data that resulted in the "Niku hypostasis".  This continued artifact recovery would suggest that "something" happened on Niku that involved AE.

The sharing of the above data in an open forum discussion of the circumstantial discoveries leading to numerous - including Niku VII - expeditions to the island seems to allay any reasonable suspicion of a "fraud" on the part of TIGHAR/Ric.  That is, if it wasn't for the knowledge gained and publicly shared from the previous expeditions, future expeditions would not have been planned, financed and executed.  Where is the "fraud" in suggesting that since we found a shoe sole we go back and see if we can find a heal?

One expedition's findings/speculation builds to justify the next expedition.  Was Niku VI any different leading to Niku VII no!  The later was predicated on the earlier - something such as Nessi II-  suggested we might be in the right area.  Where does "fraud" come into play in this discussion to explore further?

Let's next take on  "Negligence Misrepresentation"

It seems that if  "Negligence ..." was at play here one would have to assume that TIGHAR/Ric had abandon its historic demonstrated exploration methodology - expand its explorations based upon what was found earlier and gone off into an unprecedented direction of exploration -e.g. shoot the dice, I don't think so.

In the most recent exploration of the Niky VII project the side scan "anomaly" only goes to prove the exploratory criteria implemented by TIGHA/Ric is a reasonable research methodology.  Where is the "negligence" in this approach?

In closing I find the charges of "Fraud and Negligence Misrepresentation" totally at odds with TIGHAR/Ric's methodology concerning the search of AE and FN's final hours on this earth.

Ted Campbell
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Ric Gillespie on October 01, 2013, 08:58:49 PM
All of the legal documents associated with this case are now on the TIGHAR website at Mellon Lawsuit Documents (http://tighar.org/MellonDocuments.html).  They are self-explanatory.  I would suggest that you pay special attention to Judge Skavdahl's ruling on the Motion to Dismiss.  He goes to some trouble to explain exactly why he ruled the way he did on each of the counts.  His writing style is excellent and not overly legalistic.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Randy Conrad on October 02, 2013, 12:58:55 AM
Ric....

  First of all I wanted to congratulate you on part of the dismissal of this case. Upon reviewing the documentation handed down by the court, I found it rather disturbing that Mr. Mellon merely was attacking you per say in this matter, and not TIGHAR. Afterall, there are many members including myself, who were not on this trip, but are a part of this organization and this team. We are all in this together! However, if the court and Mellon wants to drag TIGHAR through the coals, then legally they should have asked us all to appear in court. Secondly, I found it rather wierd that Amelia's full legal name was never used when Mellon submitted to the court in this action. What happened there. And finally two things...If you're gonna play the gambling table and put your money down...two things are bound to happen...You're either gonna win or you're gonna lose. Its no different in any aspect of life. I admired Mellon for wanting to give this money over for research, but he took a big big chance. But, again he handed over the money willingly. I don't believe Ric has forced any of us to shove our life savings over. Finally, I'm really baffled that this case went as far as it did. Afterall, this expedition that Mellon supposedly was a part of was in international waters. Not in Casper, Wyoming. Food for thought!!!!
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: manjeet aujla on October 02, 2013, 09:11:45 AM

It's prolly true that even  though the Niku hypothesis is the strongest one out there, it will still require an 'idiot artifact' to clinch it. But this 'idiot artifact requirement' actually helps Tighar in the lawsuit. Any reasonable judge would have a very, very difficult time saying, yeah that is an Electra wing, AE was here, unless he is shown an 'idiot artifact' in the form of a very compelling coral shape. Even then there would always be the risk to his reputation that next year somebody mounts an expedition, retrieves the artifact, and it is .... a piece of coral.

Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Monty Fowler on October 02, 2013, 10:14:32 AM
John Masterson is da man. In addition to being an exceptionally good host.

And that's all I've got to say about that.

LTM, who tries to pick the winners,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 CER
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Irvine John Donald on October 02, 2013, 10:15:26 AM
I have said it before and will say it again.  Just differently. The judge's decision in this case, either guilty or not guilty, is a win win for TIGHAR.

If he says "not guilty" then TIGHAR wins.  If he says "guilty" then TIGHAR also wins. 

How?  Any judge that can look at any collected evidence and say "Guilty because you did find Amelia" will create so much news media attention and public interest that the subsequent fund raising would pay off the fine.

But lets face it.  Normally the two parties in a case would call expert witnesses in the subject field to testify for their clients.  Wouldn't you say that TIGHAR is the expert in this field?  If TIGHAR cannot claim that Amelia has been found then how can a judge take that position.  Sure Mr. Mellon will say he has experts in video analysis but the stuff in the video is coral.  If there is anything there its encrusted with coral so as to be NOT 100% identifiable. 

No judge is going to say Amelia was found.  Even if a judge did it then still has to be proven that TIGHAR knew this at the time Mr. Mellon was making his decision. 

I believe that the worst that can happen here is that court costs don't get covered for TIGHAR.

All in my humble opinion.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Jeff Buttke on October 02, 2013, 10:34:30 AM

One question I have about this all is whether or not Mellon's court filings themselves can be used as evidence?

The mutually exclusive nature of his claims would appear to show that he neither believes nor can prove either theory.

For example If he believes or can prove TIGHAR withheld the finding of the aircraft he cannot be in good faith when he further claims TIGHAR was unable to locate the aircraft due to negligence. --

Simple fact is if he believes or can prove one of the theories the other theory is ruled out.  By alleging both he has to be making at least one  claim he knows not to be true. (I think we all agree it is probably both claims)

Whether due to lack of logic or an attempt at a "second bite of the apple" , I know it would have an affect on me if I were judge or jury.

So does anyone know if the court fillings can be used as evidence ?
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Harry Howe, Jr. on October 02, 2013, 10:56:05 PM
I believe it was a character in one of the Bards plays who said it best  "First, Kill all the lawyers."
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Ric Gillespie on October 03, 2013, 08:35:39 PM

The mutually exclusive nature of his claims would appear to show that he neither believes nor can prove either theory.

For example If he believes or can prove TIGHAR withheld the finding of the aircraft he cannot be in good faith when he further claims TIGHAR was unable to locate the aircraft due to negligence. --

Simple fact is if he believes or can prove one of the theories the other theory is ruled out.  By alleging both he has to be making at least one  claim he knows not to be true. (I think we all agree it is probably both claims)

If you will read Judge Skavdahl's ruling I think you'll find that he has addressed the very issue you raise.  The charge of negligence has been dismissed with prejudice.  Mellon must prove "fraud" and "negligent misinformation".  The legal meanings of those terms are explained in the ruling.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Monty Fowler on October 05, 2013, 06:43:52 AM
So what happens next? I'm not up on my federal trial procedures - which won't matter for awhile anyway because the federal courts are going to run out of money to operate next week.

Does the other side appeal the ruling favorable to TIGHAR, or do things just proceed on the remaining allegations. Either way, with this federal shutdown, it's gonna be awhile.  :(

LTM, who doesn't like tennis matches,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 CER
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Jeff Palshook on October 05, 2013, 07:43:02 AM
Ric,

On September 19 you first posted the news that TIGHAR needs to raise $15,000 in the next 30 days to meet daily operating expenses and legal expenses associated with Tim Mellon's lawsuit.  The 30 day deadline is now only two weeks away.  You haven't given an update in a while on the fundraising efforts to meet that $15K target.  How is the fundraising currently going?  What is the current total?  Are "bad things", as you put it, still possible or probable come October 19 if the $15K is not raised by then?

Thanks,

Jeff P.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Ric Gillespie on October 05, 2013, 08:07:09 AM
On September 19 you first posted the news that TIGHAR needs to raise $15,000 in the next 30 days to meet daily operating expenses and legal expenses associated with Tim Mellon's lawsuit.  The 30 day deadline is now only two weeks away.  You haven't given an update in a while on the fundraising efforts to meet that $15K target.  How is the fundraising currently going?  What is the current total?  Are "bad things", as you put it, still possible or probable come October 19 if the $15K is not raised by then?

Sorry.  I've been finalizing plans for Niku VIII.
Forum and TIGHAR member response to our funding appeal has been very gratifying.  We're presently within about $2,000 of meeting the $15,000 goal by October 19. We're gonna be fine, but of course the bills don't stop coming and the fund raising must continue.  I'm sure everybody would rather help support the next expedition than defend a senseless lawsuit.  There's still work that must be done to bury the remains of the lawsuit but I'm really excited about the plan we've put together for Niku VIII.  I'll have that ready to show everyone soon.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: George Lam on October 05, 2013, 03:58:24 PM
Speaking of which, anyone who wants to help fund the next voyage can post to this thread I created (link below).  Not as many hits as I hoped within the last week but can't rush things.

Niku 2014 fund thread here (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1354.0.html)
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Jeff Lange on October 06, 2013, 07:00:31 AM
Just dropped a check in the mail Friday for the defense fund Ric. Keep up the good work!
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Ric Gillespie on October 06, 2013, 11:23:25 AM
Just dropped a check in the mail Friday for the defense fund Ric. Keep up the good work!

Thank you Jeff.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Ted G Campbell on October 06, 2013, 08:48:47 PM
Ric,
Where do we stand re the cost of defence?
Ted
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Ric Gillespie on October 06, 2013, 09:16:22 PM
Where do we stand re the cost of defence?

So far the defense of this case has cost $19,000 - a fraction of what it would be had not much of it been done pro bono - and a bargain for the excellent results so far,  but the bills must still be paid.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Monty Fowler on October 11, 2013, 06:13:43 PM
Well ... I know TIGHAR needs the money now. I plan to do what my financial resources can support. This is a fight we are well on the way to willing.

LTM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 CER
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Tim Mellon on October 11, 2013, 06:27:13 PM
This is a fight we are well on the way to willing.

LTM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 CER

Willing doesn't hack it, Monty. It's winning that counts.

Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Nancy Marilyn Gould on October 11, 2013, 07:10:35 PM
One thing I'm confused about is: Doesn't an organization like Tighar have insurance?  It seems to me that, in this day and age, any organization is in danger of being sued, so wouldn't insurance be a necessity?  I, myself, carry umbrella insurance.  Of course, I don't know if that insurance would cover the cost of the legal fees.  It almost sounds like you have to be rich to be able to defend yourself in this great country of ours.  Say it ain't true!
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: richie conroy on October 11, 2013, 07:22:37 PM
Willing to fight your lawsuit too the end is what will win

However no one win's in this case do they, It's just lessons learned an no doubt Tighar will continue to operate as they did before you contributed  and after your refund claim was halted.

What is the difference between donating and contributing in america
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Ric Gillespie on October 11, 2013, 08:25:54 PM
What is the difference between donating and contributing in america

There is no difference.  The two words mean essentially the same thing.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Greg Daspit on October 11, 2013, 08:48:35 PM
Willing to fight your lawsuit too the end is what will win

However no one win's in this case do they, It's just lessons learned an no doubt Tighar will continue to operate as they did before you contributed  and after your refund claim was halted.

What is the difference between donating and contributing in america
The lawsuit asks for "Treble Damages (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treble_damages)".  Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Tim asking for 3 times more than a "refund"?
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Ric Gillespie on October 11, 2013, 09:30:02 PM
The lawsuit asks for "Treble Damages (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treble_damages)".  Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Tim asking for 3 times more than a "refund"?

Yes, he tried that but treble damages are only possible under RICO (racketeering) and that part of the lawsuit has already been thrown out.  All of the Mellon lawsuit legal documents (http://tighar.org/MellonDocuments.html) are on the TIGHAR website.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Monty Fowler on October 17, 2013, 05:56:21 PM
It almost sounds like you have to be rich to be able to defend yourself in this great country of ours.  Say it ain't true!

Unfortunately that is often the case. I saw a lot of that when I covered the criminal courts in another life. Those criminals who had the best defense that money could buy frequently got off with a slap on the wrist; those who depended on the state to defend them, well ... usually got the full measure of "justice" unless the prosecutor felt like plea-bargaining a deal with the defendant.

Civil trials, as is the issue here, are very much a mixed bag, but money does have a noticeable impact in what issues are pursued, and to what degree. Truth is the ultimate defense, and that is TIGHAR's path, but unfortunately that is not always the cheapest path.

Which is why I do what I can, when I can financially, for TIGHAR.

LTM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 CER
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Tim Collins on November 07, 2013, 06:46:08 AM
Ric -

So where do things stand - what's the time frame going forward?

With plans underway for the next trip to Niku, I was just curious how things lined up calendar wise (among other aspects as well).
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Ric Gillespie on November 07, 2013, 07:57:24 AM
So where do things stand - what's the time frame going forward?

Mellon's attorneys recently asked the court to reconsider dismissing the RICO (racketeering) count "with prejudice" (meaning that accusation cannot be re-filed).  They argue that, although they have no evidence of racketeering now, if evidence turns up during discovery they should be able to re-awaken that part of the lawsuit.  We have replied pointing out that nothing has changed since the judge made his ruling so there is no reason for him to alter his order.  We await the court's decision.

The discovery process has begun.  Mellon's attorneys have submitted initial Interrogatories (that's lawyer-speak for Questions. Never use 2 syllables when you can use 6) - for example, "Name any and all individuals that TIGHAR requested to review underwater footage from the 2010 expedition."; Requests for Document Production - for example, "Please produce any and all writings evidencing analysis of the underwater footage or photographs from the 2010 Niku VI expedition.; and Requests for Admissions - for example, "Please admit that Defendants represented to Mr. Mellon that the Earhart wreckage had not been found."  I must provide all this by December 1. 
We will be submitting our own discovery requests shortly.

Each side will have to disclose whatever experts they plan to call on to support their case.  Mellon has to disclose the names and qualifications of his experts by February 28, 2014.  We have to disclose the names and qualifications of our experts by March 28, 2014.
Discovery cutoff for both sides is April 30, 2014
A Dispositive Motion Hearing is set for July 17, 2014
A Final Pretrial Conference is scheduled for August 7, 2014
The trial, if there is one, is scheduled for six days beginning August 25, 2014

To date, we have incurred $22,000 in legal costs of which $17,000 has been paid.  Our costs would be at least double that were it not for the pro bono work by TIGHAR attorney, board member, and expedition veteran Bill Carter.  Please donate to the Legal Defense Fund (https://www.paypal.com/us/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_flow&SESSION=TyM5bvk61kqNMiNWU6j8RbWkb9g4hUdeXQJj579e4dzKysTNcHA87Sx4Va8&dispatch=5885d80a13c0db1f8e263663d3faee8def8934b92a630e40b7fef61ab7e9fe63). We're getting a real bargain so the dollars you donate are basically doubled.

I'll post more legal documents on the TIGHAR website after I've checked to make sure it's okay.

Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Greg Daspit on November 07, 2013, 08:57:37 AM
So where do things stand - what's the time frame going forward?
A Dispositive Motion Hearing is set for July 17, 2014
A Final Pretrial Conference is scheduled for August 7, 2014
The trial, if there is one, is scheduled for six days beginning August 25, 2014

The possible trial conflicts with the Niku XIII mid-August to mid-September 2014 schedule. What happens to Niku VIII if there is a trial? How does all of this disturb plans?
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Ric Gillespie on November 07, 2013, 09:15:35 AM
The possible trial conflicts with the Niku XIII mid-August to mid-September 2014 schedule. What happens to Niku VIII if there is a trial? How does all of this disturb plans?

We'll just schedule the expedition departure for after the trial date.  Mid-September to mid-October is still within our weather window and it gives us a little more time to raise money.

And BTW, it's Niku VIII.  Niku XIII is scheduled for 2024. :o
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Mark Appel on November 07, 2013, 11:05:13 AM

"The discovery process has begun...
Discovery cutoff for both sides is April 30, 2014
A Dispositive Motion Hearing is set for July 17, 2014
A Final Pretrial Conference is scheduled for August 7, 2014
The trial, if there is one, is scheduled for six days beginning August 25, 2014..."

This is such a horrific, mind-numbing, waste of time and resources. Obviously necessary but profoundly regrettable. To quote my grandfather... "What the hell is the matter with people?"

Best of luck to you Ric (and all TIGHAR members).
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Monty Fowler on November 07, 2013, 11:20:32 AM

This is such a horrific, mind-numbing, waste of time and resources.

Unfortunately, this is what American civil law has degenerated into - a brutal slugging match in which the weapons of choice are piles of paper, endlessly repetitive requests and only one clear goal - outlast the other guy before he can bury you in a mound of paper. It has little to do with what is right or fair, and almost nothing to do with justice. I have had the great misfortune to see this process in action, up close and personal. Someday the nightmares may fade away to a tolerable level  ;D

LTM, who knows when he "can't handle the truth,"
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 CER
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: JNev on November 10, 2013, 12:13:15 PM
The possible trial conflicts with the Niku XIII mid-August to mid-September 2014 schedule. What happens to Niku VIII if there is a trial? How does all of this disturb plans?

We'll just schedule the expedition departure for after the trial date.  Mid-September to mid-October is still within our weather window and it gives us a little more time to raise money.

And BTW, it's Niku VIII.  Niku XIII is scheduled for 2024. :o

Good gosh Ric...  :P
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Harry Howe, Jr. on November 10, 2013, 01:21:03 PM
 :D'Kill the Lawyers,' A Line Misinterpreted
Published: June 17, 1990

    Sign In to E-Mail
    Print

In reference to the review of ''Guilty Conscience,'' (May 20) Leah D. Frank is inaccurate when she states that when Shakespeare had one of his characters state ''Let's kill all the lawyers,'' it was the corrupt, unethical lawyers he was referring to. Shakespeare's exact line ''The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers,'' was stated by Dick the Butcher in ''Henry VI,'' Part II, act IV, Scene II, Line 73. Dick the Butcher was a follower of the rebel Jack Cade, who thought that if he disturbed law and order, he could become king. Shakespeare meant it as a compliment to attorneys and judges who instill justice in society.

Regardless of his intent, Shakespeare was right.   First, let;s kill all the Lawyers.  That would be a good start!
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Ric Gillespie on November 10, 2013, 04:22:16 PM
IMO it's not the lawyers who are at fault.  They're just the craftsmen hired to do the work.  A good lawyer can argue either side of a question.  Law school gives then training, not education.  18th-century Irish politician and philosopher Edmund Burke supposedly said, "The study of law sharpens the mind by narrowing it."  Tim Mellon's lawyers are not his friends, they are his employees. They didn't put him up to this.  They just bill him for the hours.

Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: richie conroy on November 10, 2013, 06:58:54 PM
2010 review - Jeff Glickman

2012 review - Jeff Glickman

2014 review - ?

Richie 
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Ric Gillespie on November 10, 2013, 07:18:40 PM
2010 review - Jeff Glickman

2012 review - Jeff Glickman

2014 review - ?

If a 2014 review is needed we'll use the best there is - Jeff Glickman.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: richie conroy on November 10, 2013, 07:45:30 PM
Yup doubt we will need it, But then there is 2 sides to a coin, 2 sides to a question.

If the bird is there "Did she land their" or "float their",  ;D

Roll on 2014   
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Ric Gillespie on November 10, 2013, 08:09:17 PM
If the bird is there "Did she land their" or "float their",  ;D

You forgot, "or did the Japanese plant it there?"   Or better yet "Did TIGHAR find it somewhere else and plant it there."  (Hell, we've already been accused of finding it and keeping it secret.)  If we find it you can bet there will be no shortage of dumb explanations and accusations.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: richie conroy on November 10, 2013, 11:06:32 PM
Haha Ric

Thats the problem with todays technology everyone has an opinion, hypothesis, theroy.  which i welcome, However if Tighar's work was viewable in 1937 I believe Tighar and Amelia Earhart would be mentioned in same sentence\paragragh...

As for lawsuit just another hurdle to over come but Tighar will triumph
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: JNev on November 11, 2013, 07:19:26 AM

This is such a horrific, mind-numbing, waste of time and resources.

Unfortunately, this is what American civil law has degenerated into - a brutal slugging match in which the weapons of choice are piles of paper, endlessly repetitive requests and only one clear goal - outlast the other guy before he can bury you in a mound of paper. It has little to do with what is right or fair, and almost nothing to do with justice. I have had the great misfortune to see this process in action, up close and personal. Someday the nightmares may fade away to a tolerable level  ;D

LTM, who knows when he "can't handle the truth,"
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 CER

You are partly right, Monty.

As to the first of your points, in terms of burden, you are wrong - it has been that way ever snce our nation established the justice system we know under the Constitution: a citizen has the right to his day in court, and has always had the right to privvy and savvy counsel (which is also a way of acknowledging one who knows his way around an outhouse).  That has always provided the open door to go hammer and tong against any neighbor, subject to end-verdict by the court - whether a bench matter of law, or opinion and judgment of facts by that both lofty and low thing known as a jury - whether 'of peers' or not I'll leave to others.

As to the lofty and oft low jury -

It is what it is, a citizen's fate - life, limb or fortune, in the hands of a most unpredictable beast, often full of not-so evident biases and handicaps when it comes to objectivity or critical review of the presentation.  Oh so malleable, the human race - and oh so made up of foible humans is our free society...

As to the paper -

To your point, true - we have gained the depths of being able to 'paper' a less financially able adversary 'to death' - all it takes is willing payment of fees and generation of seemingly endless inquiry and imposition of laborious discovery, all backed by firms with eager and hungry young eagles who wish to consume the flesh of those put before them by their betters.  But rejoice - as horrendous as it all can be, it has replaced the grand-standing oratories of the past which so often led to 'gentilmanly affront and response', i.e. fisticuffs to duels, honor being honored and all that.  I'll take the chance of fighting paper over a random pistol ball to the thigh as judgment, so many having bled out on the 'field of honor' - perhaps very much in the 'right' - but finally 'dead right'.

As to the system itself -

Imperfect, made of man - and by far the envy of the world.  Few nations approach our use of open court and trial by jury, sans rex.  It is not totally pure - it certainly is not free, and it does not make one immune to hap-hazard attack - but it beats giving a king the power to hang a subject out of annoyance with the whole matter, and perhaps giving over a 'win' to a favored lord, etc.

So I may be bewildered, but hardly stand mind-blown; despite the hazards and distractions - even expenses (and of course it is not my ass on the line in this one), I rejoice at the liberty despite the dangers.

Just sayin...

Now, back to sleep with me... zzzzzzzz...........
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: JNev on November 11, 2013, 07:36:27 AM
:D'Kill the Lawyers,' A Line Misinterpreted
Published: June 17, 1990

    Sign In to E-Mail
    Print

In reference to the review of ''Guilty Conscience,'' (May 20) Leah D. Frank is inaccurate when she states that when Shakespeare had one of his characters state ''Let's kill all the lawyers,'' it was the corrupt, unethical lawyers he was referring to. Shakespeare's exact line ''The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers,'' was stated by Dick the Butcher in ''Henry VI,'' Part II, act IV, Scene II, Line 73. Dick the Butcher was a follower of the rebel Jack Cade, who thought that if he disturbed law and order, he could become king. Shakespeare meant it as a compliment to attorneys and judges who instill justice in society.

Regardless of his intent, Shakespeare was right.   First, let;s kill all the Lawyers.  That would be a good start!

Anarchy?  Once you've hanged them, who next, moi? :o  Ah, not if I get to you first...  8)  Ah, let us pray that a king then does not emerge and take it for himself as to whom among us is next, and next...

See how that works?  Funny to think of, yes; well placed?  Consider -

IMO it's not the lawyers who are at fault.  They're just the craftsmen hired to do the work.  A good lawyer can argue either side of a question.  Law school gives then training, not education.  18th-century Irish politician and philosopher Edmund Burke supposedly said, "The study of law sharpens the mind by narrowing it."  Tim Mellon's lawyers are not his friends, they are his employees. They didn't put him up to this.  They just bill him for the hours.

I will give Ric a lot of credit for that - a citizen under fire who sees and values the system for what it is despite the struggle he's in.

As to 'training' vs 'education' and Burke -

There can be no doubt that legal 'training' is very much that - it is a field of logic / counter-logic and maneuver, all within the bounds of a very rigorous framework of procedure and precedent; none of that comes to mind without great training and honing of native skills of being light on foot.

But it can also be one of the finest liberal educations available, if one pursues it with that depth in mind.  It definitely changes one's way of thinkiing - critical thought is honed by the study of many examples of real historic complaints and outcomes and human and societal reactions.

I guess it just depends on one's focus as a student and what one demands to make of the experience, but all of law is not just maneuver.  Synthesizing excellent solutions and adroitly gaining a desired direction and outcome very often come from something much deeper...

So as to Burke - who could be deep: deeper may be the point.  If one digs an effecdtive well, it is necesarily narrow with respect to depth lest the water not be reached efficiently.  Most probably realize that "Phd" actually has been said to mean not so much "doctor of Philosophy" perhaps as "Piled higher and deeper" - as one advances by degree, one tends to narrow the focus and go for depth, yes?  It also obviously helps one to eliminate distractions: it isn't always what the law "is" that is so important, but what the law "is not".

No different for the J.D. than Phd, I'm sure - so hat's off to Burke, but no foul IMO.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: JNev on November 11, 2013, 11:09:44 AM
If the bird is there "Did she land their" or "float their",  ;D

You forgot, "or did the Japanese plant it there?"   Or better yet "Did TIGHAR find it somewhere else and plant it there."  (Hell, we've already been accused of finding it and keeping it secret.)  If we find it you can bet there will be no shortage of dumb explanations and accusations.

You forgot "archeological site seeded by aliens mischievously moving old airplane from Saipan Hangar to space ship, thence Nikumaroro Island; Japanese government denies complicity, but..."

Whether Niku pans out or not as to actual wreckage find, one thing cannot be denied, Ric - you have visibly worked your fanny off for something approaching 30 years to prove what you believe.  Find her anywhere in those waters, and as far as I am concerned, then by-God that's where she came down. 

How it happened is not so important - I don't think finding the bird there necessary proves details like "possible transmissions that could only have come from land" (there will always be some reasonable doubt to many folks on that), etc. - and e.g., she could have 'crashed and sunk' yards offshore in a last-minute dodge due to doubts about the reef flat for all we know.

But if you find her anywhere in that vicinity and I will be happy to fly the flag - "Earhart ended up on Gardner (Niku)".  The 'odds' are way too against a chance arrival by other means.  A wreck at Niku - however it got there, ought to be 'close enough' for 95% of the public -

Which is far and away stronger than you ought to even hope for (remember those old 'moon rocks'... still a few living souls in my home county that not only believe it was a fake, but that if they're wrong, they need to put 'em back so the weather can get back to normal...).

The trick is to just find the damn thing...

And I will add, if you are REALLY thinking as far out as 2023 (or whenever "Niku XIII" was said to be, tongue-in-cheek I realize of course) we're gonna have to get you a peg-leg and give you your own 'Pequod'...

I'd like 'the book' one day, win lose or draw, and there are other wrecks too (wish we could look for Redfern...).  If this damn whale eats you I'll never get the book!
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Bob Miller on November 11, 2013, 08:23:21 PM
I am a newby here as far as membership. I have lurked here for years, coming here in the beginning following aircraft recovery stories. I also contributed to Niku VII and have a great certificate to prove it! ;)
I know my piddly little contribution pales in comparison to Tim Mellons. BUT I sent it in good faith and I have no complaints about it. I will also send a contribution for Niku VIII and will try to eke out a little more for the defense fund. I personally would have eagerly paid Tim's $1 million (IF I HAD that kinda money!) just to have accompanied the Niku VII expedition.
IF Tim wins his lawsuit I believe that he should be billed for his trip with Niku VII. Believe me plenty of us lurkers would have been well satisfied to have just been along for the ride.
This will be my one and only post on this thread. I am glad that Ric has kept up planning for Niku VIII and that is where my thoughts and posts will be. Keep up the good work!

LTM
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Ric Gillespie on November 11, 2013, 08:40:56 PM
Thanks Bob.  I appreciate your support.

Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Monty Fowler on November 12, 2013, 06:58:44 PM
Jeff, my summation of the current state of the American civil legal system was based, unfortunately, on more than limited personal experience. Trying to put a human face on the beast, as it were.

And that's all I've got to say about that.

LTM, who reserves the right to cry "Interrogatory!" in a crowded courtroom,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 CER
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: JNev on November 13, 2013, 09:39:33 AM
Jeff, my summation of the current state of the American civil legal system was based, unfortunately, on more than limited personal experience. Trying to put a human face on the beast, as it were.

And that's all I've got to say about that.

LTM, who reserves the right to cry "Interrogatory!" in a crowded courtroom,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 CER

No foul, I can understand, Monty; but I'll share that I've learned the hard way to not put human faces on too many beasts -

'Beast' is not a bad term, and when a beast of prey goes after game it isn't personal - not that the Gazelle might not think so as a lioness takes him down... it's his fanny.  But Don Miguel Luiz has it right in the 'Four Agreements' - study the second of the four:

"Don't take anything personally.  Nothing others do is because of you.  What others say and do is a projection of their own reality, their own dream.  When you are immune to the opinions and actions of others, you won't be the victim of needless suffering."

His little 'Toltec Wisdom Book' has been a windfall for me, I recommend it as an intriguing and useful view into how better to reflect on the nonsense around us and better cope with the ordinary and extraordinary afflictions that come our way.

Of course it's hard for the Gazelle to 'experience the moment in thoughtful reflection' and consider the assault as impersonal as the lioness sinks her fangs into his rump and drags him down, I understand.  We were blessed with adrenalin, and finally natural opiates, for a reason...  :P 

But at the end of the day, Ruiz was right - t'was mererly a hungry lion, not a particular Gazelle who begged the action excepting that the set-upon critter may have been more vulnerable than others of the herd for some reason. 

Unfortunately TIGHAR can be that way - push hard enough for something in this world because her own dreams demand it, and someone's 'impersonal' crosshairs will find her soon enough as an extension of their own dream...

If we are quick, we dream - sleeping or waking; the difference lies in the hazard of the alertly manipulated dream.

And that's all I'm going to say about that...
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Ric Gillespie on November 14, 2013, 07:19:14 AM
Of course it's hard for the Gazelle to 'experience the moment in thoughtful reflection' and consider the assault as impersonal as the lioness sinks her fangs into his rump and drags him down, I understand.  We were blessed with adrenalin, and finally natural opiates, for a reason...  :P 

But sometimes the lioness tries to drag down a zebra and gets a hoof in the face for her trouble.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: JNev on November 14, 2013, 07:27:17 AM
Of course it's hard for the Gazelle to 'experience the moment in thoughtful reflection' and consider the assault as impersonal as the lioness sinks her fangs into his rump and drags him down, I understand.  We were blessed with adrenalin, and finally natural opiates, for a reason...  :P 

But sometimes the lioness tries to drag down a zebra and gets a hoof in the face for her trouble.

So very true - 'adrenaline' very often wins the day; the lion does not win as many as National Geographic would suggest - Zebras are fast and tough.

We had a farrier here who volunteered for a day to trim the hooves on a herd of Zebras on a nearby island reserve.  "How many" he asked, and was told "about a dozen".  No sweat - couple of hours and done... he figured they were like so many ponies...

As the sun went down he was black and blue all over and cut and bleeding in several places, worn out, ready for pull off his spooker - and had finished all four hooves on one critter, and "two and a half" on another" - the rest would have to wait - and for someone else.  He and two other able-bodied types had spent the day bulldogging exactly that many Zebras to the ground for a friendly 'trim' -

Never underestimate the power of the hoof.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Friend Weller on November 15, 2013, 10:29:28 AM
Never underestimate the power of the hoof.

I should put that on a t-shirt or a bumper sticker!  :D
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Ric Gillespie on November 17, 2013, 04:46:34 PM
I spent all day today assembling correspondence and documents to respond to just one of 22 "Requests for Production of Documents" - all part of the discovery process.  The only consolation to a totally wasted Sunday is the "billable hours" it will cost the Plaintiff for his attorneys to examine the hundreds of emails, reports and illustrations only to discover that all of the evidence supports the Defendants.  I wonder what I could have accomplished with those hours.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Monty Fowler on November 17, 2013, 08:33:45 PM
Look at the bright side, Ric - you'll be keeping two people gainfully employed through the Christmas season who might otherwise have had to go on the dole.

LTM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 CER
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Dan Swift on November 18, 2013, 10:06:16 AM
Will this ever end?!   Ridiculous! 
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: JNev on November 19, 2013, 08:29:43 AM
Look at the bright side, Ric - you'll be keeping two people gainfully employed through the Christmas season who might otherwise have had to go on the dole.

LTM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 CER

Now Monty, you don't really think those guys are running out of work, do you?
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Ric Gillespie on December 19, 2013, 05:56:14 AM
The court has handed Mellon another defeat. As you'll recall, in our last exciting episode, in response to TIGHAR's "12b6" Motion to Dimiss, the judge threw out two of the four counts in the complaint. The charge that TIGHAR had somehow engaged in racketeering (RICO) and the charge that TIGHAR had been negligent in its conduct of the 2012 Niku VII expedition were dismissed "with prejudice", meaning that they can not be brought up again.  A few weeks ago Mellon's attorneys filed a motion asking the court to drop the "with prejudice" part of the ruling, arguing that evidence of racketeering or negligence might come up during the discovery phase.
The judge has now refused that motion, essentially saying, "No, I meant what I said. I don't want to hear anything about racketeering or the 2012 expedition."
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Monty Fowler on December 19, 2013, 07:11:07 AM
The court has handed Mellon another defeat.

A little early holiday cheer for TIGHAR. Here's hoping that the rest of this "stuff" goes away in an expeditious manner.

LTM, who thinks VIII will be the one,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 CER
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Lauren Palmer on December 19, 2013, 08:07:12 AM
Yes, Merry Christmas to everyone. That was good news.

Just think of the money that could have gone to the next expedition ...
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Dan Swift on December 19, 2013, 08:49:54 AM
Excellent!! 
Let's get this distraction behind us! 
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Tim Mellon on December 19, 2013, 08:51:27 AM
The court has handed Mellon another defeat.

Well, no...

Quote
The judge has now refused that motion, essentially saying, "No, I meant what I said. I don't want to hear anything about racketeering or the 2012 expedition."

Careful translating a judges order, Ric. Below is what he actually said.

Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Ric Gillespie on December 19, 2013, 05:08:50 PM
The court has handed Mellon another defeat.

Well, no...

The motion was denied. That's a defeat.

Careful translating a judges order, Ric.

We'll see.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Tim Mellon on December 19, 2013, 09:33:04 PM
The court has handed Mellon another defeat.

Well, no...

The motion was denied. That's a defeat.


Simplistic analysis. Did you have legal training? Perhaps a refresher course would be in order.
Quote


Careful translating a judges order, Ric.

We'll see.

Yup.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Chuck Lynch on December 20, 2013, 08:08:14 AM
Why is he not banned from this site? Geez.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Tim Mellon on December 20, 2013, 07:40:15 PM
In particular:
“Avoid ad hominem remarks: insults, stereotyping, sarcasm, or ridicule.  If you have nothing objective to say, don't say it.  Please pass over the character defects of other posters in silence.  Deal with the substance of an opponent's position, not with the moral shortcomings, character defects, or motives of the other person.  "Even a blind pig finds the occasional acorn."  What matters is the objective content of a claim being made, not the claimant's qualities of character.”

Mr. Mellon has chosen to remain active on this Forum.  Feel free to ask him questions but, of course, it his prerogative whether to answer.

Mr. Lynch, please review the top of this thread.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Monty Fowler on December 22, 2013, 06:41:14 AM
It appears to me that, to date, the judge has ruled on the merits of this "case" in a way that consistently favors TIGHAR.

But I'm just applying the "reasonable person" test.

LTM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 CER
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Monty Fowler on January 02, 2014, 11:43:02 AM
And on another note, with the new year, what is the status of the Legal Defense Fund war chest? I suspect it's in need of shoring up?

LTM, who tries to back the winners,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 CER
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Ric Gillespie on January 03, 2014, 08:25:13 AM
And on another note, with the new year, what is the status of the Legal Defense Fund war chest? I suspect it's in need of shoring up?

We currently owe about $10,000 but the legal work continues and the balance grows.  Each side has now responded to the other's Initial Interrogatories, Requests for Admissions and Requests for Document Production.  Jeff Glickman has responded to Mellon's subpoena which asked for all of his communications with TIGHAR - a truly awesome volume of data which, under Wyoming law, Mr. Mellon has to pay Mr. Glickman to assemble and ship.
The next step is depositions.  Scheduling now under discussion.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Monty Fowler on January 04, 2014, 08:03:35 AM
*sigh* ... I wonder how much bottom time $10,000 would buy for the HURL subs? *reaches for checkbook*

Just don't schedule the depositions for winter. It can get a tad chilly in Wyoming.

LTM, who thinks 2014 will be THE year,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 CER
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: JNev on January 06, 2014, 09:15:35 AM
The court has handed Mellon another defeat.

Well, no...

The motion was denied. That's a defeat.


Simplistic analysis. Did you have legal training? Perhaps a refresher course would be in order.
Quote


Careful translating a judges order, Ric.

We'll see.

Yup.

Been away for a while - now see I haven't missed much.

I read it, carefully.  With all due respect, Tim, it is clear that so far the plaintiff remains short of bringing anything the court can deem worthy of consideration of RICO and still won't entertain that claim as things continue to stand.

If I'm counting right that means this was the second failed attempt to bring RICO against Ric and TIGHAR (strike one was the original charge, strike two being the motion to dismiss the dismissal).  I'm sure it's not my place to lean into another's business, but if my attorneys were taking me down a path like that I think I'd consider stopping the meter, or at least ask myself just what it was I was asking them to do... MHO, of course.

Anyway, Happy New Year to all.  I do hate to see it bogged down with depositions and all, but Santa doesn't always bring what one might want I suppose.  Agree with TIGHAR, or disagree - sharply at that if one must - but this?  Looks like a long paper chase with a soggy ending, and none too soon unfortunately.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Monty Fowler on January 06, 2014, 09:48:17 AM
Looks like a long paper chase with a soggy ending, and none too soon unfortunately.

That is, unfortunately, the nature of most civil litigation in this country - kind of a Last Man Standing mentality. And "depositions" is a fancy-sounding 25-cent word for a fishing expedition, which can often enter Byzantine levels of either complexity, nonsense, or both at once.

I for one am still hoping that common sense will prevail before this entire thing gets even sillier than it already has.

LTM, who despises depos,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 CER
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Greg Daspit on January 06, 2014, 12:54:03 PM
See Vexatious litigation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vexatious_litigation)
“Vexatious litigation is legal action which is brought, regardless of its merits, solely to harass or subdue an adversary. It may take the form of a primary frivolous lawsuit or may be the repetitive, burdensome, and unwarranted filing of meritless motions in a matter which is otherwise a meritorious cause of action.”
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Ted G Campbell on January 08, 2014, 07:23:55 PM
Tim Mellon,
I don't think anyone has asked the obvious question:  What do you want to drop this whole issue?

Ted Campbell
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Ric Gillespie on January 08, 2014, 07:48:44 PM
In private discussions through the attorneys Tim did outline his conditions for dropping the lawsuit.  We found them unacceptable.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Don Dollinger on January 09, 2014, 02:53:22 PM
Quote
“Vexatious litigation is legal action which is brought, regardless of its merits, solely to harass or subdue an adversary. It may take the form of a primary frivolous lawsuit or may be the repetitive, burdensome, and unwarranted filing of meritless motions in a matter which is otherwise a meritorious cause of action.”

With the exorbitant cost of legal representation the only winners in these types of case are the lawyers!

LTM,

Don
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Ric Gillespie on January 09, 2014, 03:29:47 PM
With the exorbitant cost of legal representation the only winners in these types of case are the lawyers!

The exorbitant cost of legal representation is what prevents the system from being abused as an instrument of petty ego gratification - except when exorbitant wealth trumps exorbitant cost.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Monty Fowler on January 09, 2014, 05:40:04 PM
In private discussions through the attorneys Tim did outline his conditions for dropping the lawsuit.  We found them unacceptable.

You can tell us about it at the victory barbecue.

LTM, who prefers his TP dry,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 CER
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Ted G Campbell on February 25, 2014, 09:47:37 PM
Ric,
New year!  Were do we stand $ wise?
Ted Campbell
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Ric Gillespie on February 26, 2014, 04:33:46 AM
Where do we stand $ wise?

I thought you'd never ask.  ::)

We currently owe the attorneys about $10,000.  Depositions coming up soon but no firm date set yet.  Should be interesting, but it will run up the bill.
Plaintiff’s Expert Disclosure Deadline is this Friday, February 28.  We should soon know who (besides the Plaintiff) sees clearly identifiable wreckage from Amelia's plane in the 2010 ROV video.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Monty Fowler on February 26, 2014, 07:29:00 AM
We should soon know who (besides the Plaintiff) sees clearly identifiable wreckage from Amelia's plane in the 2010 ROV video.

I'm hoping that at that point, the names of the other side's experts will become public record, and their qualifications can then be assessed?

LTM, who believes in quality qualifications,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 CER
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Dan Swift on February 26, 2014, 08:49:35 AM
Ric,
Why, if charges are dismissed, can Tighar not counter sue to recover ALL legal fees? 
 
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Ric Gillespie on February 26, 2014, 10:10:13 AM
Ric,
Why, if charges are dismissed, can Tighar not counter sue to recover ALL legal fees?

Maybe.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Monty Fowler on February 26, 2014, 01:52:15 PM
Not worth the bucket of warm spit it would cost us to file the papers.

My opinion.

LTM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 CER
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Ted G Campbell on February 26, 2014, 10:47:41 PM
Ric,
Check is in the mail.
Ted Campbell
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Ric Gillespie on February 27, 2014, 06:59:27 AM
Check is in the mail.

Thank you.  I hope your dedication and generosity will be an inspiration to others.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Monty Fowler on February 27, 2014, 10:35:55 AM
Ted beat me to it - I will be sending along with I can as well in tomorrow's mail.

LTM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 CER
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: JNev on February 27, 2014, 02:50:15 PM
We should soon know who (besides the Plaintiff) sees clearly identifiable wreckage from Amelia's plane in the 2010 ROV video.

I'm hoping that at that point, the names of the other side's experts will become public record, and their qualifications can then be assessed?

LTM, who believes in quality qualifications,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 CER

I am looking forward to learning who these experts are.  It is an oddity in the extreme to me that no one among the public-at-large in all this time has emerged with a 'can't you see it - dead people and airplane stuff' eureka moment for us all, given that credible experts supposedly can so readily discern what others are negligent for having not seen...  ???

Or were criminal for having opted to hide...  8)

I really want to see what these experts have to say that can make such a clear case that the public - including presumably a judge and perhaps a jury can't miss Earhart's plane among the sea-bottom clutter.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: JNev on March 03, 2014, 09:48:45 AM
Where do we stand $ wise?

I thought you'd never ask.  ::)

We currently owe the attorneys about $10,000.  Depositions coming up soon but no firm date set yet.  Should be interesting, but it will run up the bill.
Plaintiff’s Expert Disclosure Deadline is this Friday, February 28.  We should soon know who (besides the Plaintiff) sees clearly identifiable wreckage from Amelia's plane in the 2010 ROV video.

I guess this was done but maybe it's early to hear anything?
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Ric Gillespie on March 03, 2014, 12:45:50 PM
We need your help.  Tim's lawyers have filed his experts' credentials and their reports with the court. It's a public record. Any of you could retrieve a copy but I'm making these documents available to any of you who want to see them because our legal team would appreciate comment and analysis to assist TIGHAR with defense of the suit. Do the experts' reports support the complaint? Obviously we're only seeking analytical comment and not criticism of Mr. Mellon or his lawyers.

Some of the reports are large files that include high definition graphics and we want you to be able to view them as they were filed.  The documents are too big to post on the forum so I'll load them into the TIGHAR DropBox.  If you want to see them just drop me an email at ric@tighar.org and I'll send you an invitation to the DropBox.  You can post your comments here on the Legal Defense Fund thread.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: John Wallace on March 03, 2014, 05:04:44 PM
For those interested in seeing what their experts said but who don't feel qualified otherwise to comment via the dropbox download(that's me!), you can access the documents yourself via pacer (www.pacer.gov). There are 121 pages at 10 cents/page. And, you get $15 worth of documents per quarter for free too.

Documents can be found in Wyoming district court section, go to query and search on case number, 1:13-cv-00118. It is document number 37, which then will give you the specific documents for that number. I have attached the Designation of Experts which is the first 5 pages. There are then 12 attachments which are the reports and cv's. That list is also attached.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Greg Daspit on March 03, 2014, 05:31:18 PM
Do you need to be an expert to dispute the conclusions from John D Jarrell and Graham Forrester? They do not state that they clearly see aircraft wreckage.
For example they state:
“The objects we have identified in the 2010 video footage are consistent with parts of the Earhart Lockheed Electra Model 10 and, in the absence of an alternate explanation for the source of these objects we conclude that they are likely to have originated from Earhart’s Electra”
That is not clear and the statement begins with a huge caveat-“in the absence of an alternate explanation”
The conclusion includes the phrases “Likely to have originated” and “consistent with” and “in the absence of alternate explanation”.  The experts do not appear to be clearly seeing anything.

There does not appear to be a conclusion from an expert with experience in analyzing underwater video images.
Fatih Calaki’s “conclusions”  appear to be a description of methods used to create computer graphics. I didn’t see a “conclusion” related to what is on the ocean floor.

Since the experts are comparing drawn geometric shapes overlaid onto images of shapes on the ocean floor, I will offer my opinion on that subject:
 Lines are drawn over images of shapes that do not appear to be there. In some cases there is part of a shape that lines are drawn over but then where the part of a shape ends or changes to some completely different shape, those inconsistent shapes are ignored and the drawn lines are projected to complete a suggested object. For example, the “tail wheel’ shape is not a circle, it is a very lumpy and I think very common in nature semi-circle shape at the end of another bigger shape it appears to be part of. The lines drawn are a circle but not the image of the shape on the ocean floor it is superimposed over. The lines are drawn without regard to a known scale. I can’t even see the justification for the lines drawn are over a image of a shape that is claimed to be consistent with the worm gear. Textures are not different from surrounding features. I don’t see any new evidence from what was already posted and discussed, much of which was already available for viewing on YouTube before the NIKU VII expedition.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Monty Fowler on March 03, 2014, 05:39:27 PM
From the TIGHAR archive of bumper sticker wisdom: "Stuff is hard to find."

LTM, who is pondering vectors and scribblings as we speak,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 CER
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Ric Gillespie on March 03, 2014, 06:50:51 PM
Do you need to be an expert to dispute the conclusions from John D Jarrell and Graham Forrester?

Neither Jarrell nor Forrester appears to be a legally-recognized expert in forensic imagery interpretation so, as far as the court is concerned, although you're not an "expert", neither are they.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: JNev on March 04, 2014, 07:57:38 AM
My general impression of this report is in sum:

'Barring a better purported physical presentation of Earhart's physical remains, i.e. purported aircraft, related purported possessions and those skeletal of her and a certain companion navigator, etc., these are as good as any purported visuals that we know of should one insist...'

In other words - 'who knows, it could be...'.  Not convincing to me, sorry; so much for the general view - I may offer some specifics a bit later (to include some sample visuals of my own and what they suggest - perhaps to include an Electra pilot seat in a junk pile in my backyard).

I also note that regardless of these gentlemen-expert's expertise, they have not claimed to be photogrammatic forensics types.  Nor am I - so apparently I share a remarkable limited ability to interpret photographic material with them, perhaps on par - perhaps mine is even superior for all I know.  Point being, I am not convinced that however able they are at identifying particular flora, fauna or human remains or even to evaluate mechanical stuff and perhaps even that geological, their ability to extract man-made physical realities from the rocks and coral and flora and fauna of the Pacific via third-party photography is no greater than my own.  Therefore my own long-standing judgment of what is in these pictures (having gotten over my own neo-apopopheniac tendencies some time ago) stands within my own mind: rocks, coral, flora and fauna, but no cigar, toilet paper or people, and no Electra. 

Of course judge and jury can decide for themselves - but at bottom line one hopes that the documented expertise will be respected: none in terms of interpreting this kind of media.

Do you need to be an expert to dispute the conclusions from John D Jarrell and Graham Forrester? They do not state that they clearly see aircraft wreckage.
For example they state:
“The objects we have identified in the 2010 video footage are consistent with parts of the Earhart Lockheed Electra Model 10 and, in the absence of an alternate explanation for the source of these objects we conclude that they are likely to have originated from Earhart’s Electra”
That is not clear and the statement begins with a huge caveat-“in the absence of an alternate explanation”
The conclusion includes the phrases “Likely to have originated” and “consistent with” and “in the absence of alternate explanation”.  The experts do not appear to be clearly seeing anything.

Precisely, well said.  I can see shapes in a junk pile on my neighbor's property things that suggest elements of a Lockheed L10; walking up to the stuff, I more clearly now realize a jumble of old diner stools with torn vinyl seats, rusty and tangled fencing and some rotten 2x4's splintering away... so barring a better representation by others than my own, I can plant my own flag and make my claim.

Quote
There does not appear to be a conclusion from an expert with experience in analyzing underwater video images.
Fatih Calaki’s “conclusions”  appear to be a description of methods used to create computer graphics. I didn’t see a “conclusion” related to what is on the ocean floor.

The experts seem to have been careful to respect their own limitations - and agree, there is no clear conclusion derived from any photogrammatic expert in all this, only a 'could be' scenario for the eye of the beholder.  These guys were careful not to even put themselves on the hook - smart.  I believe I could do as much - and at a lower burden rate...

Quote
Since the experts are comparing drawn geometric shapes overlaid onto images of shapes on the ocean floor, I will offer my opinion on that subject:
 Lines are drawn over images of shapes that do not appear to be there. In some cases there is part of a shape that lines are drawn over but then where the part of a shape ends or changes to some completely different shape, those inconsistent shapes are ignored and the drawn lines are projected to complete a suggested object. For example, the “tail wheel’ shape is not a circle, it is a very lumpy and I think very common in nature semi-circle shape at the end of another bigger shape it appears to be part of. The lines drawn are a circle but not the image of the shape on the ocean floor it is superimposed over. The lines are drawn without regard to a known scale. I can’t even see the justification for the lines drawn are over a image of a shape that is claimed to be consistent with the worm gear. Textures are not different from surrounding features. I don’t see any new evidence from what was already posted and discussed, much of which was already available for viewing on YouTube before the NIKU VII expedition.

Not sure I could say more - well put.

I will admit that the "tailwheel" intrigued me as one very suggestive feature for the longest time, but your assessment is the more reliable - it actually appears more as a natural shape that was captured at an oddly suggestive angle (not meaing "on purpose", just accidentally as-caught on film during the expedition and as we see it).  I'm tempted to go about with a camera the next time I'm hiking in the rocky hills on a trip somewhere to see how many clever L10 shapes I can find - they are definitely out there.

I wish this chase were really so easy - and I have to say, I have full confidence that if there was proof to be claimed, TIGHAR and Ric would have done so by now.  It is to TIGHAR's credit that they've held the line on this stuff and not allowed the speculation to go overboard.  I see absolutely no motive on TIGHAR's part to hide anything, nor to step back from clear evidence; quite to the contrary, TIGHAR has painfully admitted when proof did not pan out despite high-hopes.

I mean no offense as I truly appreciate what Mr. Mellon did to make Niku VII happen, and that other than in his insistent legal effort he seems to be quite a gentleman.  But having seen this now, I truly regret - for his sake, in fact - that he's committed this kind of argument to the chase; it is sad to me.  As an onlooking citizen and participant in the hunt for Amelia in my own small way, I find this pursuit empty and really do not understand what it was to have accomplished.  I mean all that with absolute respect, just from the heart.

By what I see in this, I also have to believe that a given jury and judge could only scratch their heads.  On the practical front, I fear that this footnote in the greater search does not lend credibility to the more global effort to solve the mystery, but makes the whole community look a bit less serious than it should be taken for being.  Granted many of us are amateurs, but I would not want my amateur opinions stuck to the public record like this; true peer review and acceptance of critical opinion by a full forensic panel just isn't in this thing to the degree needed IMO.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Jeff Lange on March 04, 2014, 10:11:51 AM
Not trying to be a smart alec or anything, but I just don't get it.

If these "expert" opinions are the "best" Mr. Mellon could do- how can he believe it is strong enough evidence to file the suit? I guess he feels that throwing a few hundred thousand more away on a lawsuit is okay after you have donated the first chunk and not been satisfied. But I still don't get it.....
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Tim Collins on March 04, 2014, 11:09:14 AM
But I still don't get it.....

I'm pretty sure the consensus is that nobody does other than Tim Mellon.   
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Dan Swift on March 04, 2014, 12:20:38 PM
I am going to be specific at this time, with my comment, only to the images as I do not know any of the 'experts' and therefore don't have any interest in their credentials.  Because without the item(s) in question in 'hand', this is strictly opinion. 

But for my 2 cents: 
A.  1st image:  I can not see a worm gear at all. 
     2nd image:  Could be a beer bottle too. 
     Next:   "could be a man made object"  but.....could not as well. 
     "circular object"  could be a wheel.  But you have to prove it.  Could just be coral shape. 

B 1,2,3.   Sorry, I don't see it.....any of it. 

C, D   N/A.

E 1,2,3.  Repeat of above.  I hope this is debris from AE's Electra.  But one can only conclude that these are 'interesting' shapes, and they need (warrant) further investigation to be able to 'say' (confirm) what it is without a doubt.  This is not enough evidence to conclude that these are from ANY aircraft, much less specific to NR16020.  It is not possible.  I see no part, much less part number or serial number on any of the 'shapes'. 

F, G, H,  I see nothing of any consequence there either.  And the 3D images are supposed to show...?  I see nothing worthwhile in those. 
 
 
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: JNev on March 04, 2014, 12:28:56 PM
Excellent analysis, Dan.  Concur.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: John Wallace on March 04, 2014, 01:08:23 PM
I would like just to confirm that these are the only experts the plaintiff is or can put forward to prove his case at this point. I am not familiar generally or specifically with court requirements about whether he might be able to say wait a second and put up some other expert testimony, or edit current testimony.

This is more a procedural question in summary to confirm that this is ALL we can expect about expert testimony to prove plaintiff's case, and that plaintiff is precluded from adding anything beyond what is already in the documents.  Thank you for any input.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Ric Gillespie on March 04, 2014, 01:27:14 PM
I would like just to confirm that these are the only experts the plaintiff is or can put forward to prove his case at this point. I am not familiar generally or specifically with court requirements about whether he might be able to say wait a second and put up some other expert testimony, or edit current testimony.

It's an excellent question and it's one that I have posed to our legal team.  February 28 was the court's deadline for the Plaintiff to disclose who his experts are and what they say.  The Plaintiff can’t add a new expert without the court allowing him to do so.  If the only reason is to “fix” a report there’s no way the court would grant such a request.
 
The experts could in deposition or at trial say that they meant to say something different than they say in their reports, but they’d get killed on cross-examination trying to explain why they’ve changed their tune. 
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: JNev on March 04, 2014, 01:31:33 PM
Interested in the qualified opinion, but I believe Tim would have to file a new motion under court rules to add information or new experts.  The court-imposed deadline for these kinds of filings is intended to be a 'put up or shut up' kind of exercise as I understand it. 

As I recall, Tim indicated some time ago that this was coming, so one supposes this is what he was able to put together in the ensuing months.  If he has more, it doesn't seem wise to risk never having a shot to use it by not filing it last week, so my guess is that this is his best technical shot. 

Now it's on the wall like so much hand-writing to see if it will stick, one supposes.  We've not heard from others 'out there' - but if there is a eureka-realization among the public beyond our capability, their cry to be heard is deafeningly silent. 

Ric's point is good - I'd hate to be one of these experts and put on the stand to squirm between my employer and the court's officers on cross examination.  Sadly though, this report is couched with 'in lieu of better' and such opinions as to what 'might be' in real terms that the authors are hardly in peril.  Personally I wouldn't like to have spent real money on this one, just sayin'.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Mark Appel on March 04, 2014, 03:35:26 PM
Their whole case seems, incredibly enough, to be based largely on TIGHAR's own research, materials and findings--which they find robust and credible enough to rely on for their own speculative conclusions. So, in essence, they're suing us because we use a more conservative, scientifically credible standard of care.

It's as if they're saying, "Hey your stuff is really sound, really good. SO good, we're willing to take a kangaroo's leap to a speculative conclusion. And because you won't, we're going to sue you..."

This is so far down the rabbit hole I keep waiting for Alice to show up... or Godot for that matter.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Monty Fowler on March 05, 2014, 08:59:35 PM
OK, having spent the better part of a day (time taken from my life that I will not get back), I have decided that Exhibit G, pages 8, 9, and 10, wins the "W  T  H" award, for the simple reason that I can divine absolutely no purpose for those pages: To wit:

- Page 8: "Figure 4 The rover camera trajectory (depicted as triangle cloud) over the ocean floor (depicted as sparse point cloud) acquired by analysing the TIGHAR 2010 Nikumaroro video (1920x1080).
- Page 9: "Figure 5 The rover camera trajectory (depicted as trinagle cloud) over the ocean floor (depicted as sparse point cloud) acquired by analysing the TIGHAR 2010 Nikumororo video (1920x1080).

If you want to see what the glowing radioactive trails of a drunken Fukushima nuclear plant-based Giant Snail look like in a legal exhibit setting, peruse pages 8-9 at your leisure.

- Page 10: "Figure 6 Dense 3D reconstruction of the structure of the ocean floor acquired by processing 900 images selected from the TIGHAR 2010 Nikumaroro video (1920x1080).

I'm pretty sure I saw something exactly like that coming out of one of the victims of a very traumatic multi-car accident, back in my younger days.

And that's all I've got to say about that.

LTM, who knows technology has limitations,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 CER
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: George Lam on March 05, 2014, 11:32:03 PM
Agree with the "WTH" analysis of Monty.  The images are just slapped on the page, but are not applied or subjected to analysis by the very report they are part of.  It's something like, "here are some montages of the Niku ocean floor," next.  I'm guessing the reports will be expanded upon verbally by the plaintiff, and these could just be support documents.   

Another thing I noticed, specifically in figure 3, is a lack of a comparison "before" image so one can compare what the bottom image looks like without the worm gear outline overlaid.  We can't see the defined curves within the coral if the dotted lines are obscuring it.  This seems to be Greg Daspit's view as well, concerning the wheel and rope reference images.

As for the 3d model images... having modeled small scale structures in CAD progams for school myself a few years ago, all they have done is modeled the parts, shown us a rendered 3d image of the the landing gear, then converted the model to "wireframe" view and overlaid that onto the coral.  Getting a little technical, when you import the rendered 3d wireframe model image into, say, photoshop, and have the intention of overlaying it onto an image, say, a sea floor of coral, you either have to shrink or enlarge the imported model to "fit" over the coral shape you want it to resemble.  There is no sense of scale in doing this, since there is no way to determine precise scale in the sea floor images.  I submit that determining scale is a "best guess" in these scenarios. 

Figure 6 of the "symmetrical object" consistent with "man made object" does not point to any relevant conclusion of its origin or identity, let alone the electra.

I did not review these documents in great detail, as I don't have the time nor patience.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Tim Collins on March 06, 2014, 07:03:06 AM
What's the next milestone to aim for?
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: JNev on March 06, 2014, 07:22:23 AM
Agree with the "WTH" analysis of Monty.  The images are just slapped on the page, but are not applied or subjected to analysis by the very report they are part of.  It's something like, "here are some montages of the Niku ocean floor," next.  I'm guessing the reports will be expanded upon verbally by the plaintiff, and these could just be support documents.   

Another thing I noticed, specifically in figure 3, is a lack of a comparison "before" image so one can compare what the bottom image looks like without the worm gear outline overlaid.  We can't see the defined curves within the coral if the dotted lines are obscuring it.  This seems to be Greg Daspit's view as well, concerning the wheel and rope reference images.

As for the 3d model images... having modeled small scale structures in CAD progams for school myself a few years ago, all they have done is modeled the parts, shown us a rendered 3d image of the the landing gear, then converted the model to "wireframe" view and overlaid that onto the coral.  Getting a little technical, when you import the rendered 3d wireframe model image into, say, photoshop, and have the intention of overlaying it onto an image, say, a sea floor of coral, you either have to shrink or enlarge the imported model to "fit" over the coral shape you want it to resemble.  There is no sense of scale in doing this, since there is no way to determine precise scale in the sea floor images.  I submit that determining scale is a "best guess" in these scenarios. 

Figure 6 of the "symmetrical object" consistent with "man made object" does not point to any relevant conclusion of its origin or identity, let alone the electra.

I did not review these documents in great detail, as I don't have the time nor patience.

I think you nailed it.  "Eye of the beholder" - it appears to be the best expert shot that can be made - in sum, it very much seems that anything beyond their professionally constrained conjecture (which is what this amounts to) will be up to the willing sponsor to promote.

Which indeed tends to land one in Monty's W T H camp very quickly, IMO.  An old proverb comes to mind - "rots of ruck".
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Ric Gillespie on March 06, 2014, 07:31:49 AM
What's the next milestone to aim for?

That topic is currently under intense discussion by our legal team.  As you know, Mr. Mellon was highly secretive about the identity and specific findings of his experts.  Now that the cat is out of the bag it turns out that the cat is actually a stuffed toy kitten. There is no cat. This presents us with a number of options, all of them good.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Tim Collins on March 06, 2014, 07:37:21 AM
I meant what's the next step as far as the court is concerned in this lawsuit matter.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Ric Gillespie on March 06, 2014, 07:50:41 AM
I meant what's the next step as far as the court is concerned in this lawsuit matter.

We still need to schedule and conduct depositions.  Beyond that, the court has set the following dates:

Defendants’ Expert Disclosure Deadline: March 28, 2014.
 
Discovery Cutoff: April 30, 2014.
 
Dispositive Motion Hearing: July 17, 2014, 8:15 am.
 
Final Pretrial Conference: August 7, 8:15 am.
 
Trial set for six days, starting August 25, 2014.
 
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: JNev on March 06, 2014, 09:02:05 AM
What's the next milestone to aim for?

That topic is currently under intense discussion by our legal team.  As you know, Mr. Mellon was highly secretive about the identity and specific findings of his experts.  Now that the cat is out of the bag it turns out that the cat is actually a stuffed toy kitten. There is no cat. This presents us with a number of options, all of them good.

Mew!
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Ric Gillespie on March 06, 2014, 09:10:08 AM
Moving right along...

Any further substantive comments about the Plaintiff's experts and their reports?
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Mark Appel on March 06, 2014, 10:56:36 AM
I don't want to foment overconfidence; anything can happen in court. But the lack of rigor in their methodology and analyses is not just shocking; it's downright weird. From a legal perspective I would think (hope) they're presenting a target-rich environment.

Again, once in court, all the truth and evidence on your side guarantees nothing. But hokey smoke, I can't imagine TIGHAR's legal team can't crush this from any number of approaches...
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Andrew M McKenna on March 06, 2014, 02:06:26 PM
I agree with others that not having the photos "before and after" applying the overlays they provide makes it hard to judge for one's self whether you actually see what they see without their suggesting what the outcome is.

The lack of scale is of course the biggest problem they have, and without any realistic scale all their work is in question.

Most importantly, none of their stuff supports the claim that TIGHAR knew and withheld information that we had conclusively discovered the electra.  I don't know that any of us looked at the roundish lump of coral they claim is the tail wheel until Mr. Mellon created it, or in my case until I saw his Exhibit A.

And I think we should also point out to the court how the other side not only sees a tail wheel, but toilet paper, banjos, and body parts.  What happened to those items?

Andrew
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Ric Gillespie on March 07, 2014, 05:01:49 PM
I've removed a few witty but irrelevant postings.  Getting back to the issue at hand, does ANYBODY who has seen Mr. Mellon's experts' findings feel that they have merit?
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Greg Daspit on March 07, 2014, 08:07:47 PM
I see no merit in the "experts' findings". I did CAD drawings of the landing gear too btw.

The questions I would ask the experts are: "How do you know how thick the "crust" is? How do you know it is a consistent thickness?"
(The "crust" being the suggested encrustation that looks like the same texture and color of the other adjacent lumps of coral.)

It's weird that after rescaling the drawings to fit a cluster of dots, cracks and edges they determined what the size of the rope would be based on that exercise. In other words, they didn't use the size of the rope to determine the size of the objects.  Again, and to agree with everyone else, there is no accurate known scale used.

To illustrate what I think is being done let me use this example. Take a blank piece of paper and stipple it with about a couple thousand random dots. Now connect a few dots to make a shape you want. Its ok to ignore all the other dots. Scale doesn't matter and it does not matter that the dots represent a cover on the object or that the cover's thickness is unknown.

I see zero merit in the case because even if you accept the "expert" findings (which I don't) the case still has no merit. The "Experts" don't clearly see Earhart aircraft wreckage and even if they did it does not prove TIGHAR sees them (they said they don't) or that it's resonable to believe they should have.  It's unbelievable on so many levels. All IMHO
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: George Lam on March 08, 2014, 01:05:54 AM
A few collective observations of many keen Tighar members, and I, bullet pointed:

From a general perspective of the report, an accusation like this must be heavily supported by visual evidence.  Much is stated on their methods and conclusions, text wise, but do the images support their hypotheses?  We all seem to agree that:

1) There is no accurate reference of scale available for comparisons.
     a. What might be the size of an Electra tire might actually be the size of a car tire.  Who knows?
     b. Can the plaintiff provide an accurate representation of the scale of each video still? Dimensions? References within each still?
     c. The image of the supposed "wire" might point to a ball park reference of scale, but it is still undetermined what the "wire" object actually is. Could be 3/8" 
         or 1" diameter.  Again, who knows?  It really matters for one to accept the landing gear hypothesis.  I'm sure there are equally credible ocean 
         creatures/plants that fit the look and occur naturally in these environments.  If not, still just a ropy looking thing in the image.
2) Asserting man-made vs. natural formations is subjective.  Symmetry can occur at any distance to the human eye.  Is it REALLY symmetrical on closer inspection?  Problem is that this is the only video still we have.  I cannot arrive at a comfortable conclusion without further angles and camera proximity to the object.
3) Even if there are man-made objects in the plaintiff's video stills, it does not prove they are from Earhart's Electra.  Then again, how does one prove they are man-made, other than saying they probably are, because they do not fit within the context.  Show me more ocean floor, mother nature will always surprise.
4) On the side of Tighar, did Tighar ever exclaim or even hint at detecting anything in the 2010 video before the 2012 video?  I'm curious.  The report seems to focus on the 2010 footage, and makes vague references to the 2012 video, without visual support, correct me if I'm wrong.  How could Tighar "know," if they never said they knew? 
5) As noted before, the 3d models do nothing more than provide an artificial rendering of the parts claimed to be in the video stills.  All that's required is a "wireframe" 2d line drawing to overlay onto the coral.  With the wireframe line drawing, there must be a discernible object in the video still for an overlay, but I'm finding no such object.  The rounded "tire" coral growth looks promising, since the wireframe drawing does overlay quite well.  However in another angle of the same "tire" object, it falls victim to illusion.  That's how I view it, at least.

Greg Daspit makes a good point about the coral development over the claimed man-made objects. It could be that the coral layered itself into a Electra tire and fork-like object over the worm gear and headphones.  The physical man-made objects in question are unfortunately obscured by somewhat unpredictable coral growth.

The plaintiff's experts' analyses only point to potential objects of interest or unusual sightings in an unpredictable environment. I think merit will be determined by the gullibility of the judge.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Monty Fowler on March 08, 2014, 06:46:48 AM
My exhibit by exhibit details comments will be on their way Monday by USPS dogsled team.

LTM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 CER
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Greg Daspit on March 08, 2014, 09:48:17 AM
Another point
Tires like the Goodyear Air Wheel (https://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1930/untitled0%20-%200428.html) have very thick membranes. Examples of other underwater images of aircraft tires have shown the tires keep most of their shape. The "tire" suggested in "expert" interpetation of the 2010 image looks  very flat and has no shape. (again, these are not experts in interpreting images) It seems that since the shape didn't fit what was expected they just assumed the tire was flat. The problem is that type of tire does not go completely flat even with a 5" gash as seen in the blue link (https://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1930/untitled0%20-%200429.html)

LTM, and admits he needs grammar lessons. :-[
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: richie conroy on March 08, 2014, 06:42:01 PM
Apart from Tighar say so, Is there any actual evidence that the 2010 rov video was recorded on the reef face of Nikumorro island ?

By actual evidence there has to be uncut footage of surface view of island and then decent to location of apparent debris field

Also none of the experts that are mentioned, Do not have experience in 75 year old wreaks 1000s of feet under water on a reef face

They also need to prove Earhart landed on Niku in order to have a lawsuit based on truth

 
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: James Champion on March 08, 2014, 08:14:43 PM
To be scientific about it, a blind test needs to be setup. Video needs to be taken off, say, the Florida keys at a similar depth. The "experts" need to be asked to analyze the new video for any evidence of aircraft parts without revealing details of the video.

If the "experts" indicate they can't find aircraft parts in the new video, then they pass as "Experts".
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Irvine John Donald on March 08, 2014, 08:39:24 PM
As I have posted previously, this lawsuit cannot be found to have merit.  If The judge was to rule in favour of Mr. Mellon then that would be the judge announcing to the world that Earhart remains had been found.  The judge cannot do that based on the evidence presented as the evidence does not prove the case. Why doesn't it?  If the evidence was so clear as to prove Mr. Mellon's case then he, and the press, would have pronounced "Amelia Found" already.  Ric and TIGHAR would have been have been hailed as the finders.  Didn't happen.  So the judge is going to pronounce "Amelia Found" based on a few poorly executed exhibits. Uh uh. Ain't gonna happen.

But if he did then the world press and many, more informed experts would be examining the videos, the only evidence presented, and the judges ruling would be found wanting.  IMHO the judge isn't going to put himself through that scrutiny based on the the evidence presented.

So, if Ric and TIGHAR lose because the judge believes "Amelia Found" then Ric and TIGHAR win. (If the judge is believed). If judge finds not guilty or dismisses then Ric and TIGHAR win. 

So what this all really means is Mr. Mellon loses either way.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: richie conroy on March 08, 2014, 09:18:28 PM
Let's be honest 2-2-V-1 Is an actual piece of aircraft skin of the same elements as Amelia's L10

Yet 468 replies later people are still unsure of the authenticity of the object, The only reason this case of Tim's is still going is because of the surname Mellon

Because it has credibility
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Greg Daspit on March 08, 2014, 10:23:03 PM
I'm just glad we are questioning and discussing interesting artifacts like 2-2-V-1 and TIGHAR is moving forward. What is weird is if you wanted to claim there is proof that TIGHAR already found the plane, evidence like 2-2-V-1 and the Bevington image are far more convincing than the underwater images that Tim sees toilet paper in.
People have different degrees of proof. No one person should claim it is time to stop finding it.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: richie conroy on March 08, 2014, 10:39:17 PM
Greg exactly my point if we cant prove, YET that 2-2-V-1 came from Amelia's Electra that is a physical object then how can one say the objects seen in 2010 video are man made the rope is the only man made object in video
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: JNev on March 08, 2014, 11:33:19 PM
Good point, Greg and Richie -

We have a tangible in 2-2-V-1 that could yet prove to be from another source, but it's a very narrow case in terms of the physical details.  The Bevington Object, well - like all things so far, eye of beholder - but I can see elements that are quite persuasive.

These sea floor 'objects' are far more abstract, if not abstruse - in terms of suggestion.  It is true that some images down there got a great deal of attention as suggestive - including to me (just look upstream in those old threads).  But the more and closer we'd look, the less convincing they became.  Now we are shown images as 'evidence' that are way off the deep end to me, and apparently quite a number of other reasonable observers agree to at least a great extent: rocks and coral.

You can count me as reasonable or not - your choice - some find me 'hard to understand'... never mind what I think of some of them... ;).
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: richie conroy on March 09, 2014, 12:04:52 AM
my family are keen followers of Tighar, However the 2010 rov topic is a sore point for me, Aldo a learning curve i believe you can make them rock out crops look like anything u please with enough jangling

Thanks 
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Mark Appel on March 09, 2014, 01:16:59 PM
I've removed a few witty but irrelevant postings.  Getting back to the issue at hand, does ANYBODY who has seen Mr. Mellon's experts' findings feel that they have merit?

While I've tried to be objective in assessing the merits of the plaintiff's expert witness qualifications and findings, the simple truth is I may have failed. So I shared the history and relevant documentation with a sharp trial attorney friend of mine who has effectively no interest in the fate of Amelia Earhart (and is only amused by mine).

His take and mine: These expert witnesses have done their utmost to produce findings with enough plausible deniability so as to maintain minimal credibility with their high-paying client and not grossly undermine their own reputations. He found it difficult to believe these experts would be looking forward to a cross-examination. His guess is the plaintiff's plan is to settle rather than go to trial.

The wildcard: impossible to predict the motives or goals of people with sufficient resources to casually gamble on lawsuits--usually it's ego-driven.

My take again: Of Mellon's "experts" I am quite surprised at:

-the lack of rigor in their methodologies
-their willingness to to take huge leaps of logic to describe their findings  as "likely"
-the merely tangential relevance of their respective areas of expertise
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Ross Devitt on March 09, 2014, 08:08:31 PM
The most ridiculous aspect of this defense fund thing, is that had TIGHAR found the Electra, a public announcement and display of any real evidence would have had funds flooding in from all over the place for a retrieval operation.

I believe Tighar has always made all discoveries, even though they were water pistols instead of the smoking gun, public, for that reason.  Success brings enthusiasm, brings funding.

It is a strange world.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Ted G Campbell on March 29, 2014, 08:47:55 PM
Ric,
Where do we stand on the funding?
Ted Campbell
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Monty Fowler on April 02, 2014, 12:10:16 PM
I plan to send some more $$$$ on to as soon as I am able.

Time to put a stake in this thing. The big, old, wooden kind.

LTM, who finds dry paint really interesting these days,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 CER
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Ric Gillespie on April 02, 2014, 12:34:21 PM
Thank you Jeff, for that eloquent endorsement. I spent Monday and Tuesday in Casper, Wyoming (I'm making my way homeward today).  On Monday we took Mr. Mellon's deposition and on Tuesday his lawyer took mine.  All-day sessions of being grilled by lawyers is nobody's idea of fun but Tim and I were up to the task.  We conducted ourselves like the gentlemen we try to be.  I won't say there wasn't a tight jaw from time to time but there was no acrimony, no furniture was thrown, and no animals were harmed in the taking of the depositions.

I am, of course, not at liberty to disclose what was said but I think it's fair to say that the depositions were an educational and perhaps enlightening experience for all concerned.

From my personal perspective, I am impressed with, and tremendously grateful, to our legal team who spent many hours in preparation and two grueling days in carrying out these depositions.  I'm also keenly aware of the cost we must bear for that work.  TIGHAR attorney, board member, and expedition team member extraordinaire Bill Carter is working pro bono at great expense to himself. Wyoming attorney John Masterson and his associates don't have that option but their dedication to our cause is no less than Bill's.  We were about $30,000 in debt to the firm BEFORE this go-'round so the need to fund this rodeo is real and immediate.  Your help is important and appreciated.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Mark Appel on April 02, 2014, 05:30:42 PM
"...the depositions were an educational and perhaps enlightening experience for all concerned."

I bet.

And Ric, I deeply regret that you and the organization are being dragged through this grossly unprofitable and unnecessary exercise; but to offer a summary of Jeff Neville's eloquent assessment--it is what it is... I'll do my best to keep the shekels coming your way.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Tim Mellon on April 03, 2014, 07:57:25 PM
Thank you Jeff, for that eloquent endorsement. I spent Monday and Tuesday in Casper, Wyoming (I'm making my way homeward today).  On Monday we took Mr. Mellon's deposition and on Tuesday his lawyer took mine.  All-day sessions of being grilled by lawyers is nobody's idea of fun but Tim and I were up to the task.  We conducted ourselves like the gentlemen we try to be.  I won't say there wasn't a tight jaw from time to time but there was no acrimony, no furniture was thrown, and no animals were harmed in the taking of the depositions.

I am, of course, not at liberty to disclose what was said but I think it's fair to say that the depositions were an educational and perhaps enlightening experience for all concerned.

From my personal perspective, I am impressed with, and tremendously grateful, to our legal team who spent many hours in preparation and two grueling days in carrying out these depositions.  I'm also keenly aware of the cost we must bear for that work.  TIGHAR attorney, board member, and expedition team member extraordinaire Bill Carter is working pro bono at great expense to himself. Wyoming attorney John Masterson and his associates don't have that option but their dedication to our cause is no less than Bill's.  We were about $30,000 in debt to the firm BEFORE this go-'round so the need to fund this rodeo is real and immediate.  Your help is important and appreciated.

I agree, in general, with Ric's assessment.

I am counting on Bill Carter's ambassadorial talents to bring some closure to our differences.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Ric Gillespie on April 04, 2014, 09:45:59 AM
I am counting on Bill Carter's ambassadorial talents to bring some closure to our differences.

I share Tim's faith in Bill Carter.  He has the advantage of being not only a skilled attorney but also a member of TIGHAR's board of directors.  Bill is intimately familiar with all of TIGHAR's work having served on numerous TIGHAR expeditions including three trips to Nikumaroro. He is a man of many talents. Let's hope he can, as Tim says, help us bring some closure to our differences (but NOT the way he brings closure to our differences with scaevola). :-)
 
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Monty Fowler on April 05, 2014, 04:58:14 AM
*looks at photo of Bill, involuntarily thinks of that Godawful film Texas Chainsaw Massacre.*

LTM, who finds dry paint pretty darn interesting,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 CER
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Ric Gillespie on April 05, 2014, 06:43:29 AM
*looks at photo of Bill, involuntarily thinks of that Godawful film Texas Chainsaw Massacre.*

True story:
It was the 1980 Yankee Magazine article "The Unfinished Flight of the White Bird" that first got me interested in cold-case aviation accident investigation. The author of that article was an Icelandic immigrant by the name of Gunnar Hansen.  Gunnar was a giant bear of a man and in 1974, as a grad student in Texas, he had picked up some extra bucks playing the villain Leatherface in - you guessed it - The Texas Chainsaw Massacre. 
In 1984 Gunnar and I collaborated on the early pre-TIGHAR searches for the engine of the White Bird in the Round Lake Hills of Washington County, Maine.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Dale O. Beethe on April 05, 2014, 08:12:00 PM
Personally, I'm impressed with a lawyer who can run a chainsaw and is willing to get good and dirty!  By the way, I find the "White Bird" just as, if not more so, fascinating than the Electra.  I'm hoping y'all can get to that one someday as well!
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Ric Gillespie on April 05, 2014, 08:16:57 PM
By the way, I find the "White Bird" just as, if not more so, fascinating than the Electra.

Don't tell anyone, but so do i.  L'Oiseau Blanc is the most important lost airplane in history.

  I'm hoping y'all can get to that one someday as well!

We fully intend to get back to that project (30 some-odd expeditions to date).  Stay tuned.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Ric Gillespie on April 17, 2014, 08:43:08 AM
From the Associated Press
http://www.seattlepi.com/news/us/article/Experts-say-video-doesn-t-show-Earhart-wreckage-5407997.php
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Monty Fowler on April 17, 2014, 08:56:18 AM
One word - Next!

And, I like the way Dr. Kaufman writes: "...it is in my judgment an utterly, vanishingly small probability."

LTM, who finds dry paint really interesting right now,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 CER
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Ric Gillespie on April 17, 2014, 08:57:26 AM
As with Tim's expert reports, TIGHAR's expert reports have been filed with the court and are now public.  They are attached here for your edification.
Note that we have not named Jeff Glickman as an expert witness in this case.  We remain confident of Jeff's expertise but we felt that fresh eyes on the video would be useful not only from a litigation standpoint but also for helping us better understand the underwater environment and plan our best way forward in finding actual wreckage.

Neither Jim Ebert nor Les Kaufman have any previous association with TIGHAR.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Monty Fowler on April 19, 2014, 05:57:49 AM
The closure that I am hoping for, and hoping for before Niku VIII, is that both parties just walk away.

Kind of like the moment in those old Clint Eastwood spaghetti Westerns, where the music builds to a fever pitch and everyone's eyes are squinty and fingers are flexing over their pistols ... but in this case when the music hits the cresendo, the gunmen come to their senses and say, "Nahhhhh, not worth it" and simply walk away.

Into a glorious Niku sunset, of course.

LTM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 CER
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: JNev on April 19, 2014, 06:33:43 AM
These two gentlemen - Kaufman and Ebert, are impressively qualified - and very impressive not only in capability, but in their dispassionate detachment.  They make clear and reasonable statements as to their own observations and do so very objectively. 

I'm carried beyond the answer that was so needed to the suit and on to something larger for us to live by in certain of Kaufman's words in particular, as he speaks of the plaintiff's expert's report -

"...entirely lacking in rigor...it is important to remain skeptical of any purported identification unless the object has been examined directly... Nothing of the sort can be done with only a video in hand."

These words represent a gold standard for the researcher and must be the timeless handmaidens of well-founded research, IMO.  I would not know how to sum the whole thing better than that - scientific rigor and the need to go and touch to verify are utterly vital; the footage alone suggests many things, depending on the observer, and can prove nothing.

These experts also reveal overwhelming reasons, in my view, as to why these things are very likely NOT Electra wreckage.

In the end, Tim is of course entitled to his personal view of the footage and what it means.  I can respect that, but that does not mean the rest of the community must accept his view. 

Now we have opposing expert witnesses and our own judgment to rely on.  That judgment must be clear to most observers.  So with all due respect and hoping that ambassadorial goodwill is at-work, I hope that these realities will help carry us to an early and happier conclusion than we've been living with for some time. 

I am grateful for the level of scientific rigor finally visited upon this issue and find it done in the best spirit of what TIGHAR is about.  Rigor and highly qualified objectivity have come to bear.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Monty Fowler on April 19, 2014, 10:36:00 AM
All very true, Mr. Neville, sir.

And that is one of the things that so many people find so frustrating about this whole mystery - me included some of the time. "How can this (insert artifact/research/theory here) be anything but the final answer?" people will ask, or declare, sometimes rather loudly.

Because sometimes, a cigar really is just a cigar. And sometimes, the cigar is really a llama. Llamas spit. And don't ask me how I know that.

LTM, who finds dry paint really interesting right now,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 CER
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Mark Appel on April 19, 2014, 02:14:56 PM
"...Rigor and highly qualified objectivity have come to bear..."

What he said...
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Ted G Campbell on April 20, 2014, 08:43:39 PM
All,
If Mellon’s experts have identified and outlined certain “aircraft parts” in the 2010 video can’t we scale backwards to see if there is anything there?  What I mean by back scale is:

Hopefully we know the depth of the camera at the time the object was photographed and the distance to the sea floor or the focal length of the camera.  And;

Would it then be possible to back scale the object outlined i.e. if we find by back scaling the object – say a wheel outlined – and find it would be 10 times larger or smaller then the original L10 equipment this should shut down the claim.

Also, I was re watching the “Dive 14” video and noticed something at 15:58:44:04 that appears to be a perfect dark rimmed circle – has Jeff taken a close up look at this object?

Ted Campbell
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Mark Appel on April 21, 2014, 12:11:15 AM
All,
If Mellon’s experts have identified and outlined certain “aircraft parts” in the 2010 video can’t we scale backwards to see if there is anything there?  What I mean by back scale is:

Hopefully we know the depth of the camera at the time the object was photographed and the distance to the sea floor or the focal length of the camera.  And;

Would it then be possible to back scale the object outlined i.e. if we find by back scaling the object – say a wheel outlined – and find it would be 10 times larger or smaller then the original L10 equipment this should shut down the claim.

Also, I was re watching the “Dive 14” video and noticed something at 15:58:44:04 that appears to be a perfect dark rimmed circle – has Jeff taken a close up look at this object?

Ted Campbell

"Scale" is a very real issue in the identification of the objects in question. However, as TIGHAR's experts have pointed out, that's only one of many legal, scientific, and evidentiary challenges the plaintiffs face. Despite these, it is clear Mr. Mellon and his team share the same ultimate goals as TIGHAR.

I for one am hoping that the sheer weight of those combined evidentiary challenges persuades all involved that good faith should and will prevail and TIGHAR can turn all of its very modest resources to the very damn serious fund raising required for Niku VIII. Only a well-planned and funded Niku VIII can resolve any of the issues or questions that precipitate from existing videos or sonar images. Anything else is the waste heat of speculation, dissipated to the atmosphere and doing no work...
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: JNev on April 21, 2014, 05:44:30 AM
All,
If Mellon’s experts have identified and outlined certain “aircraft parts” in the 2010 video can’t we scale backwards to see if there is anything there?  What I mean by back scale is:

Hopefully we know the depth of the camera at the time the object was photographed and the distance to the sea floor or the focal length of the camera.  And;

Would it then be possible to back scale the object outlined i.e. if we find by back scaling the object – say a wheel outlined – and find it would be 10 times larger or smaller then the original L10 equipment this should shut down the claim.

Also, I was re watching the “Dive 14” video and noticed something at 15:58:44:04 that appears to be a perfect dark rimmed circle – has Jeff taken a close up look at this object?

Ted Campbell

Fogettaboutit, Ted -

Re-read Kaufman and Ebert if you've read them, read carefully now if you've not - they cover this well.  The videos are a non-starter for any real identification of airplane stuff, let alone Earhart stuff - and scale is ONE of the major impediments.

Frankly, the OTHER impediments are more than enough to leave me with a "glad the effort was made and for what we learned, but no cigar and no Electra" - time to move on, what Mark Appel just said: if we'd see this through then we have to go back and make a great mission of it.  There's nothing more concrete toward solving the mystery to be found in the videos, as fun and educational as they were. 

These two gents had no axe to grind and told it like it is, IMO.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: John Ousterhout on April 21, 2014, 09:03:54 AM
"...the distance to the sea floor or the focal length of the camera"
There isn't enough information to "back scale" - the distance from the camera to any particular object is not known - it might be inches or yards.  In really clear water, you might be able to clearly make out details at tens of yards, but they would look the same as a smaller object just inches away.  A lemon drop a foot away would appear identical to a lemon 5 feet away, which would appear the same as a grapefruit 10 feet away.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Monty Fowler on May 02, 2014, 01:52:34 PM
Now that no more new facts can be introduced into the case (discovery cutoff was April 30), I am hoping that maybe common sense will break out in Casper and if we even get to the motion hearing set for July 17th, it will be agreed by all to step away and fall, or not, on our respective swords.

I am hoping that is how the judge will see things.

LTM, who knows what he doesn't know (and wishes others would admit to the same),
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 CER
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Ric Gillespie on May 02, 2014, 01:56:49 PM
Now that no more new facts can be introduced into the case (discovery cutoff was April 30)

Discovery was extended at our request.  We needed more time for our experts (Les Kaufman was traveling).
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Ted G Campbell on June 07, 2014, 09:22:12 PM
Where do we stand Ric, legally and money wise?
Ted
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Ric Gillespie on June 08, 2014, 08:40:27 AM
Where do we stand Ric, legally and money wise?

The Theater of the Absurd continues.  On May 23 Tim Mellon's attorney Tim Stubson took Jeff Glickman's deposition in Seattle.  Mr. Mellon was present to observe. TIGHAR attorney Bill Carter was there on TIGHAR's behalf.  This week the circus shifts to Boston where Stubson will be taking depositions from TIGHAR board members Graham Berwind and Art Carty on Wednesday and from TIGHAR experts Dr. Jim Ebert (photogrammetry) and Prof. Les Kaufman (coral) on Thursday.  TIGHAR attorney John Masterson will be there on our behalf.  I'll be there to observe. 

I expect Tim Mellon will be there, wearing his Gone Squatchin' ball cap as he did at his own deposition.  Although presumably intended to poke fun at Jeff Glickman's early research into the Big Foot phenomenon, the hat is an exquisitely ironic description of Mellon's own hunt for evidence of TIGHAR fraud or negligent misrepresentation - a pointless search for something that doesn't exist. 

We've generally been able to keep up with the legal bills through contributions to the Legal Defense Fund and the generosity of some well-heeled contributors, but the travel and lawyer time for these depositions will be expensive.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: JNev on June 08, 2014, 10:15:47 AM
What happened to Tim's own hint at reconciliation after the previous round on these very pages?  Vexatiously absurd.

By continuing so, Tim merely proves himself a sore loser in my view.  It reminds me of the boy who fetches his football home after a rough tackle.  "Gone Squatchin'" is a small hat that now seems to fit all too well considering the irony of Tim really seeming upset that Glickman just won't see the toilet paper, banjo and cadaverous 'face' etc. that Earhart left among the Flintstonian 'wreckage' at Niku... That he would ascribe that denial to some deliberate concealment is beyond any words and thoughts I care to write here.

I have great confidence that Ebert and Kaufman will acquit themselves with excellence; if Tim really must have that capstone placed over the daisies now growing over the musty grave of his ideas, let it be so.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Ric Gillespie on June 08, 2014, 01:50:45 PM
What happened to Tim's own hint at reconciliation after the previous round on these very pages?

Tim has a generous and reasonable settlement offer in front of him. He has not accepted it, nor has he rejected it. He apparently wants to do some more squatchin' but discovery will close later this month and Tim's squatchin' days will be over.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Monty Fowler on June 08, 2014, 03:16:14 PM
"Gone Squatchin' " ... I thought that's what that cap said. There's just no accounting for some things.

Sigh ... when I think of all the bottom time for the submersibles that TIGHAR could buy with the money that Mellon has forced TIGHAR to waste, well ... TIGHAR is still going to find Amelia. Then perhaps we can buy Mellon a new cap. What should be written on the front of that cap, well, I will leave that up to the Formerly Appointed Nominating Committee for Absurdities.

LTM, who is waiting to see if the paint is dry,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 ECSP
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Tim Mellon on June 09, 2014, 09:25:48 AM
What happened to Tim's own hint at reconciliation after the previous round on these very pages?

Tim has a generous and reasonable settlement offer in front of him. He has not accepted it, nor has he rejected it. He apparently wants to do some more squatchin' but discovery will close later this month and Tim's squatchin' days will be over.

Ric, the offer was rejected several weeks ago. I'm sorry you didn't get the word.

Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: JNev on June 09, 2014, 09:33:53 AM
What happened to Tim's own hint at reconciliation after the previous round on these very pages?

Tim has a generous and reasonable settlement offer in front of him. He has not accepted it, nor has he rejected it. He apparently wants to do some more squatchin' but discovery will close later this month and Tim's squatchin' days will be over.

Ric, the offer was rejected several weeks ago. I'm sorry you didn't get the word.

Well, in any case, as Ric notes discovery will soon close.

With any decent luck the scrimmage field will be cleared and a new football can be had.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Ric Gillespie on June 20, 2014, 05:38:36 PM
Discovery closed on June 15 except for two depositions that will be done before the end of the month.
Yesterday our legal team filed three "dispositive motions" i.e. motions that ask the judge to dispose of the case.  As you may recall, only two of the four original counts remain - fraud and negligent misrepresentation.  Racketeering and negligence were thrown out earlier this year. 

The motions filed yesterday were:
• a motion to dismiss me from the case as an individual.
• a motion to dismiss the fraud count
• a motion to dismiss the negligent misrepresentation count

The filings are public but I am under strict instruction not to comment on them.

Attached are the "memo" filings for each motion.  They contain the argument for why we think the motion should be granted.  You'll see reference to "exhibits."  I can also post the exhibits of you're interested.


Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Monty Fowler on June 21, 2014, 12:14:13 PM
Sigh ... if only logic and common sense were allowed to rule in our judicial system. Still, we have a good, thoughtful judge, who is more than aware that this isn't a garden-vareity legal kerfluffle. He is going to read and weigh all of these thoroughly.

And I'm hoping at the end of it, Mellon will need a new hat. I already have one picked out.

LTM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 ECSP
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Ric Gillespie on June 22, 2014, 06:51:57 AM
Incidentally, although I am constrained from commenting on the filings, you guys are not.  Feel free to express any opinion you may have about the strength or weakness of the arguments presented.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: matt john barth on June 22, 2014, 11:52:27 AM
Just out of curiosity, why would Tighar remain friends with Mr. Mellon, after he filed this lawsuit if it were frivolous like people seem to think, or at least that is what I am making of it. I know I don't know all of the facts.

Matt
Barth

Ps for educational purposes
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Ric Gillespie on June 22, 2014, 02:41:59 PM
Just out of curiosity, why would Tighar remain friends with Mr. Mellon,

TIGHAR was never friends with Mr. Mellon.  He was a major contributor to Niku VII for which we were grateful.  Our relationship might be described as gentlemanly and cordial. After he filed his lawsuit we did not ban him from the TIGHAR Forum or revoke his membership in the organization. His postings on the Forum have proved to be invaluable in building our defense against his lawsuit.   There's an expression about holding your friends close .......
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Monty Fowler on June 23, 2014, 07:21:51 AM
The main thing I took away from those well-reasoned filings was that Mellon admitted under oath that he didn't even think about suing until TIGHAR curtailed his discussions on the forum about what he thought he saw on the underwater video. I can't remember exactly now, but I think the tipping point may have been the supposed plastic bags over the supposed heads of the supposed corpses of Amelia and Fred, coupled with the supposed nitrogen tank and references to a supposed suicide.

Still, I would like to see the transcript of his deposition. I'm sure it will make for fascinating *cough* reading.

LTM, who knows the human waste can be a terrible thing to mind,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 218 ECSP

Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Ric Gillespie on June 23, 2014, 07:44:46 AM
Still, I would like to see the transcript of his deposition. I'm sure it will make for fascinating *cough* reading.

The only portions of his depositions that are public are what were quoted in the "Exhibits" that accompanied the dispositive motions. Attached are the Exhibits that quote his deposition.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Paul March on June 23, 2014, 09:07:11 AM
The lack of scientific evidence on the part of the Plaintiff is at a level beyond comprehension. However, more problematic is the argument regarding what TIGHAR "should" have done. It seems to me that the Plaintiff is making an argument that science is based on finding an expert that validates your opinions rather than allowing the evidence to direct the investigation.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Ric Gillespie on June 23, 2014, 09:10:25 AM
The lack of scientific evidence on the part of the Plaintiff is at a level beyond comprehension. However, more problematic is the argument regarding what TIGHAR "should" have done. It seems to me that the Plaintiff is making an argument that science is based on finding an expert that validates your opinions rather than allowing the evidence to direct the investigation.

The blood trickling from the corners of my mouth is from me biting my tongue.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Monty Fowler on June 23, 2014, 09:14:21 AM
One of TIGHAR's experts summed it up best - the chance of the coral lumps not being coral lumps is "vanishingly small."

LTM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 ECSP

Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: JNev on June 23, 2014, 11:00:08 AM
The lack of scientific evidence on the part of the Plaintiff is at a level beyond comprehension. However, more problematic is the argument regarding what TIGHAR "should" have done. It seems to me that the Plaintiff is making an argument that science is based on finding an expert that validates your opinions rather than allowing the evidence to direct the investigation.

Well, of course.  How else?   :P
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Greg Daspit on June 23, 2014, 01:36:19 PM
My opinion of the arguments:
It’s still weird to me that there are both a Negligence and a Fraud claim. It seems to me if there were any evidence there would only be one or the other.
Regarding Fraud:
It still seems the main argument is only Mr. Mellon’s opinion of what he sees in images. Which include what he claims is AE plane parts and parts of AE and FN wrapped in cellophane. It’s okay to have an opinion but I believe to prove fraud, Mr. Mellon has to provide evidence TIGHAR saw AE’s plane and hid the fact that they saw it. No evidence was provided for that. None. But the attorney kept asking for any evidence. In a really bizarre answer in the Q&A exchange Mr. Mellon did argue the Cook photo and Bevington photo were evidence. Both are photos and only an opinion can be offered of what’s in them(again). Mr. Mellon does not seem sure either photo shows airplane parts but cited them as evidence of fraud anyway. That is really a strange argument.
Also the Cook photo was not seen until after his donation and if the Bevington photo led him to believe the plane was nearby then it can’t be fraud since he thinks the plane is nearby. The argument makes no sense.
Here is the kicker to how ridiculous this argument is. Even if you recovered an actual part that is what Mr. Mellon says it is, it still does not prove fraud. At a minimum you have to prove TIGHAR determined for a fact that Amelia Earhart’s aircraft parts were found before the donation. There is no evidence of this whatsoever.

Regarding Negligence:
It appears the argument is that TIGHAR should have hired a better expert. (one that sees what Mr. Mellon sees). Maybe if you are wealthy and have a lot of money you can hire expert after expert until you find one that will say what you want. But regardless I doubt everyone will agree one expert is the unquestioned authority.  Yet even the “experts” Mellon hired (with funds TIGHAR does not have to waste on) do not claim the plane was definitely found, only that shapes are consistent with parts from the plane.  Their analysis had caveats too.  The additional experts TIGHAR were forced to hire to defend itself question the methods used by Mr. Mellon’s expert’s.  Competing experts, and questioning who is the more qualified expert, seems to be a good reason this kind of approach was a concern in the beginning.  Someone can always suggest a better way to do things but to me TIGHAR was being a good steward of the gifts given to it.  This is a ridiculous lawsuit and it is a real shame that valuable resources need to be allocated to it. Hopefully the judge puts an end to it, sooner better than later
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Nancy Marilyn Gould on June 23, 2014, 06:06:37 PM
So what's the next big step?  A trial? When?  What's the timeline of this thing?
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Ric Gillespie on June 23, 2014, 07:09:20 PM
So what's the next big step?  A trial? When?  What's the timeline of this thing?
The filing of these motions was the next big step.  If the motions are granted it's over (unless there's an appeal). If at least one of the motions is not granted then we go to trial - scheduled to begin on August 25.  So it could be over soon or it could drag out all summer.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Monty Fowler on June 23, 2014, 07:22:24 PM
I'd say Casper is lovely in the summer. That's actually true. Kinda.

But the Magnificent 7 are not going to have to ride again. I will go to sleep tonight secure in that knowledge.

LTM, who knows why he's doing what he's doing,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 ECSP
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Jeff Buttke on June 24, 2014, 11:01:35 AM

Here is the kicker to how ridiculous this argument is.

To me the kicker to the ridiculousness  is that he simultaneously contends that TIGHAR found the plane(the fraud) and that TIGHAR  was too incompetent to find the plane (the negligence).    To make one claim means he cannot in good faith be serious about the other.

Of course considering he believes toilet paper can survive submerged in sea water for 70+ years I am not sure we should evaluate his assertions in such logical terms.

I know everyone here is a bit frustrated that TIGHAR's time and resources are spent on this obvious tripe so to cheer up imagine this..:

1. The how entertaining  it would be to see Mr Mellon or his experts take the stand and repeat and respond to questions on these claims.
for example...
Lawyer :What steps did TIGHAR take to conceal the 2010 video ?
Witness : They posted it to YouTube.

or

2. The mess my septic system would give me if toilet paper was so durable.





Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Kent Beuchert on June 24, 2014, 03:29:29 PM
If motions are granted, any possibility of suing Mellon for bringing frivolous or
harrassing lawsuit ?
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Ric Gillespie on June 24, 2014, 05:22:19 PM
If motions are granted, any possibility of suing Mellon for bringing frivolous or
harrassing lawsuit ?

No, not under Wyoming law.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Monty Fowler on June 24, 2014, 06:16:19 PM
If motions are granted, any possibility of suing Mellon for bringing frivolous or harrassing lawsuit ?

That's the common reaction most of us here have had to this sad little enterprise of Mellon's - You sued us, you ^$%#@*&+@, so we'll sue you! I have this to say: TIGHAR is better than that.

In this self-centered, always-ready-to-be-offended world, it is all too easy to sue anyone for virtually anything, no matter how ridiculous the allegations or imagined wrong may be. Some lawyer, somewhere, will take the case, for the billiable hours and self-enrichment, if nothing else. All it takes is money, and if money is all you have to offer the world, then does it matter, really, how it's spent?

I know why Mr. Mellon has done what he's done, to my satisfaction.

This entire episode won't even register as a blip on the history books when all is said and finally done. The People, without Mr. Mellon's assistance, will find Amelia and Fred. I am proud to be part of a facts-driven, head-straight-on-its-shoulders organization such as TIGHAR.

LTM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 ECSP
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Tim Mellon on June 24, 2014, 07:27:18 PM
Pretty simplistic there, Monty....
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: JNev on June 25, 2014, 05:41:29 AM
I dunno, at least some of it seemed deep enough.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Chris Austin on June 30, 2014, 06:06:52 AM
What happened to Tim's own hint at reconciliation after the previous round on these very pages?  Vexatiously absurd.

By continuing so, Tim merely proves himself a sore loser in my view.  It reminds me of the boy who fetches his football home after a rough tackle.  "Gone Squatchin'" is a small hat that now seems to fit all too well considering the irony of Tim really seeming upset that Glickman just won't see the toilet paper, banjo and cadaverous 'face' etc. that Earhart left among the Flintstonian 'wreckage' at Niku... That he would ascribe that denial to some deliberate concealment is beyond any words and thoughts I care to write here.

I have great confidence that Ebert and Kaufman will acquit themselves with excellence; if Tim really must have that capstone placed over the daisies now growing over the musty grave of his ideas, let it be so.


There's always this:


  (http://img197.imagevenue.com/loc180/th_129705750_TigharCap_122_180lo.jpg) (http://img197.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=129705750_TigharCap_122_180lo.jpg)
     
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Tim Mellon on June 30, 2014, 11:15:42 PM
This must be the place
 
Quote
« Last Edit: January 08, 2012, 11:09:07 AM by Jeff Victor Hayden »  Logged
Jeffrey Neville
TIGHAResearcher #3074R
Global Moderator

Posts: 542

Go LOOK.
X

Re: Still from ROV video
« Reply #16 on: January 08, 2012, 11:15:05 AM »
Quote from: Jeff Victor Hayden on January 08, 2012, 09:46:11 AM
Quote from: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on January 08, 2012, 08:31:56 AM
Quote from: Jeff Victor Hayden on January 08, 2012, 07:06:31 AM
Marty, the ROV video, and its title 'wire and rope' invites the viewers attention to focus on, well, wire and rope. Of course wire and rope could come from numerous sources and, they look very impressive which of course they must be to survive 75 years under the sea.

What I'm trying to suggest is that we don't know for sure whether the things pictured in the video are 75 years old.

They could be from some yacht that visited any time in the last decade.

Or tuna trawler (see this post for a list of types of visitors to Niku).

Quote
Looking outside the box is just as valuable as thinking outside it.

That's true if and only if the thing you seek is outside the box.

Outside the box again Marty  The black squiggly thing was getting on my nerves. Trawling through youtube looking for anything on tyre (tire) construction there are numerous videos showing how they are made, even some from the 1930's. Part of the process is to use long thin strips of black rubber in the plying process. These are applied to the structure of the tyre (tire) from huge reels.
At the start of the ROV video we have the circular wire, also part of the tyre (tire) construction process.
Now, I am not saying that these objects are definately part of a tyre (tire) but, the wave action, tides and storms have made short work of the SS Norwich city, what chance would a tyre (tire)on a wheel have?

Jeff

Very interesting catch, Jeff Hayden.

I couldn't visualize the 'gear' shape until you outlined it, and now like Irvine noted it nearly 'leaps' out at me.  I would hope TIGHAR has in mind a more thorough investigation if possible in the next ROV effort - potential targets like that could yield something concrete.

It doesn't leap out in the sense of bright, hard-chromed strut, etc. - but if it is a strut it could well be covered with coral / growth accretions I think.

The 'rope' or whatever it may be - may be anything.  As you noted, the thing the 'squiggley' is wrapped around is really interesting.  The 'rope' suggests a possible 'harness' to me, e.g. squat switch wiring as shown in the gear illustration.  I can see where a tire might be damaged and eventually shredded so that some remnant of its corded carcass is left looking some like that too.

Very interesting find!  I wish I had your eye for that.

There was, once upon a time, the appearance of an open mind.

Edited to clarify quoted material (which was from posts by Marty Moleski, Jeff Victor Hayden and Jeff Neville, respectively) - Jeff N.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: JNev on July 01, 2014, 05:49:05 AM
Well, with all due respect Tim, I've often pointed out my own excitement over these same things of past explorations - never did and never would deny it.

But an open mind also must embrace new realizations - and that includes that these things that once excited us just didn't bear out to be what so many of us had hoped for.  In that vein and in fairness of open mind, one also might also consider this post, reply #1602 of November 13, 2012 (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,571.msg21523.html#msg21523), as one that came after I had learned a great deal more and came to look at the sea bottom more critically.  What had once been suggested as 'gear' became a clear pile of 'rocks', at least as best I could discern (and I think my read of it is reliable, but others may judge for themselves, of course).

That's nothing against you at all - just that we each have to realize the limits of this search as best we can understand them.  And I really don't mean to discourage you from your own conclusions - but the 'proof' doesn't seem to have panned out at all by all we can see now.

I hope you will at some point come to peace over these things too.  I really appreciate what you did to make the 2012 expedtion happen, but never will fully understand this action you're in, although I can share in the disappointment of certain things no doubt.

All the best to you, no hard feelings.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Jeff Victor Hayden on July 03, 2014, 07:07:53 PM
Although the sonar return identified in 2012 is in a very fortuitous location in relation to the 2010 ROV footage.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Ric Gillespie on July 04, 2014, 06:13:07 AM
Although the sonar return identified in 2012 is in a very fortuitous location in relation to the 2010 ROV footage.

Do you know where the 2010 ROV footage was taken?  I don't.  On the day the "Wire and Rope" video was taken, the system that determined the location of the ROV relative to the ship was broken. When the ROV operator tried to return and recover the wire the next day he couldn't find it because he didn't know where it or where he was.  Even before the system broke (when they ran the tether through the ship's propeller) the recorded ROV locations were significantly flawed.  After the expedition I noticed discrepancies in the recorded positions of known objects (i.e. The Norwich City prop shaft) and their actual locations. I pointed out those discrepancies to the ROV operator who brought them to the attention of the vendor who provided the positioning software.  Although we didn't know it at the time, the ROV contractor was using an experimental program that turned out to have a "bug" in the system. Recorded positions were as much as 100 meters off.

I made some rough approximations of where the various ROV dives took place but any claim of certainty that the Wire and Rope video was taken anywhere near the 2012 sonar anomaly is pure banjo.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Jeff Victor Hayden on July 04, 2014, 08:12:42 AM
Indeed, the GPS position was not known as the data link was broken. However there are number of factors that give us the information needed.
The vessel from which the ROV was being worked had GPS
The length of the ROV tether from said vessel
The fact that the area to be searched was planned by members of the team going to the probable location of the  Bevington object and deciding that was where the search area should commence, off the location of the Bevington object.
The GPS may not have been working but the depth indication methods certainly were.

Summary. That's the area that the wreckage was hypothesised to be, that's why the ROV went in there, it wasn't just tossed over the side at random locations in the hope that lady luck would suffice.

The daily reports from the 2010 expedition containing the figures and the subsequent debates in the forum produced this probable location. When the sonar anomaly appeared in the following expedition in the same area of probability it didn't come as much of a surprise. That said, the anomaly may well turn out to be one of the vessels from the numerous fishing fleets and tourist/navy support vessels that frequented the area.

Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Tim Mellon on July 04, 2014, 11:45:35 AM
Well, with all due respect Tim, I've often pointed out my own excitement over these same things of past explorations - never did and never would deny it.

But an open mind also must embrace new realizations - and that includes that these things that once excited us just didn't bear out to be what so many of us had hoped for.  In that vein and in fairness of open mind, one also might also consider this post, reply #1602 of November 13, 2012 (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,571.msg21523.html#msg21523), as one that came after I had learned a great deal more and came to look at the sea bottom more critically.  What had once been suggested as 'gear' became a clear pile of 'rocks', at least as best I could discern (and I think my read of it is reliable, but others may judge for themselves, of course).

That's nothing against you at all - just that we each have to realize the limits of this search as best we can understand them.  And I really don't mean to discourage you from your own conclusions - but the 'proof' doesn't seem to have panned out at all by all we can see now.

I hope you will at some point come to peace over these things too.  I really appreciate what you did to make the 2012 expedtion happen, but never will fully understand this action you're in, although I can share in the disappointment of certain things no doubt.

All the best to you, no hard feelings.

Jeff, I don't know what could have convinced you that the "squiggly" was just a pile of rocks. IMHO, it is not a pile of rocks nor a landing gear. Everyone has waited years for Jeff Glickman's opinion, but all we hear is ... silence. Ric thinks it's a piece of insulation, and quite small at that. Others think that it is the audio cord of a headset. If only we had a scale by which to compare.

But wait! It turns out that scale was available in 2010: according to Mr. Rodocker, the Seabotix ROV could have been equipped with parallel laser beams, 50 mm apart, at no extra cost to TIGHAR! Furthermore, as John Jarrell has shown, the claw on the ROV can be used to determine scale if it is in close proximity to an object. You and I talked about the parallel laser (https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,916.msg21468.html#msg21468) method some time ago, before I learned it actually could have been used.

The same scaling tools could have been used in 2012, but apparently the lessons that should have been learned from 2010 were not. Did no one at TIGHAR take Archeology 101?

Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Tim Mellon on July 04, 2014, 12:08:16 PM
Indeed, the GPS position was not known as the data link was broken. However there are number of factors that give us the information needed.
The vessel from which the ROV was being worked had GPS
The length of the ROV tether from said vessel

Might I respectfully add, JVH, the ROV showed depth of 255 meters, meaning that practically the entire 300 meters had to have been spooled out. This in turn implies that the tether was essentially vertical, and thus that the ROV's position at that point in the dive was essentially the same as that of the vessel. The vessel's GPS position was visible to the ROV operator at all times, according to Mr. Rodocker.

Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: James G. Stoveken on July 04, 2014, 03:41:12 PM
Might I respectfully add...
                                                                                         
                                                                                 
You may not respectfully add anything, Timmy.  Your actions prove you have no respect for this organization, it's leaders, or it's members.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Andrew M McKenna on July 04, 2014, 03:51:20 PM

The same scaling tools could have been used in 2012, but apparently the lessons that should have been learned from 2010 were not. Did no one at TIGHAR take Archeology 101?

Gee Tim, you are a TIGHAR member, and you were on the 2012 expedition with a lot of your former money getting spent.  Why didn't you think of it?

You trusted TIGHAR to have it figured out, and TIGHAR trusted the "expert" professional underwater search guys who in retrospect, seemed to have approached that expedition as if it were a South Seas Vacation rather than anything important.

Hindsight is always beautiful, isn't it?

Andrew
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Tim Mellon on July 04, 2014, 07:13:29 PM

The same scaling tools could have been used in 2012, but apparently the lessons that should have been learned from 2010 were not. Did no one at TIGHAR take Archeology 101?

Gee Tim, you are a TIGHAR member, and you were on the 2012 expedition with a lot of your former money getting spent.  Why didn't you think of it?



Gee Andrew, I did think of it. Perhaps you missed the reference in my response to Jeff Neville earlier today, wherin I suggested
lasers  (https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,916.msg21468.html#msg21468)as a possible means of establishing scale, on 12 November, 2012, after folks started sniping about lack of scale when analyzing underwater video.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Jeff Victor Hayden on July 04, 2014, 07:53:14 PM
Tim, depending on which report you read the depth of the 2010 ROV footage varies.
Example:

"the only man-made objects found were two lengths of small diameter rope at about 200 meters (660 feet). An object that at first seemed to be a circle of wire was later judged to be more likely of natural origin."

I will collect all of the various depths and put them on to an image of the reef gradient and depths over the weekend to illustrate the proximity. Probable location in respect to the Norwich City wreck to follow later, again based on reports, 'best guesstimates', possible errors of 100 metres and actual footage of the 80 degree abyss at the end of the ROV footage. Remember lumps of coral and boulders are not going to stick to an 80 degree slope, try it at home in your kitchen. So whatever it was in the 2010 footage wasn't on an 80 degree slope, more like a shelf.

One point to remember is this, MH 370 the missing airliner has had the search area 'narrowed' down to 60,000 square Kilometres, this with all the high technology and satellite data. So how many square metres are we looking at in comparison?
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Tim Mellon on July 04, 2014, 08:51:15 PM
Jeff, the 255 meters I referred to earlier was the depth recorded by the ROV on 7 June 2010 on the Standard Definition Video of the "Wire and Rope" dive. I doubt you have yet had the opportunity to analyze this video. I received a copy in the discovery process.

As to total area, my best estimate now is that all debris lies in an area no bigger than 100 meters by 100 meters, that is to say 1% of a square kilometer. This includes additional debris found in 2012 to a depth of 1080 feet, as recorded on the 2012 SD Video.

Mr. Rodocker has testified that the accuracy of the 2010 depth indicaton was +/- several meters.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Ric Gillespie on July 05, 2014, 01:18:16 PM
Let me try to clear up what we know and don't know about what was seen where in 2010.  Tim is correct that the Standard Definition video recorded the depth as 255m (836 ft) at the time the ROV was observing the rope and wire on June 7, 2010.  It is also true that, because the tether was 300m long, the ship had to be more or less directly over the ROV at that time. Therefore, if we knew the location of the ship we would have a pretty good handle on the location of the wire and rope - but we don't.  Attached are two critiques I sent to the ROV operator in November 2010 when I noticed significant discrepancies in his reports.  As you'll see, neither the GPS for the ROV tracking system nor the GPS for the ship was reliable. 
Bottom line: we can be fairly sure that the wire and rope were roughly 255m down but we have no reliable information about where the ship was at that time.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: JNev on July 06, 2014, 06:58:43 AM
Well, with all due respect Tim, I've often pointed out my own excitement over these same things of past explorations - never did and never would deny it.

But an open mind also must embrace new realizations - and that includes that these things that once excited us just didn't bear out to be what so many of us had hoped for.  In that vein and in fairness of open mind, one also might also consider this post, reply #1602 of November 13, 2012 (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,571.msg21523.html#msg21523), as one that came after I had learned a great deal more and came to look at the sea bottom more critically.  What had once been suggested as 'gear' became a clear pile of 'rocks', at least as best I could discern (and I think my read of it is reliable, but others may judge for themselves, of course).

That's nothing against you at all - just that we each have to realize the limits of this search as best we can understand them.  And I really don't mean to discourage you from your own conclusions - but the 'proof' doesn't seem to have panned out at all by all we can see now.

I hope you will at some point come to peace over these things too.  I really appreciate what you did to make the 2012 expedtion happen, but never will fully understand this action you're in, although I can share in the disappointment of certain things no doubt.

All the best to you, no hard feelings.

Jeff, I don't know what could have convinced you that the "squiggly" was just a pile of rocks. IMHO, it is not a pile of rocks nor a landing gear. Everyone has waited years for Jeff Glickman's opinion, but all we hear is ... silence. Ric thinks it's a piece of insulation, and quite small at that. Others think that it is the audio cord of a headset. If only we had a scale by which to compare.

But wait! It turns out that scale was available in 2010: according to Mr. Rodocker, the Seabotix ROV could have been equipped with parallel laser beams, 50 mm apart, at no extra cost to TIGHAR! Furthermore, as John Jarrell has shown, the claw on the ROV can be used to determine scale if it is in close proximity to an object. You and I talked about the parallel laser (https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,916.msg21468.html#msg21468) method some time ago, before I learned it actually could have been used.

The same scaling tools could have been used in 2012, but apparently the lessons that should have been learned from 2010 were not. Did no one at TIGHAR take Archeology 101?

I never said or believed 'the squiggly' was rocks, Tim; if you look at my posts as they developed on the topic you can readily see that I believe it was likely a material like the shipboard gasket stuff Ric was shown.

As to the shape suggesting 'landing gear fork' - as I showed in the post I bothered to link above that it came to be clear that it was really a collection of rocks on the ocean floor.  The shadowing and highlights are most clever - and the apparent hand of nature.  Lesson well learned and I accept that reality and can't use further time considering what I'd like it to be.

And now I realize more fully how pointless a forum like this can be for trying to have any real academic progress on a pursuit such as many try to have.  Too often those who wade in here to 'argue' such points just won't focus on information already discussed or consider it objectively; for one, taking my meaning of 'the squiggly' as being 'rocks' completely look past the explanation I took pains to give, so what is the point?  I think Tom King got it right when he dropped out of this open 'discussion' - no workable boundaries here to gain any hard truth, just mental thumb twiddling all too often.

Have a nice day.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Ric Gillespie on July 06, 2014, 11:17:48 AM
And now I realize more fully how pointless a forum like this can be for trying to have any real academic progress on a pursuit such as many try to have.  Too often those who wade in here to 'argue' such points just won't focus on information already discussed or consider it objectively; for one, taking my meaning of 'the squiggly' as being 'rocks' completely look past the explanation I took pains to give, so what is the point?  I think Tom King got it right when he dropped out of this open 'discussion' - no workable boundaries here to gain any hard truth, just mental thumb twiddling all too often.

Take heart Jeff.  Yes, there are many drawbacks to an open forum and, by and large, the serious work gets done elsewhere.  A lot of time gets waisted educating and re-educating people who don't do their homework and occasionally we have to call a halt to a thread that has degenerated into utter nonsense.   Had we not had an open forum we would't now need a Legal Defense Fund.  So why do we continue to maintain such an expensive and inefficient research tool?  Because we're not a private foundation.  We're a public charity. The whole point of the Earhart Project is to share the experience of science-based investigation with anyone who wants to play (as long as they play nice).  People learn things here and I probably learn more than anybody.  We have some very good researchers who participate in the forum, some are TIGHAR members, some aren't.  Some think our hypothesis is correct and some are bound and determined to prove us wrong. Even the dumb questions force us to think.
So summon up your patience, thicken your hide to the abuse, and as the old British wartime saying goes - Keep Calm and Carry On.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Jeff Victor Hayden on July 06, 2014, 02:02:39 PM
This is an image that shows the sonar anomaly location and the 2010 ROV footage depths. The minimum depth that can be found for the footage in various tighar reports is at 200 metres "Other than some wreckage from the SS Norwich City, the only man-made objects found were two lengths of small diameter rope at about 200 meters (660 feet). An object that at first seemed to be a circle of wire was later judged to be more likely of natural origin"
The maximum depth recorded by the ROV on 7 June 2010 on the Standard Definition Video was 255 metres.
Obviously the ROV was present at much deeper and much shallower depths although no deeper than 300 metres. The maximum and minimum depths refer to recorded and reported depths of the 'debris field', not the excursion up and down the reef face.
Also note that during the 2010 ROV footage the majority of the ROV movement was along the Y Axis, that is up and down the reef face. Only a tiny percentage covered movement along the X Axis so the depth varied considerably from start to finish.

Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Jeff Victor Hayden on July 06, 2014, 05:39:20 PM
Another point to take into consideration is the fact that in the 2010 ROV footage the ROV manages to set down on a number of occasions to get close ups. Is that possible on a 70-80 degree slope? The odds are in favour of it setting down on a slope a lot less than 70-80 degrees, or something else. Take a look at the image I posted earlier and draw your own conclusions.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Tim Mellon on July 06, 2014, 06:18:07 PM
So let's concede that wheras the longitude of the "rope" is known (using the 255 meter contour as a surrogate) it is the latitude (North-South) position that remains in question.

Even if one were to start searching along that contour from just abeam the Norwich City moving Northward, at say five meters per minute, it could not take more than several hours to cover the entire contour all the way past the end of the reef at the Northern end of the island.

Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Jeff Victor Hayden on July 06, 2014, 06:27:49 PM
The depth is fairly conclusive. The actual North/South location can be worked out mathematically + or - a few tens of metres. I'm working that one through at the moment as there is quite a lot of information and clues to collate.
Example:
"The hypothesis to be tested was that the plane had gone over the reef edge at a point about 400 meters north of the Norwich City shipwreck. The plan was for Jesse Rodocker of SeaBotix, Inc. to use the company’s LBV compact Remote Operated Vehicles (ROVs) equipped with high definition video to search the reef slope down to 300 meters (984 feet) which, we reasoned, should cover the area in which large, heavy pieces of wreckage might come to rest."

Of course logically that would be the area in which you would put the ROV in then, given that you have stood on the reef with your GPS positioning kit...

"Ric, Gary, and Mark went to look at the “Nessie” location, which involves a slogging hike around the end of the island, and then out onto the reef. Using GPS and the spot marked by our forensic imaging specialist, they arrived at the correct area at dead low tide."
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Monty Fowler on July 06, 2014, 06:39:17 PM
The irony of all of this leave me torn between laughter and tears and times. This is one of those times.

How much more bottom time for the subs would TIGHAR be able to buy if it wasn't being forced to funnel scarce resources into defending itself against a groundless lawsuit? Two hours? Three? Half a day? Maybe enough to give us the edge needed to finally give Amelia and Fred the end to their story that they deserve.

But ... people have their priorities. God knows I cannot discern what that priority might be in this case, although I do know why this is being done and the hoped-for outcome of the chief instigator. Thankfully, I will not be the one who has to explain that "why" at the final reckoning.

LTM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 ECSP
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Tim Mellon on July 06, 2014, 11:58:20 PM
The depth is fairly conclusive. The actual North/South location can be worked out mathematically + or - a few tens of metres. I'm working that one through at the moment as there is quite a lot of information and clues to collate.
Example:
"The hypothesis to be tested was that the plane had gone over the reef edge at a point about 400 meters north of the Norwich City shipwreck. The plan was for Jesse Rodocker of SeaBotix, Inc. to use the company’s LBV compact Remote Operated Vehicles (ROVs) equipped with high definition video to search the reef slope down to 300 meters (984 feet) which, we reasoned, should cover the area in which large, heavy pieces of wreckage might come to rest."

Of course logically that would be the area in which you would put the ROV in then, given that you have stood on the reef with your GPS positioning kit...

"Ric, Gary, and Mark went to look at the “Nessie” location, which involves a slogging hike around the end of the island, and then out onto the reef. Using GPS and the spot marked by our forensic imaging specialist, they arrived at the correct area at dead low tide."

The answer is S04o39'25.62" (see Table 1 from Niku VII, where GPS positions were more reliable than in 2010).
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: JNev on July 07, 2014, 04:28:21 AM
So let's concede that wheras the longitude of the "rope" is known (using the 255 meter contour as a surrogate) it is the latitude (North-South) position that remains in question.

Even if one were to start searching along that contour from just abeam the Norwich City moving Northward, at say five meters per minute, it could not take more than several hours to cover the entire contour all the way past the end of the reef at the Northern end of the island.

Great idea, Tim - so, accordingly, would you like to be part of the solution to go out and look smartly, or continue down this legal path that will gain nothing for anyone?
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Andrew M McKenna on July 07, 2014, 01:55:27 PM
Sorry Tim, but it is hard to leave your inconsistencies unchallenged.

Statement #1, Tim says:
"The same scaling tools could have been used in 2012, but apparently the lessons that should have been learned from 2010 were not. Did no one at TIGHAR take Archeology 101?"

Statement #2, Tim says:
"I suggested lasers as a possible means of establishing scale, on 12 November, 2012, after folks started sniping about lack of scale when analyzing underwater video."

In statement #1, you denigrate TIGHAR and imply that you would have done a better job of planning, but....

Statement #2 puts the lie to Statement #1 as you admit that only after the 2012 expedition did you think of lasers, so you did just as bad a job of planning as TIGHAR (and the professional subcontractors TIGHAR employed).  Didn't you take Archaeology 101?

Based upon your own statements, if you sued yourself for Fraud and Negligence, you'd stand a better chance of winning the case than the current lawsuit you are engaged in.

With all due respect.
Andrew
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Ric Gillespie on July 07, 2014, 02:17:19 PM
Plaintiff's responses to our dispositive motions are due July 9.  They will be public and I will post them here. 
There is a hearing scheduled for July 17 in Casper at which the judge will hear oral arguments on the dispositive motions.  He might "rule from the bench" and give us his decision then and there or he might want to do some research and think before issuing his ruling.  If he asks questions of the attorneys it may give us some indication of how he's leaning.
I'll be there.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: JNev on July 07, 2014, 02:18:07 PM
Sorry Tim, but it is hard to leave your inconsistencies unchallenged.

Statement #1, Tim says:
"The same scaling tools could have been used in 2012, but apparently the lessons that should have been learned from 2010 were not. Did no one at TIGHAR take Archeology 101?"

Statement #2, Tim says:
"I suggested lasers as a possible means of establishing scale, on 12 November, 2012, after folks started sniping about lack of scale when analyzing underwater video."

In statement #1, you denigrate TIGHAR and imply that you would have done a better job of planning, but....

Statement #2 puts the lie to Statement #1 as you admit that only after the 2012 expedition did you think of lasers, so you did just as bad a job of planning as TIGHAR (and the professional subcontractors TIGHAR employed).  Didn't you take Archaeology 101?

Based upon your own statements, if you sued yourself for Fraud and Negligence, you'd stand a better chance of winning the case than the current lawsuit you are engaged in.

With all due respect.
Andrew

Well summed, Andrew.

Tim - "sniping" about lack of scale?  I don't recall any "sniping" - I thought it was more like a direct shot at close range - clearly, no objective scale, no dice.  And now that we've learned more, lack of scale seems to add somehow to the prospect of "vanishingly small", at that.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: JNev on July 07, 2014, 02:18:37 PM
Plaintiff's responses to our dispositive motions are due July 9.  They will be public and I will post them here. 
There is a hearing scheduled for July 17 in Casper at which the judge will hear oral arguments on the dispositive motions.  He might "rule from the bench" and give us his decision then and there or he might want to do some research and think before issuing his ruling.  If he asks questions of the attorneys it may give us some indication of how he's leaning.
I'll be there.

Sounds like progress.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Tim Mellon on July 07, 2014, 02:36:04 PM

In statement #1, you denigrate TIGHAR and imply that you would have done a better job of planning, but....

Statement #2 puts the lie to Statement #1 as you admit that only after the 2012 expedition did you think of lasers, so you did just as bad a job of planning as TIGHAR (and the professional subcontractors TIGHAR employed).  Didn't you take Archaeology 101?


Andrew, Andrew...

You seem to be confusing me, a mere layman before my participation, with TIGHAR the self-proclaimed experts in all matters relative to the loss of, and search for, Amelia Earhart. I certainly have learned many things from my experiences, but to suggest that I could have in any manner been able to contribute to the planning of either expedition is pure poppy-cock (or "banjo", as Ric now enjoys saying).

Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: JNev on July 07, 2014, 03:09:16 PM

In statement #1, you denigrate TIGHAR and imply that you would have done a better job of planning, but....

Statement #2 puts the lie to Statement #1 as you admit that only after the 2012 expedition did you think of lasers, so you did just as bad a job of planning as TIGHAR (and the professional subcontractors TIGHAR employed).  Didn't you take Archaeology 101?


Andrew, Andrew...

You seem to be confusing me, a mere layman before my participation, with TIGHAR the self-proclaimed experts in all matters relative to the loss of, and search for, Amelia Earhart. I certainly have learned many things from my experiences, but to suggest that I could have in any manner been able to contribute to the planning of either expedition is pure poppy-cock (or "banjo", as Ric now enjoys saying).

Well, dang, Tim - which way is it?

You criticize TIGHAR for not being more professionally attentive by asserting what you seem to see as a professional viewpoint, and now disclaim that very thing.

Now you seem to be confusing me, period!  :P
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: JNev on July 09, 2014, 09:59:00 AM

In statement #1, you denigrate TIGHAR and imply that you would have done a better job of planning, but....

Statement #2 puts the lie to Statement #1 as you admit that only after the 2012 expedition did you think of lasers, so you did just as bad a job of planning as TIGHAR (and the professional subcontractors TIGHAR employed).  Didn't you take Archaeology 101?


Andrew, Andrew...

You seem to be confusing me, a mere layman before my participation, with TIGHAR the self-proclaimed experts in all matters relative to the loss of, and search for, Amelia Earhart. I certainly have learned many things from my experiences, but to suggest that I could have in any manner been able to contribute to the planning of either expedition is pure poppy-cock (or "banjo", as Ric now enjoys saying).

Further to his post above, I kindly agree with Tim's admission there of being a mere layman.  Below is his own explanation from an earlier time of how he managed to scale things -


Tim, do a search on the word 'scale' and you should find the appropriate threads.


Chris, thanks for the suggestion. Earlier in the year folks were seeing some of the same things. The wheel, for instance. What has provided scale for me is the juxtaposition of the wheel and engine suggested by John Balderston (see reply #1567 this thread, third attachment).

John also points out the numeral "2" at time 13:43:20 frame 14 in the upper right hand corner of the picture. The known size of the number on the plane's wing is certainly scale that I can believe in (see reply #1598 this thread, third attachment).

Of course, scale is going to depend on distance from camera to object observed. It would be helpful if somehow the ROV could drop foot-long bio-degradable "straws" from place to place, just to give us a shot at scale!

To depend on the 'wheel' and 'engine' and 'juxtaposition' as a reliable method of scaling size or distance would be dependent on objectively showing that one reliably was looking at one such object for certain, i.e. indeed, factually a 'wheel', or an 'engine'.  Proof that we are indeed looking at same, beyond significant doubt (in fact, in the words of one, those odds are "vanishingly small") appears to remain elusive.  Hence, we still lack a reliable form of scale, if considered according to Tim's idea.

Could such an object be provably identified, then his idea would be grand, I would agree; were that the case, however, we'd hardly have need of further consideration - the bird would be in-hand.  The odds seem to remain 'vanishingly small', however.

The 'biodegradable straws' seems like an interesting idea; they would need to be highly visible I would think, lest they simply become more needles in the Niku haystack.

All the best,
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Monty Fowler on July 09, 2014, 12:52:53 PM
There is a hearing scheduled for July 17 in Casper at which the judge will hear oral arguments on the dispositive motions.  ... I'll be there.

What time on July 17th?

LTM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 ECSP
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Ric Gillespie on July 09, 2014, 12:54:15 PM
There is a hearing scheduled for July 17 in Casper at which the judge will hear oral arguments on the dispositive motions.  ... I'll be there.

What time on July 17th?

LTM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 ECSP

Dunno yet.

Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Tim Mellon on July 09, 2014, 05:02:35 PM
Quote
If the court grants our motions the case is over.

Well, except for any appeal.

Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Monty Fowler on July 10, 2014, 06:32:24 AM
I wonder if Mellon will bother to show up this time? It is his game, after all.

LTM, who as walked the walk to Casper,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 ECSP
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Ric Gillespie on July 10, 2014, 06:38:59 AM
The Plaintiffs response to our dispositive motions was filled yesterday.  The "exhibits" files are too big to post on the Forum.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Tim Mellon on July 10, 2014, 06:40:45 AM
I wonder if Mellon will bother to show up this time? It is his game, after all.

LTM, who as walked the walk to Casper,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 ECSP

Sorry, Monty, I will be in Italy on the 17th.

Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Monty Fowler on July 10, 2014, 09:58:11 AM
The Plaintiffs response to our dispositive motions was filled yesterday. 

For my own edification, I started counting the sentences and phrases that could charitably be classified as "sour grapes" ... and got bored when I reached 50.

LTM, who remembers that famous line from A Few Good Men,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 ECSP
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Jeff Lange on July 10, 2014, 10:03:33 AM
The Plaintiffs response to our dispositive motions was filled yesterday. 

For my own edification, I started counting the sentences and phrases that could charitably be classified as "sour grapes" ... and got bored when I reached 50.

LTM, who remembers that famous line from A Few Good Men,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 ECSP

So I guess the court should be prepared to serve some cheese to go along with all of that "whine"?
(Sorry- I couldn't resist it!)
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Ric Gillespie on July 10, 2014, 10:08:49 AM
Can't blame Tim for wanting to be as far away from that courtroom as possible on the the 17th.

Between now and then the attorneys and I will be looking closely at the Plaintiff's response to our requests for summary judgment to identify its many factual errors and fallacies. We'd like your help.  Interested Forum readers, especially those with legal training, are encouraged to review the original complaint, our motions for dismissal, and the Plaintiff's response.  I'll put the relevant documents and exhibits in the TIGHAR dropbox.  Just send me an email at ric@tighar.org and I'll send you an invitation to the dropbox.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Andrew M McKenna on July 10, 2014, 10:39:40 AM
Certainly one issue I have is the characterization of a piece of rope and a piece of wire as being "Wreckage", and further that our identifying what are, or what we think might be man made objects, as being conclusively from Earhart.

We've found a lot of man made material on Nikumaroro, both in the water and on land.  The issue is to connect any of it conclusively to Earhart which to this day remains a question.  Seems to me that to win his case, he has to prove there can be no other source for that material, which we know is not the case given the history of human activities at Nikumaroro.

How can Mellon conclude that a piece of rope or wire found on the reef face is any more conclusively linked to Earhart than a piece of rope or wire found in the Village?  His argument seems to be that it was found in the right place, but if that is the standard, we've found Earhart "wreckage" all over the island.  The same argument could be used for a piece of rope found off Howland Island.  Even the stuff we have in hand that we think is related to Earhart is hard to establish as conclusive, how can he say that stuff we don't have in hand to examine is conclusively Earhart related?  Bit of a stretch.

Hopefully the Judge will have powers of logic and deal with this case in the manner it deserves.

Andrew

Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: richie conroy on July 12, 2014, 01:03:01 PM
Hi All

just read this news report thought i would post for anyone interested  http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/a9b2d14a5ce1416d9418453c07b8abfb/US--Earhart-Suit
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Monty Fowler on July 13, 2014, 11:56:49 AM
Mellon knows full well what he's doing. And I know why he's doing it.

"Poisoning the well" for future TIGHAR donations is the least of his goals. And at least TIGHARs have the stones to show up in court, en masse.

LTM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 ECSP
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Ric Gillespie on July 16, 2014, 08:24:42 AM
On my way to Casper. Hearing tomorrow. Wish us luck.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Paul March on July 16, 2014, 08:39:36 AM
On my way to Casper. Hearing tomorrow. Wish us luck.

Good luck and be safe! May logic prevail and the issue be laid to rest.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Monty Fowler on July 16, 2014, 10:11:57 AM
*thumbs up* I have Mellon's new hat picked out.

LTM, who has a hat for almost every occasion,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 ECSP
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Friend Weller on July 16, 2014, 11:00:40 AM
On my way to Casper. Hearing tomorrow. Wish us luck.

Best wishes, Ric.....looking forward to hearing some good news!

Friend
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Tim Gard on July 16, 2014, 06:04:59 PM
Best of luck in Casper Ric.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Ric Gillespie on July 17, 2014, 10:51:46 AM

This morning the judge ruled from the bench that, under Wyoming law, he can't grant our motion to dismiss me as an individual because any interaction I had with Mellon was as Exec. Dir. of TIGHAR.
He did not rule from the bench on our motions to dismiss fraud and negligent misrepresentation.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Paul March on July 17, 2014, 11:19:02 AM

This morning the judge ruled from the bench that, under Wyoming law, he can't grant our motion to dismiss me as an individual because any interaction I had with Mellon was as Exec. Dir. of TIGHAR.
He did not rule from the bench on our motions to dismiss fraud and negligent misrepresentation.

Unfortunate. What is the next step in the process?
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Greg Daspit on July 17, 2014, 12:13:58 PM
 I guess we're waiting for the judge to consider what he heard on the other motions. I would think if they are dismissed, it does not matter who they were against.
Good luck to TIGHAR on an early end to this. But if it goes forward I have no doubt TIGHAR will prevail. Too many precedents if TIGHAR does not prevail. A gift would now be a contract and the judge would decide that the plane was definitely found based on someone’s unqualified opinion of what is in an image. I don't think that is going to happen.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Ric Gillespie on July 17, 2014, 12:46:57 PM
Unfortunate. What is the next step in the process?

We wait for the judge's decision on fraud and negligent misrepresentation. If he grants those motions it doesn't matter whether I'm named as an individual or not. The case is over (unless there is an appeal).
If he lets either fraud negligent misrepresentation stand there will be a jury trial in late August.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Paul March on July 17, 2014, 02:05:10 PM
Unfortunate. What is the next step in the process?

We wait for the judge's decision on fraud and negligent misrepresentation. If he grants those motions it doesn't matter whether I'm named as an individual or not. The case is over (unless there is an appeal).
If he lets either fraud negligent misrepresentation stand there will be a jury trial in late August.
Pins and needles until then.....
...from all indications, an attempted appeal is likely.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Tim Mellon on July 17, 2014, 03:01:38 PM
 :)
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: richie conroy on July 17, 2014, 06:04:24 PM
If it did go to jury

Would that consist only of Wyoming members of public ?
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Ric Gillespie on July 17, 2014, 06:45:34 PM
If it did go to jury

Would that consist only of Wyoming members of public ?

Yes.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: JNev on July 18, 2014, 12:06:50 PM
:)

 :P
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Monty Fowler on July 18, 2014, 12:41:14 PM
If it did go to jury
Would that consist only of Wyoming members of public ?

Make no mistake, the ONLY reason Mellon filed this thing in Wyoming was to cause the maximum expenditure of effort and funds to TIGHAR. He is no more a permanent resident of Wyoming than he is of Italy.

At least TIGHAR has managed to show up at every hearing, without fail. Mellon prefers to let others do his fighting for him. I have my own opinion of what that says about his character.

LTM, who thinks Casper is sorta' kinda' lovely this time of year,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 ECSP
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Jeff Buttke on July 18, 2014, 12:45:59 PM
Mellon prefers to let others do his fighting for him.

Monty consider his accusations. Would you want to fight that battle?

"TIGHAR hid evidence from me by posting it to youtube" --- I can't even type it with a straight face.

It is getting him his attention and that is all that he wants.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Bill Mangus on July 18, 2014, 01:04:24 PM
""TIGHAR hid evidence from me by posting it to youtube" --- I can't even type it with a straight face."

Don't do that!  Now I have to clean the Gatorade off my monitor and keyboard
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Ric Gillespie on July 19, 2014, 08:19:42 AM
A request:
Let us not stoop.  Please avoid ad hominem attacks.  We're better than that and they accomplish nothing productive.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Tim Mellon on July 25, 2014, 03:14:31 PM
The smoking gun.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Kent Beuchert on July 25, 2014, 04:11:06 PM
After examination of the photos, I'd say that isn't even a gun, much less a smoking gun. And the statistics, without supporting  context, are totally meaningless.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: David Alan on July 25, 2014, 04:12:45 PM
Intriguing, to say the least, though I am not a forensic analyst.  But, how much does it matter that the measurements of a known object are being assigned to an object of unknown values?  Is that not one of the major issues with the underwater footage, that there is no scale?  Yes, they coincide to an apparently very acceptable degree, nonetheless, I can make a pattern of pinpricks in a card, hold it up to the night sky and align the pinpricks to the Big Dipper.

To pick another nit, Figure 6 of the report outlines an area much too short for the total length of the two objects proposed to be the window slide.

To be clear, I think this is certainly worthy of consideration and I look forward to the debate that will likely ensue, but I'm not sure you can call this a smoking gun.  I would also commend you, Tim, for continuing to fund research into the Earhart disappearance even though the air of contention is thick.

d alan

We has met the enemy, and he is us.
                                              Pogo
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: JNev on July 25, 2014, 04:15:34 PM
The smoking gun.

Fascinating.

But -

Why is an object that is clearly aluminum (silver) on the Electra appearing as brownish / rust (like ferrous metal in salt water)?

Why do we see only a portion of the actual length of what would be the window slide frame (the right side being covered by a rock, or tailwheel or something, and the left side being square-cut in a way not consistent with the Electra's slide frame)?

What is the long 'thingy' ('hanging' vertically downward as viewed in the picture in the report)?  I don't see anything in the Electra that would correspond to that.

The suggested 'rivet spacing' is interesting - the pattern is 'right' enough, but the object holds out with one glaring exception in my view: it takes a huge leap to assign any confidence to the 'scale' that has been so torturously arrived at in the report.  A very large assumption was applied, in my view.  I'll grant that ordinary yardsticks aren't themselves a bad scale - but in following this I was asked (by the reporter, so to speak) to make the leap to believing that the object in the seafloor picture is reliably what the reporter suggests, so as to correlate the two and convince myself of 'scale' as the report did.  I am not convinced.

Interesting Tim, but I think you are throwing good money after bad, IMHO.  But if you are convinced, then consider that the only way to know for sure is to ride out there and kick the sediment off all that stuff and have a close look. 

So you have this man's view.  What you can get others to see in this remains to be seen, I suppose.  I don't recall any public clammer about "Earhart Found!" over the original reports, so I just dunno 'bout this... not a gun - in fact, looks about as soggy as old toilet paper on the seafloor to me, frankly.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: richie conroy on July 25, 2014, 05:45:06 PM
Erm

 i think it was me who brought this same object to light in the rov thread as i believed it resembled a pull down strap but after further analyses it was just as it appears a rock 
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Tim Mellon on July 25, 2014, 05:47:43 PM
The smoking gun.

Fascinating.

But -

Why is an object that is clearly aluminum (silver) on the Electra appearing as brownish / rust (like ferrous metal in salt water)?



Jeff, your assumptions may be getting ahead of you. Why do you assume the window track is made of aluminum rather, say, than of stainless steel? Do you have chemistry and metallurgy as expertises?

Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Tim Mellon on July 25, 2014, 06:19:08 PM
Erm

 i think it was me who brought this same object to light in the rov thread as i believed it resembled a pull down strap but after further analyses it was just as it appears a rock

Richie, even the rocks at Stonehenge don't have regular lines of rivets.

Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Greg Daspit on July 25, 2014, 06:39:24 PM
Ermo

 i think it was me who brought this same object to light in the rov thread as i believed it resembled a pull down strap but after further analyses it was just as it appears a rock

Richie, even the rocks at Stonehenge don't have regular lines of rivets.
edit
I don't see any rivets on the suggested aircraft part.
The other object, that has what looks like a rivet pattern, looks rusty and could be from the wreck of the Norwich City. That line could have been tied off to the wreck at one time.

Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Bruce Thomas on July 25, 2014, 07:40:52 PM
I see a ducky and a horsie (http://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j110/Beethovenv/Beethoven3/Comics-Peanuts-CloudWatching.jpg).
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Joe Cerniglia on July 25, 2014, 08:11:57 PM
Breaking news (http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/judge-dismisses-lawsuit-amelia-earhart-search-24720450)

Joe Cerniglia
TIGHAR #3078C
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: richie conroy on July 25, 2014, 08:17:49 PM
Tim

There is one reason why this Earhart search continue's for evidence to this day,

Because so many different organisations have there own theory's and there livelihood no doubt lye in hands of sponsors, It is these people that Tighar have to convince to the point of conceading defeat or they will continue to disrespect Tighar to gain contributions and supporters.

In my view money talks an the money u have wasted paying yes men and woman, you could of been more clever an have concrete evidence instead your evidence is no more viable than sapien or crash and sank 

thanks richie
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Greg Daspit on July 25, 2014, 08:41:08 PM
Breaking news (http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/judge-dismisses-lawsuit-amelia-earhart-search-24720450)

Joe Cerniglia
TIGHAR #3078C

Great News!
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Matt Revington on July 25, 2014, 08:50:54 PM
Wonderful to hear this.  Tim please forget the appeals, just let the search go forward and resolve this mystery
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: David Alan on July 25, 2014, 09:14:52 PM
Breaking news (http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/judge-dismisses-lawsuit-amelia-earhart-search-24720450)

Joe Cerniglia
TIGHAR #3078C

Sweeet!

d alan
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Ric Gillespie on July 25, 2014, 10:15:50 PM
Attached is the court's ruling granting our motions for summary judgement.  It speaks for itself.  Let's let it end here.  We have allowed Tim to continue to post on this Forum throughout the year-and-a-month course of his lawsuit.  There have been moments of rancor, some of them by me despite my best intentions, but I think in general we have all maintained a civilized tone.

Tim has the legal right to appeal this ruling.  We sincerely hope he won't.  We offer to continue to welcome him here as a valued TIGHAR member and invite him to post his opinions, the findings of his experts, whatever screen captures he finds instructive, and anything else he has to contribute.  The search continues.  If I've learned anything in 26 years of testing the TIGHAR hypothesis it's that smoking guns are in the eye of the beholder.  Surely we can all benefit from each others' interpretations of the evidence.

So let's not have any victory dances.  Let's bury the hatchet, welcome Tim back as a valued TIGHAR researcher, and get back to work.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Monty Fowler on July 25, 2014, 10:46:10 PM
*sound of a hatchet being inserted firmly into the beach on Niku and coral rubble being heaped thereon*

On to Niku VIII!

LTM, who thinks rummaging in dusty old files can be fun,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 ECSP
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Bruce Thomas on July 26, 2014, 01:23:57 AM
Attached is the court's ruling granting our motions for summary judgement.  It speaks for itself. 

Ric, the posted document is missing its final page, page 18.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Tim Gard on July 26, 2014, 03:37:36 AM
I see a ducky and a horsie (http://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j110/Beethovenv/Beethoven3/Comics-Peanuts-CloudWatching.jpg).

Bruce,

I remember this from decades ago and have quoted it often since.
Now with your help I have been able to locate same.

Many thanks!
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: James G. Stoveken on July 26, 2014, 06:20:38 AM
Congratulations Ric.

So let's not have any victory dances.  Let's bury the hatchet, welcome Tim back as a valued TIGHAR researcher, and get back to work.

You have been and continue to be a much bigger man than I could be.  I salute you Sir!
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: JNev on July 26, 2014, 06:53:49 AM
Glad to see this.  These things of course bring all kinds of feelings on and as Ric noted, sometimes the rancorous worst in us despite better intent.

I hope Tim will accept this and not appeal and I wish him nothing but the best.  That includes remembering the good he did in 2012 and always appreciating that, and respecting that he has his own views in this quest.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: JNev on July 26, 2014, 07:25:48 AM
The smoking gun.

Fascinating.

But -

Why is an object that is clearly aluminum (silver) on the Electra appearing as brownish / rust (like ferrous metal in salt water)?



Jeff, your assumptions may be getting ahead of you. Why do you assume the window track is made of aluminum rather, say, than of stainless steel? Do you have chemistry and metallurgy as expertises?

Actually, yes. Forty years of aircraft sheet metal repair, construction and design by training and experience, including the behavior of various materials as they react in galvanic environments.

All the best to you, Tim.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Tim Mellon on July 26, 2014, 06:16:20 PM
The smoking gun.

Fascinating.


But -

Why is an object that is clearly aluminum (silver) on the Electra appearing as brownish / rust (like ferrous metal in salt water)?



Jeff, your assumptions may be getting ahead of you. Why do you assume the window track is made of aluminum rather, say, than of stainless steel? Do you have chemistry and metallurgy as expertises?

Actually, yes. Forty years of aircraft sheet metal repair, construction and design by training and experience, including the behavior of various materials as they react in galvanic environments.

All the best to you, Tim.

Would that be PhD Jeff?

For instance, this TIGHAR analysis (http://tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/12_2/obj2.html) talks about "rusty brown" coloration of aluminum.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Dan Swift on July 28, 2014, 01:49:56 PM
Yay! Now on with the research and investigation! 
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Nate Pickering on July 28, 2014, 07:00:28 PM
As an American taxpayer, I'd just like to say how thrilled I am that I got to pay for this whole ridiculous exercise. Surely there were no more pressing issues to which our federal courts needed to attend over the course of the past year.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Tim Mellon on July 28, 2014, 07:26:20 PM
As an American taxpayer, I'd just like to say how thrilled I am that I got to pay for this whole ridiculous exercise. Surely there were no more pressing issues to which our federal courts needed to attend over the course of the past year.

Nate Picayune, don't count your chickens before they hatch. There is the remote possibility of an appeal.

Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Nate Pickering on July 28, 2014, 07:30:53 PM
Nate Picayune,

I'll go ahead and file this under "civil discourse."
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Ric Gillespie on July 28, 2014, 07:47:29 PM
Thanks a lot Nate. That's a big help.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Dan Swift on July 29, 2014, 12:24:27 PM
In the words of the movie "Frozen"......LET IT GO! 
Let's move on. 
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Ric Gillespie on July 29, 2014, 12:30:26 PM
You'll note that Nate now wears the dreaded yellow triangle of moderation.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Dan Swift on July 29, 2014, 12:39:52 PM
So I heard (read). 
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Nate Pickering on July 29, 2014, 01:30:35 PM
I've been informed, much to my surprise, that I have an uncontrollable temper. Thus, it is my fervent hope that wearing the Dreaded Yellow Triangle of Moderation (to which I shall henceforth refer as DYTROM, because it sounds awesome) will help to contain and/or mitigate the spasms of unrestrained rage in which I am apparently prone to engage.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: JNev on July 29, 2014, 01:31:35 PM
In the words of the movie "Frozen"......LET IT GO! 
Let's move on.

Second that.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Tim Collins on August 07, 2014, 12:56:51 PM
Was there a limitation set on the window of opportunity for any potential appeal?
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Greg Daspit on August 07, 2014, 01:48:29 PM
Was there a limitation set on the window of opportunity for any potential appeal?
I read on TIGHAR's FB it was 30 days. (The ruling was July 25)
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: JNev on August 07, 2014, 02:10:52 PM
I hope that doesn't happen and that Tim continues his work here alongside us all.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Monty Fowler on August 07, 2014, 05:35:45 PM
Was there a limitation set on the window of opportunity for any potential appeal?

Looking forward is how we will find Amelia and Fred. Looking backward doesn't add anything to what we already know. 77 years is long enough to wait.

LTM, who tries to keep his backs facing front,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 ECSP
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Tim Collins on August 08, 2014, 09:21:29 AM
Looking forward is how we will find Amelia and Fred. Looking backward doesn't add anything to what we already know. 77 years is long enough to wait.

LTM, who tries to keep his backs facing front,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 ECSP


Huh?  Who's looking backward? I just wondered when the date was that TIGHAR would be free and clear of this mess.
 
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Tim Mellon on August 26, 2014, 11:05:33 AM
In the interest of full disclosure.

Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: JNev on August 26, 2014, 11:33:59 AM
What a surprise.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Ric Gillespie on August 26, 2014, 11:51:49 AM
In the interest of full disclosure, Mr. Mellon has been banned from the TIGHAR Forum.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Mark Appel on August 26, 2014, 12:05:18 PM
Simply unconscionable. Pathetic. I am sickened...
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Greg Daspit on August 26, 2014, 12:43:51 PM
I was hoping all the good will on Ric’s and TIGHAR’s part would mean we could move forward as so many were hoping for.
Instead “sickened” is exactly what I am feeling right now because of Mr. Mellon’s continuation of this meritless litigation.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Ric Gillespie on August 26, 2014, 01:20:17 PM
Mellon's Notice of Appeal is just that - a notice that he intends to appeal.  His lawyers now have 40 days to come up with the actual appeal.  They can't just say that they disagree with the judge's ruling.  They have to find some way to fault the judge's interpretation of the law.  Filing the notice may merely be a way to buy time.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Dan Swift on August 26, 2014, 01:47:03 PM
Not that it matters, but make it clear Mr. Mellon was banned for bringing too much political discussion to this forum...which Tighar is not to participate in...not for his filing of the appeal.  If that were the case, he would have been banned long ago. 
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Ric Gillespie on August 26, 2014, 02:05:30 PM
Not that it matters, but make it clear Mr. Mellon was banned for bringing too much political discussion to this forum...which Tighar is not to participate in...not for his filing of the appeal.  If that were the case, he would have been banned long ago.

To be clear, he hasn't filed an appeal, only a notice that he intends to appeal.  During the discovery phase of the lawsuit we allowed him to post to the Forum, in part, because he often posted stuff that we ended up using against him in court. He was his own worst enemy.  Discovery is now closed and the case has been decided.  No new evidence can be considered as part of an appeal so there is no longer any need to indulge him. We were willing to allow him to continue to participate nonetheless until he started flinging his political views around.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: JNev on August 26, 2014, 02:52:21 PM
It may be quite a challenge to come up with a meaningful appeal - there will have to be a convincing enough argument that the judge erred to interest the next court.  That's no shoo in.

Hopefully the drama of this thing will fade away as that fails, the bills can be paid and the real purpose for being here can again be the focus... without so much attention to coral critters at that.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Monty Fowler on August 26, 2014, 06:09:14 PM
There's a word for him, but my momma would smack me if I said it out loud, God rest her soul.

But, as I sometimes told her in my young and stupid days, I will still think it.

LTM, who still marvels at the depths of mankind at times like this,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 ECSP
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Greg Daspit on August 26, 2014, 10:13:14 PM
Not that it matters, but make it clear Mr. Mellon was banned for bringing too much political discussion to this forum...which Tighar is not to participate in...not for his filing of the appeal.  If that were the case, he would have been banned long ago.

To be clear, he hasn't filed an appeal, only a notice that he intends to appeal.  During the discovery phase of the lawsuit we allowed him to post to the Forum, in part, because he often posted stuff that we ended up using against him in court. He was his own worst enemy.  Discovery is now closed and the case has been decided.  No new evidence can be considered as part of an appeal so there is no longer any need to indulge him. We were willing to allow him to continue to participate nonetheless until he started flinging his political views around.
Now that Discovery is done, I would like to set the record straight on something related to that. A Forensic report was attached to a post by Mr. Mellon in another thread (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1079.msg27953.html#msg27953) and then deleted. When I asked what happened to the attachment, Mr Mellon denied it was ever posted on the Forum. I believed Mr. Mellon posted it by mistake, so I gave him another opportunity to admit if that was the case. Instead he suggested I was the one in error. I just  wanted to set the record straight on that since I think it was a question of honesty on the Forum.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: JNev on August 27, 2014, 05:56:40 AM
The whole chapter is just sad.  I hope this will play out quietly and we can all come to peace.

The best thing for us to do is focus on the search and look ahead - pay the bills that we must, not look back and not be bitter or bite back, just let it go and keep moving ahead.

Here's to positive thinking...
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Ric Gillespie on August 27, 2014, 06:53:33 AM
A Forensic report was attached to a post by Mr. Mellon in another thread[/url] and then deleted. When I asked what happened to the attachment, Mr Mellon denied it was ever posted on the Forum.

Mellon's apparently accidental posting of an early version of his "experts' report" was a huge benefit to us.  It not only revealed the identity of his experts but it showed us that their methodology was deeply flawed.

But, as Jeff Neville says, let us not dwell on the past.  Tim Mellon's participation in the Amelia Earhart Search Forum and in TIGHAR's investigation of the Earhart disappearance are at an end. We have a huge legal bill to pay and he may yet force us to incur more costs but nothing will be served by vilifying him except to possibly prompt him to sue somebody for defamation.  His actions speak for themselves. A contribution to the Legal Defense Fund is a far more meaningful statement than anything that can be said here.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Paul March on August 27, 2014, 08:53:24 AM

The best thing for us to do is focus on the search and look ahead - pay the bills that we must, not look back and not be bitter or bite back, just let it go and keep moving ahead.

Here's to positive thinking...
Well stated post Mr. Neville. Thank you  :)
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: JNev on August 27, 2014, 08:59:45 AM
A Forensic report was attached to a post by Mr. Mellon in another thread[/url] and then deleted. When I asked what happened to the attachment, Mr Mellon denied it was ever posted on the Forum.

Mellon's apparently accidental posting of an early version of his "experts' report" was a huge benefit to us.  It not only revealed the identity of his experts but it showed us that their methodology was deeply flawed.

But, as Jeff Neville says, let us not dwell on the past.  Tim Mellon's participation in the Amelia Earhart Search Forum and in TIGHAR's investigation of the Earhart disappearance are at an end. We have a huge legal bill to pay and he may yet force us to incur more costs but nothing will be served by vilifying him except to possibly prompt him to sue somebody for defamation.  His actions speak for themselves. A contribution to the Legal Defense Fund is a far more meaningful statement than anything that can be said here.

Amen to all that, Ric.

We need to consider too that one more reason for not 'going there' with Tim is that he can't speak here any further - we need to have enough sense of fairness as TIGHAR folk to move on and not dwell on things he can't even respond to here anyway.  It gains nothing and can only cause ill-will.  Whatever went is what went, done.

We should focus now on this expense, as it is and as it may come, as a piece of business to contend with and let the personal feelings go.  Let the board and experts deal with the engagement, such as it is or may be.  Individual commenters need to respect themselves enough to not wade into the fray and just leave Tim alone. 

Litigation, for whatever reason, is always a business risk - an organization is better served by addressing it that way and working to reduce risk - which we can best do just as you have suggested.

Peace.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: JNev on August 27, 2014, 09:01:50 AM

The best thing for us to do is focus on the search and look ahead - pay the bills that we must, not look back and not be bitter or bite back, just let it go and keep moving ahead.

Here's to positive thinking...
Well stated post Mr. Neville. Thank you  :)

Thanks, Paul, you are very kind - and of great spirit to help us do just that.  :)
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Steve Schlutt on August 27, 2014, 09:17:31 AM
Perhaps a reminder...   it's likely that Mr. Mellon may be able to monitor this site and these exchanges, either via a confidante or using a pseudonym personna or identification.  It's best that any comments regarding him not be inflammatory or incendiary.  In fact, the fewer comments, the better.  In the long run, he doesn't really matter much, except for what can be learned about the process regarding donor expectations.   
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: JNev on August 27, 2014, 09:44:28 AM
Good points and as a matter of fact I'm sure he, like any of us, can look on as a guest.

So, self-preservation ought to be in the mind of any would-be detractors; at a higher plane I simply encourage all to behave with good manners and refrain from the negative and just look and work forward.

I will always appreciate the good Tim did.  His contribution to the 2012 expedition was very generous. I prefer to recall that and deal with other things as mere business, personally.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Greg Daspit on August 27, 2014, 10:45:50 AM
Ric,
Thank you for setting the record straight that the report was in fact posted on the Forum. At some point, it seemed to me that the report was something Mr. Mellon did not want seen, but I had seen it on the Forum, and because I did, possible legal issues were a concern to me.  When it was suggested by Mr. Mellon that I had seen the report somewhere else, it could imply something nefarious on my part even if there was no such intent in the suggestion. I was also worried that I was being set up for a claim that I hacked into a computer to get the report. I did not know what was exactly going on and it was a concern for me until the record was set straight that the report was posted on the Forum.

Jeff, Ric and Forum members,
Concerning moving on. This was an odd situation where I felt I could not ask for the record to be set straight, or defend myself if you will, until after Discovery was done. I thought it was fair, to both parties, to wait.  I had hoped I would be given the chance to ask that the record be set straight eventually and thank you for this opportunity now.
  I also am wary of possible defamation lawsuits.  There was a “Nice try” comment by Mr. Mellon in the other thread I linked concerning the report I saw that really scared me.  That I don’t want to get sued seemed like a good reason for me to have this issue set straight.   Now having done so, I agree we should move forward, and I will.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Ric Gillespie on August 27, 2014, 11:22:56 AM
Thank you for setting the record straight that the report was in fact posted on the Forum.

No worries Greg.  You weren't the only one who saw it posted to the Forum and downloaded it before it was removed.  All thoroughly documented.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: JNev on August 27, 2014, 11:34:01 AM
As Ric said...

And who knows - consider in abstract, perhaps someone could post something with an inadvertant attachment, then delete it for some reason - all the while never realizing they had accidentally attached a particuar document.  Benefit of doubt, if you will.

Peace.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Greg Daspit on August 27, 2014, 03:53:20 PM
As Ric said...

And who knows - consider in abstract, perhaps someone could post something with an inadvertant attachment, then delete it for some reason - all the while never realizing they had accidentally attached a particuar document.  Benefit of doubt, if you will.

Peace.

Thanks Jeff,
Many things are possible.
“question of honesty” doesn’t mean one or the other has to be dishonest.
I wanted to resolve my honesty on the forum and am glad that the posted report was documented.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Monty Fowler on September 02, 2014, 11:06:11 AM
Note on the main web page today that an anonymous donor has stepped up to cover the ongoing legal bills. God bless ya, whoever you are!

LTM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 ECSp
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: JNev on September 02, 2014, 11:19:51 AM
That is extremely generous and reassuring. 

That certainly can provide a firmer footing by which to get refocused on the search.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Kent Beuchert on September 02, 2014, 02:04:00 PM
So I assume that this forum has banned Melton?  I'm no lawyer, and don't understand why legal assistance was needed, or why the need to even contest his claims.
    It certainly may be different in the case of an organization like TIGHAR, but I once consulted with a very respected and able asset protection attorney and know that one's personal funds can be protected from judgments rather easily. In my case it involved nothing more than stashing my  money in a selected bank, one which doesn't respect legal judgements from anyone except the Feds and the state. And in Florida (and other states) one's residential dwelling is immune to property liens that attempt to collect anything other than mechanic's attachments (for work done on the home by home improvement, roofing companies, etc .).
 As for vehicles - rent, don't own, or put it in a relative's name. Etc, etc. There are many other mechanisms available, from LLCs and on, that can make it virtually impossible for any attorney to collect on a judgment. Anyone with assets should do something to protect himself against our obscene judicial system, whose laws have been crafted by lawyers, largely, it often seems, for the benefit of lawyers. No country wastes more money, time and effort on civil lawsuits than ours does : our system admits even the most ridiculous and trivial of claims.
     For anyone worried about defamation lawsuits, I believe that a very simple and cheap protection can be found with an umbrella insurance policy. It will usually provide the insured with protection against libel and defamation of character lawsuits, etc.  Check with your insurance agent and also possibly have your financial situation evaluated by an asset protection attorney. They usually charge around $500 I believe. That's about what I paid.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Ric Gillespie on September 02, 2014, 02:23:02 PM
So I assume that this forum has banned Melton?

No need to assume.  We said so very clearly.

  I'm no lawyer, and don't understand why legal assistance was needed, or why the need to even contest his claims.

As you said, you're no lawyer.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Monty Fowler on September 02, 2014, 05:45:23 PM
The most important thing that this incredible gift does, to my way of thinking, is to remove all this litigation as a distraction and something that forced TIGHAR to spread its efforts too thinly for no gain.

That alone is worth a hearty Thanks! from this humble TIGHAR.

LTM, who knows what he doesn't know,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 ECSP
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Ric Gillespie on September 02, 2014, 06:09:23 PM
The most important thing that this incredible gift does, to my way of thinking, is to remove all this litigation as a distraction and something that forced TIGHAR to spread its efforts too thinly for no gain.

Our anonymous benefactor had two motivations;
- to make it clear that any attempt to destroy TIGHAR by bankrupting us with legal debt is not going to work. I could paraphrase the NRA's Wayne LaPierre ... but I won't.
- to allow TIGHAR to clear the decks for action and devote all of our energies and resources to solving the Earhart mystery.

We are grateful beyond words.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Dan Swift on September 03, 2014, 10:04:45 AM
This is fabulous!  Wish they would come forward so we ALL could thank them properly.  But thanks to them so much! 
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Ric Gillespie on September 03, 2014, 10:16:02 AM
A fiery horse with the speed of light
a cloud of dust
and a hearty "Hi Oh Silver!"

Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Monty Fowler on September 03, 2014, 10:45:36 AM
Dating myself ... I grew up with that show, and yeah, the TV was black and white and about 8-inches on the diagonal.

Bless 'em all the same. You don't always need words to send a message. Sometimes the metaphorical middle finger works justttttttttttt fine  ;D

LTM, who tries not to dangle digits unnecessarily,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 ECSP
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: JNev on September 03, 2014, 10:51:24 AM
Hi yo horsechips, and awaaaaayyyy!

Yeah, that picture brings back a memory or two.  Who was that masked man?

May not matter in the fiscal sense now, but I really hope we don't get into high-fives... bad form.
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Ric Gillespie on September 03, 2014, 11:39:09 AM
May not matter in the fiscal sense now, but I really hope we don't get into high-fives... bad form.

Indeed.  With a happy ending to this episode we can cue the William Tell Overture and close this thread.
(This he now does.)
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Andrew M McKenna on October 28, 2014, 10:56:09 AM
Mellon's Notice of Appeal is just that - a notice that he intends to appeal.  His lawyers now have 40 days to come up with the actual appeal.  They can't just say that they disagree with the judge's ruling.  They have to find some way to fault the judge's interpretation of the law.  Filing the notice may merely be a way to buy time.

Ric - Did Mellon file an appeal?  Has the timeline run out for him to do so?  Are we free of this chapter for good?

Andrew
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Ric Gillespie on October 28, 2014, 11:05:26 AM
Ric - Did Mellon file an appeal?  Has the timeline run out for him to do so?  Are we free of this chapter for good?

No appeal yet.  Mellon has until November 19 to file. 
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Tim Collins on January 22, 2015, 08:08:34 AM
http://www.kgwn.tv/home/headlines/Man-Files-Appeal-in-Amelia-Earhart-Lawsuit--289401311.html
Title: Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
Post by: Ric Gillespie on January 24, 2015, 04:34:37 PM
Yeah, Mellon appealed.  That's what Mellon does. It's only money.  We responded. Now it's up to the three judges of the 10th Circuit Court. If anyone is interested, attached is Mellon's brief and our response.