TIGHAR
Amelia Earhart Search Forum => General discussion => Topic started by: Richard Wright on June 19, 2015, 06:27:59 PM
-
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352409X15300109
-
As an author of the paper it was certainly kind of you to bring this to the attention of this forum. I do note that you have been promoting this elsewhere as conclusive proof that the bones did not belong to AE.
http://expeditionwriter.com/confirmed-nikumaroro-bones-not-amelia-earhart/
The fact is Dr Burns used the best software available in 1998 to come to her conclusions and you have used a newer version that comes to slightly different conclusions.
This forum has never been about any disrespect toward Dr Hoodless who went to heroic lengths to establish a medical school in Fiji.
-
The fact is Dr Burns used the best software available in 1998 to come to her conclusions and you have used a newer version that comes to slightly different conclusions.
A paper (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2827999/) in Biology Letters by Elliot and Collard (Biol Lett. 2009 Dec 23; 5(6): 849–852.) suggests that the way Fordisc was used by Burns and Jantz was flawed. The abstract reads:
Determining the ancestry of unidentified human remains is a major task for bioarchaeologists and forensic anthropologists. Here, we report an assessment of the computer program that has become the main tool for accomplishing this task. Called Fordisc, the program determines ancestry through discriminant function analysis of cranial measurements. We evaluated the utility of Fordisc with 200 specimens of known ancestry. We ran the analyses with and without the test specimen's source population included in the program's reference sample, and with and without specifying the sex of the test specimen. We also controlled for the possibility that the number of variables employed affects the program's ability to attribute ancestry. The results of the analyses suggest that Fordisc's utility in research and medico-legal contexts is limited. Fordisc will only return a correct ancestry attribution when an unidentified specimen is more or less complete, and belongs to one of the populations represented in the program's reference samples. Even then Fordisc can be expected to classify no more than 1 per cent of specimens with confidence.
-
Sigh ...
LTM, who is going back to his morning coffee now,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 ECSP
-
As an author of the paper it was certainly kind of you to bring this to the attention of this forum. I do note that you have been promoting this elsewhere as conclusive proof that the bones did not belong to AE.
http://expeditionwriter.com/confirmed-nikumaroro-bones-not-amelia-earhart/
Promoting elsewhere? You are wrong. I have had nothing to do with that blog. What gave you that idea?
We deal with probabilities, not conclusive proof.
One of our conclusions was that the four cranial measurements gave meaninglessly low probabilities when trying to ascertain ancestry.
However, it is primarily the sex and body build of the bones that tell strongly against their being those of Amelia Earhart.
I have never thought that the forum was about disrespect to Dr Hoodless.
-
One of the cornerstones of TIGHAR is embracing the scientific method - we propose a hypothesis, or guess, about a certain event, item, etc., and then see if the data supports it. If different data comes along, the hypothesis is modified accordingly. That will be the case here.
I'm pleased that someone of Dr. Wright's academic stature, along with co-author Pamela Cross, was sufficiently intrigued with the Amelia Earhart mystery to apply new techniques to old data.
This isn't a competition, people. There will be more than enough accolades to go around when Amelia and Fred are at last found.
LTM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 ECSP
-
" In the case of the Nikumaroro bones, the skeletal evidence was lost during World War II. Subsequent attempts to trace the bones indicate that they were moved to Australia, probably Sydney, but no further evidence has been found."
Moved to Sydney? I must have missed that.
-
I appreciate this study of the bones. Even if the bones ended up belonging to someone other than Earhart, it doesn't diminish the theory that Earhart landed at Nikumaroro. The bones were never "proof" of Earhart's landing. They were just a strange and possibly inexplicable find.
This study is well-written and I look forward to any peer-review and the responses that other experts might offer in regard to the bones. It would be amazing if these bones could be "found" and re-analyzed using modern techniques.
-
" In the case of the Nikumaroro bones, the skeletal evidence was lost during World War II. Subsequent attempts to trace the bones indicate that they were moved to Australia, probably Sydney, but no further evidence has been found."
Moved to Sydney? I must have missed that.
I'm not conscious of any evidence to that effect.
This page (http://tighar.org/wiki/Bones) tells the bones story and has links to the three (3) TIGHAR expeditions in search of the bones in Fiji. The local doctor suggested that they might send the bones to Sydney, but I have never seen any evidence that they did so.
-
Dr. Wright and Ms. Cross's work is appreciated as a qualified effort in the interest of furthering one of the significant anthropologic/forensic efforts of our time - certainly for those of us who wish to know the fate of Earhart.
Dr. Kar Burns is highly respected by myself and many far more qualified than myself, of course - and she was in fact a local to my area (Georgia), so I am very proud of her work and hold her in great esteem. For my part, I do not take this latest work to be an attack on her effort at all, but as the kind of effort that she herself would respect: it is science at its best when the challenge is taken up for further refinement of findings.
That said, 'further refinements' have limits - and the major take-away for me from this latest report is that Hoodless is clearly established as having been quite able for this task and as observant in his time - with the actual bones before his own eyes. Further, his direct observations emerge as probably more valuable than any latter-day re-analysis of his notes might be: I am left impressed that for reasons of key dimensions and weathering/aging, etc. the bones are not likely Earhart's, as earnestly as I'd like them to be; his observations of a stocky male is very likely more the case.
I further am left believing this poor castaway pre-dated Earhart's time of loss. The lack of hair found in the area and lack of more directly observable personal artifacts, such as remnants of clothing, etc. seem to add to this IMHO, judging by what the well-qualified observers have shared with us. What is suggested to me now is that this wretched castaway had been there quite a long time before Earhart's time of loss - as supported by references in the report to taphonomic observations elsewhere in the region: surival of hair for 80 months, etc.
No, the skeleton being apparently not Earhart's (as I see it now) does not be mean absence of Earhart on Niku; but it doesn't support her presence, either. It is admirable that TIGHAR has attempted to locate the lost bones for further analysis. That also supports two important points for me: that no matter the latter-day analysis in-hand, there's no substitute for direct observation (as Hoodless was able to do), and that TIGHAR herself is willing to test the Burns' theory in the interest of knowing the truth of what these bones could tell us.
While this is admirable, we also should see that considerable effort has gone into finding these bones. That perhaps should cause us to also carefully consider whether significantly more effort should go into the bones pursuit, given that we now have three qualified analyses of the bones on hand, two of which essentially disqualify the bones as being those of Earhart - all based on Hoodless' original hands-on analysis. 'Attack' need not be sensed in any of this, it is pure scientific analysis and programmatic common sense, IMO. Others MMV, of course.
-
Hoodless drew conclusions about the sex, age, frame, and other characteristics of the person whose bones he examined. We don't know if those conclusions were 100% correct, or some lesser percentage. Burns contended that the information could lead to different conclusions; Wright and Cross disagree and offer persuasive reasons.
We don't have the bones. That is a significant data gap and source of uncertainty.
-
Hoodless drew conclusions about the sex, age, frame, and other characteristics of the person whose bones he examined. We don't know if those conclusions were 100% correct, or some lesser percentage.
If you read Misi Utu (http://ebookbrowsee.net/chapter-1-misi-utu-pdf-d37154762), you can calculate how long Hoodless' medical training lasted.
It was highly condensed.
He was not a specialist in forensic pathology.
We know what kind of textbook resources he had available in 1940 (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Pearson_Papers/Pearsonpaper.html). When that topic was discussed in an earlier incarnation of the Forum, it turned out that the formulas he had available were based on roughly 100 specimens.
Burns contended that the information could lead to different conclusions; Wright and Cross disagree and offer persuasive reasons.
Kar Burns, Ph.D., (http://tighar.org/wiki/Kar_Burns) was a specialist in forensic anthropology and authored Forensic Anthropology Training Manual (1999, 2007). She, of course, would have liked to have seen the bones for herself, and was on call for us during Bones II (http://tighar.org/wiki/Bones_II). I think she was reasonably well aware of the limitations of the data she had in hand. She respectfully disagreed with Hoodless conclusion: "From the half sub-pubic angle of the right innominate bone, the "set" of the two femora, and the ratio of the circumferences of the long bones to their individual lengths it may be definitely stated that the skeleton is that of a MALE."
Even if it was a male, it might have been Noonan's bones. I have personally read the bones file (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Bones_Chronology.html) in Auckland in 2003, and I saw no evidence that the Western Pacific High Commission was aware of his presence on the flight.
Experts tend to disagree. That's life. Strange things do happen. If we had the bones, and if DNA could be extracted from them, it might be possible to definitively show that they were NOT from AE or FN. That is the great strength of DNA tests. Even if the bones were from AE or FN, DNA testing could only show that they were a possible, not a definitive source of the skeleton.
-
It is a shame that no one actually took photographs of these bones. By 1940, I suspect that cameras (and film) were easily accessible to record such things.
I would also be interested in learning the real height of both Amelia Earhart and Fred Noonan (and not simply "professed" or "given" height). Moreover, there is variation in the length in terms of limbs -- even when comparing two men or women of the same height. Some men have longer legs and shorter torsos (and vice versa). For instance, I stand approximately 6'1" in height but wear a size 34 length in pants. My brother-in-law stands at 5'8" and also wears a size 34 in length. In fact, my wife passes along some of my jeans and pants to her brother and he .
What am I saying? I wonder just how "exact" the estimation of height can be when measuring bones for forensic purposes.
In addition, I have always been puzzled by the shoe that was found next to the remains. Gallagher seemed convinced that this was a woman because of the sole of the shoe. Gallagher said, "Only experienced man could state sex from available bones; my conclusion based on sole of shoe which is almost certainly a woman's."
While the bones are lost (I would guess in the possession of Hoodless), I have wondered about the whereabouts of the shoe/sole. Has anyone contacted the Central Medical School/Fiji School of Medicine in an effort to see if they had any photos of the bones or the shoe/sole? If I was Hoodless and helped found such a school, I would have left those items with the school. If Hoodless truly believed that the bones were of a man from Fiji, would they bury them in a Fiji tradition?
I know that TIGHAR's wiki page includes the following: "Hoodless' daughter, Margaret Guthrie, has been asked about the box of bones. She does not know anything about them. They were not in her father's estate. She says she is familiar with his papers and that there are no references in them, either."
BTW, I do think that the TIGHAR discovery of a shoe in the 1990's gives credibility to a 1930's era woman on the island.
http://tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/14_2/14-2Bones.html
-
I would also be interested in learning the real height of both Amelia Earhart and Fred Noonan (and not simply "professed" or "given" height). Moreover, there is variation in the length in terms of limbs -- even when comparing two men or women of the same height. Some men have longer legs and shorter torsos (and vice versa). For instance, I stand approximately 6'1" in height but wear a size 34 length in pants. My brother-in-law stands at 5'8" and also wears a size 34 in length. In fact, my wife passes along some of my jeans and pants to her brother and he .
Interesting!
Has anyone contacted the Central Medical School/Fiji School of Medicine in an effort to see if they had any photos of the bones or the shoe/sole?
Yes, many times--all three bone expeditions. See "B" in the "Expeditions" category (http://tighar.org/wiki/Expeditions).
If I was Hoodless and helped found such a school, I would have left those items with the school. If Hoodless truly believed that the bones were of a man from Fiji, would they bury them in a Fiji tradition?
Roger Kelley searched all of the records of cremations and burials in Suva from 1937 to 2003 (http://tighar.org/wiki/2003_Bones_Search_II#Burials.2C_Cremations.2C_Police_Evidence_Warehouse).
<sigh>
-
From the new paper: "Given Hoodless' experience in the Fiji area, which included an intimate knowledge of local body types, his opinion that he could identify and discount accurately in this instance that the individual was not completely native South Seas seems a reasonable one."
Hoodless recognized that the bones belonged to an individual who's ancestry was uncertain but he was reasonably certain this individual's ancestry was not of the type with which he was most familiar, 100% native South Seas. There must have been features on the skeleton that were unfamiliar to him, and some that were familiar. I am skeptical that the features familiar to Hoodless could have been definitive in concluding partial South Seas ancestry. Only 5 years out of an abbreviated medical training, how many non-South Seas skeletons would Hoodless have had the opportunity to examine?
I am assuming that there was a somewhat segregated society in Fiji at that time, and that the number if Europeans was low, based in part upon the photo of the doctors in training at the school, where only one of about 20 appears to be European. In that case it is quite likely that the vast majority of the bodies available for dissection were NOT European - upper classes are generally far less likely to depart from their normal burial or cremation practices. Even now in medical schools, many of the bodies used in anatomy studies are from poor or underprivileged populations. Thus Hoodless' exposure to non-South Seas skeletons was likely extremely limited. So I think it is entirely reasonable to doubt Dr. Hoodless' characterization of the skeleton as being partial South Seas in ancestry. He saw some unfamiliar features (possibly European), and some familiar features, which may in fact have been feature common to any human population, not just those of South Seas ancestry.
In conclusion we have the skeleton of a non-native South Seas person, found unburied (thus lost to his or her culture - an important point) on a remote island where there is an overwhelming likelihood that the skeleton should have been that of a native South Seas person, but Hoodless concludes (correctly) that it was not.
Jon
-
Dr. Wright,
Thank you for taking the time to compose this paper and sharing your perspectives on the subject of the 1940 bones discovery.
I have a related question not directly covered in the paper and hope you can provide some insights as an anthropologist.
Regardless of whether the bones were three years old or 100 years old, a factor that has puzzled me is how few of them remained. When found by the islanders, nearly the entire torso had vanished and even some relatively large bones from the arms and legs. I can see how small bones from the hands and feet could have been dragged off by the local wildlife or carried away by wind and rain, but is it normal for so much of a skeleton to vanish?
The most likely explanations I can think of are 1) animal removal or 2) storm activity. However, the fauna of Nikumaroro doesn't appear to be large enough to carry off or devour an entire torso. Also, the description of where the remains were found indicates it was some distance from and shoreline and fairly sheltered, so it doesn't sound likely that overwash from a storm would have reached the skeleton.
What forces could account for such a complete removal? And could these factors provide any insights to their age?
Thank you.
-
“One of the authors, Wright, developed an alternative forensic craniometric software application CRANID (Wright, 2008 and Wright, 2012) with a larger sample base and a broader worldwide spread than the cranium samples used in FORDISC."
I don't blame Dr. Wright for wanting to demonstrate that his software is better than the competition but I find his paper short on historical accuracy and long on bias.
"In the case of the Nikumaroro bones, the skeletal evidence was lost during World War II. Subsequent attempts to trace the bones indicate that they were moved to Australia, probably Sydney, but no further evidence has been found."
Not true. No one knows what happened to the bones. McPherson recommended that they be sent to Australia but Sir Harry Luke nixed the idea.
“Upon receipt of the Hoodless report, Macpherson concluded that the remains were not those of Amelia Earhart and the case was closed without further action.”
Not true. McPherson made no such judgement. It was Secretary Vaskess (who was not a medical man) who suggested that further inquiry was pointless. The case was not closed. Investigation into the sextant box and other artifacts continued.
Hair? Last week I saw Boobies carrying all manner of stuff up into the Buka trees to build their nests.
Rate of deterioration of remains? No mention of the taphonomy experiments done on Nikumaroro by Kar Burns.
"The sextant case was identified in 1941 as English or French make, “of some age” and used as a receptacle."
Not true. The sextant box was not identified in 1941. TIGHAR research has shown that the numbers documented to have been on the sextant box clearly indicate it was a Brandis U.S. Navy surveying sextant, the same kind used by Noonan as a "preventer" (back-up) instrument.
and so on....
We should probably put Dr. Wright's paper up on the TIGHAR website along with a detailed rebuttal but meanwhile I'm not going to lose any sleep about whose bones Gallagher found.
-
“We should probably put Dr. Wright's paper up on the TIGHAR website along with a detailed rebuttal but meanwhile I'm not going to lose any sleep about whose bones Gallagher found.
So far you haven’t responded to any point of substance made in the Cross & Wright paper, which after all, wasn’t about who made the sextant box or where the bones ended up.
If Cross & Wright make points you find to be valid, you should acknowledge them, and if they make points you find aren’t valid, you should say why you disagree. That’s how legitimate research works, and legitimate research is what Tighar is doing, isn’t it? I would strongly urge you to respond to the Cross & Wright paper in a responsible way. Ducking reasoned criticism does a disservice to Tighar's many followers.
-
“We should probably put Dr. Wright's paper up on the TIGHAR website along with a detailed rebuttal but meanwhile I'm not going to lose any sleep about whose bones Gallagher found.
So far you haven’t responded to any point of substance made in the Cross & Wright paper, which after all, wasn’t about who made the sextant box or where the bones ended up.
If Cross & Wright make points you find to be valid, you should acknowledge them, and if they make points you find aren’t valid, you should say why you disagree. That’s how legitimate research works, and legitimate research is what Tighar is doing, isn’t it? I would strongly urge you to respond to the Cross & Wright paper in a responsible way. Ducking reasoned criticism does a disservice to Tighar's many followers.
I could have sworn I just wrote that we should put the paper on the website along with a detailed rebuttal - or are you just trolling?
-
“We should probably put Dr. Wright's paper up on the TIGHAR website along with a detailed rebuttal but meanwhile I'm not going to lose any sleep about whose bones Gallagher found.
If Cross & Wright make points you find to be valid, you should acknowledge them, and if they make points you find aren’t valid, you should say why you disagree.
By my count, Ric made six points illustrating his view of the paper, then indicated--as you quoted--that TIGHAR should do "a detailed rebuttal."
The link to the study (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1697.msg37223.html#msg37223) was posted on June 19. That was during week two (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Niku8/dailies/niku8dailies2.html) of the just-completed expedition.
Ric is a great man. I feel honored to be working with him. But he's human. Do you suppose you could give him a little while to decompress from the expedition before demanding a full workup on the bones issue?
-
So far you haven’t responded to any point of substance made in the Cross & Wright paper, which after all, wasn’t about who made the sextant box or where the bones ended up.
If Cross & Wright make points you find to be valid, you should acknowledge them, and if they make points you find aren’t valid, you should say why you disagree. That’s how legitimate research works, and legitimate research is what Tighar is doing, isn’t it? I would strongly urge you to respond to the Cross & Wright paper in a responsible way. Ducking reasoned criticism does a disservice to Tighar's many followers.
Mr. Beck,
I have observed this project and forum for several years now and notwithstanding the severe criticisms that I and others have proffered about the events associated with this not for profit organization, I can truthfully attest that as a general rule, "ducking reasoned criticism" simply does not happen.
Responses are almost always submitted in a responsible and professional way, although I often to do not always agree. I suggest that you read Martin X Moleski comments re the bones above and the links that he provides. Father Moleski seems always to provide professional responses with supporting documentation. I would expect nothing less from a Jesuit priest
-
“We should probably put Dr. Wright's paper up on the TIGHAR website along with a detailed rebuttal but meanwhile I'm not going to lose any sleep about whose bones Gallagher found.
So far you haven’t responded to any point of substance made in the Cross & Wright paper, which after all, wasn’t about who made the sextant box or where the bones ended up.
If Cross & Wright make points you find to be valid, you should acknowledge them, and if they make points you find aren’t valid, you should say why you disagree. That’s how legitimate research works, and legitimate research is what Tighar is doing, isn’t it? I would strongly urge you to respond to the Cross & Wright paper in a responsible way. Ducking reasoned criticism does a disservice to Tighar's many followers.
I could have sworn I just wrote that we should put the paper on the website along with a detailed rebuttal - or are you just trolling?
Actually, you didn’t say that you will respond to the Cross & Wright paper, you merely said that you “should probably” do so; that's a bit less definite, no? I quite reasonably suggested that you respond in a serious way to legitimate criticism of Tighar research — you’re suggesting I'm “just trolling”?…
-
By my count, Ric made six points illustrating his view of the paper...
Do you recall that I wrote that Ric hadn’t responded to points of substance in the Wright & Cross paper? By your count, how many substantive points did Wright& Cross make, and which of these did Ric address?
...then indicated--as you quoted--that TIGHAR should do "a detailed rebuttal.
“should probably”; see my reply to Ric’s post above. Whether Ric’s response (if there is to be one) succeeds in actually rebutting Wright & Cross is something I’m not going to lose any sleep over.
The link to the study (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1697.msg37223.html#msg37223) was posted on June 19. That was during week two (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Niku8/dailies/niku8dailies2.html) of the just-completed expedition.
Ric is a great man. I feel honored to be working with him. But he's human. Do you suppose you could give him a little while to decompress from the expedition before demanding a full workup on the bones issue?
Sure Marty. You ‘should probably’ make a post to the forum telling us all when Ric has finished decompressing.
-
Easy there, Hal. I think that any reasonable person would expect a period of "decompression" (for lack of a better word). Well, at least I think that this is true of anyone who has gone on a one-week vacation to Disney World -- let alone a three-week trip to the far side of the world.
I would rather wait for a well-thought rebuttal than a hasty one.
-
Then 'decompression' deserves silence rather than a point-by-point (which indicates he believed he was making a substative reply) dismissal and accusation of trolling whenever one finds criticism to be incovenient or annoying.
That said, I'm all for Ric having time to decompress, good point. Perhaps in due course he can muster a professional review of the matter and produce a more qualified response, since Ric - as he's often pointed out about others, is not himself qualified in this area of science. I'm all for him having that chance.
-
Would that I had the luxury of "decompressing."
Wright's paper is a serious challenge to a cornerstone of the Niku Hypothesis and TIGHAR will address it seriously - but right now there are higher priorities.
-
Mr. Beck,
You have made your point abundantly clear. You are now simply being argumentative.
-
We are in contact with Dr. Richard Jantz who co-authored Amelia Earhart's Bones and Shoes (http://tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/1998Vol_14/bonesandshoes.pdf)
He has read the Cross/Wright paper. He's traveling at the moment but he is interested in re-examining the case with the better tools now available. We should be able to get started early next month.
-
Confirming that we are now working with Dr. Richard Jantz to re-examine the whole issue of the castaway bones found on Gardner/Niku in 1940. Much has changed since Amelia Earhart's Bones and Shoes (http://tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/1998Vol_14/bonesandshoes.pdf) was written in 1998. At that time we had not begun excavating the location on the island where the bones were found, had not discovered the significance of the numbers reported to have been on the sextant box; had not conducted experiments to determine how mammal bones deteriorate in the island environment, etc. Also, since 1998 new databases and techniques for assessing gender, height and ethnicity have been developed that are superior to those used in both the TIGHAR paper and the Cross/Wright paper.
Our purpose is not to refute Cross/Wright but to objectively re-asses a cornerstone of the Niku Hypothesis based on the best data currently available.
This is not going to happen quickly. We're hoping to have something ready to publish by the first of the year.
-
Sure Marty. You ‘should probably’ make a post to the forum telling us all when Ric has finished decompressing.
Hal, you 'should probably' relax, have a beer and let the organization handle the research in the fashion that they feel is best. Even if it's not up to your expectations, the people on the forum aren't a board of directors to direct what happens and when. I think your point was made. There are lots of things I would love to see more information on but I don't believe I'm in a position to aggressively push for it. My $125 didn't buy me a seat at the table, it simply supports a research effort that has worked hard up to this point and needs funding - funding to do things like sit down and write rebuttals to other peoples opinions (of which there are many).
Although, seriously, guys, my $125 really should be more than enough to buy a bloody boat to go out again :P
-
Your $125 should buy you the chance to be represented on the board!
Craig is represented on the board. Without members there would be no TIGHAR. All of us who serve on the board are keenly aware that members of the organization will not continue their financial support if they feel that the organization is not giving them value-for-value. Renew rates traditionally run around 80%, far better than most nonprofits. You were a member for a time but you decided not to renew and now your tone is somewhat hostile. Clearly we did not succeed in delivering value-for-value to you.
-
Here in the UK charitable organisations are encourage to elect representatives who may be workers or low paying members.
TIGHAR is a board-driven organization. The general membership does not vote and does not elect board members. Board members are nominated, elected, re-elected (or not) by the other board members.
As I understand it, the British system for funding charitable organizations is quite different from what is done over here.
We look for board members who can:
• Provide oversight for the Executive Committee who run the day-to-day affairs of the business
• Set sound policies and procedures for how the organization conducts its business
• Provide financial or in-kind service support
• Help with development (a euphemism for fundraising)
We look for bright, successful people who are committed to the goals of the organization.
-
Your system seems alien to me but flawed (my opinion, take it, leave it delete it)
My understanding of the British system is that charitable organizations do not generally solicit or receive donations directly from the public in return for tax deductions but are allotted their funding by the government from money raised through government-run lotteries. Do I have that right?
-
UK Charities are predominately funded by direct donation from the public. Donations are also be-quested in wills, and a proportion of funding comes from the UK lottery.
I do not have any accurate figures to hand, but I am sure they are available on the internet. The main Lottery funding in the UK is split between charities, sport and cultural projects. Local community project funding is a large part of the charity section funding.
However by far the largest income to charities in the UK (and overseas and disaster funds), is by public donation. Either by direct giving or fundraising activities. Government funding for charities does exist, but is a small percentage of the amount donated. The main area of government funding is for overseas disasters and self help projects. Digging wells, provision of seeds and agricultural equipment for example.
I am sorry to say Ric that your assumptions concerning the UK are incorrect.
I hope that the search for Amelia's Electra will continue to a positive conclusion, but as more time goes by, this must realistically become more difficult. From what I have read on this forum, it seems apparent that a properly funded expedition to concentrate on an underwater search, is really the last option to establish the truth or not of previous observations. The original plan for the last expedition using "professional" equipment would seem the best chance of success. However being unable to raise the necessary funding is a major stumbling block, and I wish you the best in raising the required funds going forward. Further searches on land would unfortunately seem to be less important at this time, taking into account the years passing, and the destruction by the sea and weather of the various sites?
I admire your positive approach to the scientific data and artifacts that have been found, and agree that it would be to easy to put a positive spin on something, without looking at the ways to disprove the evidence.
Happy hunting
Bruce Evans
-
Prompted by the responses from Bruce and Chris correcting my misimpression of the UK system (thank you) I did some research on line. The process of setting up, governing, and funding charitable organizations is quite different in the UK than it is in the U.S. with far more government regulation and far less incentive for public giving than we have in this country. Whether that's a good thing or a bad thing depends on your personal perspective but TIGHAR is based in the United States. We're a U.S. 501 c3 public charity and that is the context in which we have operated for over 30 years. That said, we're always open to suggestions for how we can make TIGHAR better.
-
Transparency can definitely be a good thing, but when people "out of the loop" can vote on the direction a group like TIGHAR will go, you can also end up spending valuable (and limited) time and resources looking for banjos and toilet paper. Unlike government funded groups, if someone doesn't like the way TIGHAR does business, they don't have to give them money. Essentially, it's a vote of confidence (or not) with your dollars. (Personally, if I were a billionaire, I'd hire them a submersible and tell them to look wherever they needed to look. Then they could move on to other stuff, like the White Bird.)
-
I hope that the search for Amelia's Electra will continue to a positive conclusion, but as more time goes by, this must realistically become more difficult.
Let's remember that the search for Amelia's Electra is only one aspect of TIGHAR's investigation. The Electra may or may not still exist in any discoverable form. Our larger purpose is, and always has been, to test the hypothesis that the missing flight ended at Gardner Island (now Nikumaroro).
From what I have read on this forum, it seems apparent that a properly funded expedition to concentrate on an underwater search, is really the last option to establish the truth or not of previous observations.
That's true if the previous observations you're referring to are the observation of possible underwater aircraft wreckage in sonar and video.
The original plan for the last expedition using "professional" equipment would seem the best chance of success.
I wish it was that simple. The Phoenix debacle in 2012 was the work of "professionals." It's not enough to turn over the search to someone in the business who has good credentials (Phoenix is the U.S. Navy's primary contractor for underwater recoveries). Selecting the right technology and the right vendor requires judgement. There's an old saying, " Good judgement comes from experience. Experience comes from bad judgement." I hope we've made enough mistakes to know what is needed to find whatever is there - IF there is anything there.
However being unable to raise the necessary funding is a major stumbling block, and I wish you the best in raising the required funds going forward.
Thank you.
Further searches on land would unfortunately seem to be less important at this time, taking into account the years passing, and the destruction by the sea and weather of the various sites?
Let's think about that. Doing a wider, deeper underwater search with the right technology will be expensive but the pay off, if successful, would probably be conclusive. Sponsorship would require someone who was willing to take that risk. It has been done before. Much more money has been spent on unsuccessful deep water searches around Howland Island than on all the TIGHAR expeditions put together. Of course, those were commercial ventures funded by investors hoping to get a substantial return from exhibiting the aircraft. TIGHAR can offer nothing but a hefty tax deduction and the satisfaction of helping to conclusively solve an iconic mystery.
Further land searching would be far less expensive. The Seven Site is a proven and productive archaeological site that, so far, has not been damaged by over-wash. Further work there would be likely to turn up more artifacts related to the castaway and could conceivably produce something that could be linked directly to Earhart or Noonan.
Expeditions, like politics, are the art of the possible. If funding for the high-stakes underwater search is not forthcoming should we try for further archaeology at the Seven Site?
I admire your positive approach to the scientific data and artifacts that have been found, and agree that it would be to easy to put a positive spin on something, without looking at the ways to disprove the evidence.
We don't spin and nobody tries harder than we do to disprove the evidence. Those who disagree with our interpretation of an artifact or a body of data may call it spin, but spin is an intentional misrepresentation to obtain a desired response. We never, ever do that. Our interpretation may turn out to be wrong, maybe even naively optimistic, but it's always honest.
-
Hi Ric
I concur with your observations on the possible path to further investigation. The professional tag that I used was meant to refer to the original plans for the underwater work, using the submersibles that were going to be supplied by the University, I forget which one, but Hawaii springs to mind. I do not have a clue in reality what would constitute a professional outfit and your knowledge will be superior to mine.
There was not meant to be any dissension in any of my comments, and I used the word "spin" to emphasize that you did not use this method of pumping up the conclusions, that could be drawn from your findings. I have always admired the honesty and caution that you have displayed.
I do have a minor caveat to add to the charitable sector comments that I made. The government does allow charitable donations from business against tax, providing they are going to registered charities. Furthermore if you donate as an individual, and you are a taxpayer, they will add a tax allowance to your donation, thereby increasing the value to the charity. This tax top up does not impact in any way on you as an individual, it is just a "gift" from the state.
One final point that I would make, is that the UK public has a much deserved reputation as generous givers, although some odd statistics do crop up. The most money apparently goes to Donkey sanctuaries! Not sure i honestly believe this, but the statistic is quoted quite frequently!
To end, I repeat my hope that the mystery will be solved in the not too distant future, and my best wishes and support goes with you, on whatever the next expedition concentrates on. You are doing a good job under sometimes trying circumstances, and I commend you for it.
Bruce Evans
-
Thank you Bruce.
-
Craig is represented on the board.
Whoa, hold the boat, when is my payroll check? :D :D :D
-
Further land searching would be far less expensive. The Seven Site is a proven and productive archaeological site that, so far, has not been damaged by over-wash. Further work there would be likely to turn up more artifacts related to the castaway and could conceivably produce something that could be linked directly to Earhart or Noonan.
Expeditions, like politics, are the art of the possible. If funding for the high-stakes underwater search is not forthcoming should we try for further archaeology at the Seven Site?
I heartily support the idea of further archaeology on land, and would support it financially (in my very limited way), whereas I did not support Niku VIII.
The case for more land archaeology is extremely clear: a number of objects have been gathered on land that have contributed greatly to Tighar's progress on the search and and on the development of a preliminary understanding of events after the landing.
Underwater? Virtually nothing has been achieved. At a cost of millions of extremely scarce dollars, with lawsuits (past and possibly future), lost reputations, unbelievable amounts of energy, time and monies expended with no result, years passing without measurable progress on Niku, the partial exhaustion of the Tighar community, etc.
I recognize the appeal of the underwater search but I do not believe that Tighar has ever observed or detected a single piece of evidence there. I would call the entire litany of Tighar's underwater searches "Hail Marys" - very low probability, high risk efforts that should be reserved for when one is completely out of other options. But Tighar was (and is) not out of other options that can be pursued at lower cost with a higher probability of making progress.
Tighar has been acting like Seattle's Russell Wilson passing to Lockette on the last (real) play of the Super Bowl when all he had to do was hand off to Marshawn Lynch for the touchdown.
Jon
-
I don't have any sympathy whatsoever for calls to subcontract expedition planning to a "professional" organization.
No one knows Niku better than Ric.
He is a consummate professional.
Spending more money on consultants would not have made a bigger search possible on Niku VIII.
I think TIGHAR did what it could with the funds it had this year; given the sudden withdrawal of support from FedEx, it was go with what TIGHAR could afford to ship or lose the money already guaranteed to Nai'a.
It was a good decision to go.
It was bad luck it didn't work out.
Of course, with hindsight, anyone could plan a better Niku VIII. ::)
-
To each his own it would seem as to 'by land or by sea', with all due respect - and yes, the cost of the expansive undersea examination would be tremendous. And yes, dollars are always scarce - resources always are, by definition, or they'd have no value as 'resources'.
It is then a question of how one who has it would spend the money.
Ric himself has indicated that a 'wider deeper' undersea search would be needed to make further progress, if I follow his postings here correctly. I agree with that approach - IF Earhart's plane is at Niku, it MUST be placed deeper (and possibly wider) than we've been able to look so far. To TIGHAR's credit, it appears to me that the land case is essentially exhausted now, as is the near-shore / relatively shallow areas off the reef flat.
As to 'professional management', I certainly recognize personal affinity - and have nothing against it. I also would never claim to know anyone who knows Niku better than Ric - he's been there far more times than probably any living Kirabati resident, for one thing - and certainly more than any of the rest of us. From an experienced 'program' point of view, however, I take a more impersonal view -
And it is actually toward enhancing Ric's capabilities, were such a search to be done - not robbing him of credit for his knowledge or implying anything negative in particular -
Except that there are professionals available who are far more expert at the details of such searches than TIGHAR's leadership can possibly be: people and organizations who've done such searches for decades for a living / reason for existence.
So, this is a point on which honest men may disagree - I can appreciate the loyalty as-stated, but believe much more is at stake in the programmatic view if an such expensive search is to be undertaken.
And the problem gets back to 'resources' and how to attract those who possess enough of it / them to make such things happen - they too may well be looking at all corners of any such prospect to understand how all known / learned risks are being mitigated and how the details are being shaped to ensure success. It seems to me that Ric is the 'idea' man in this, and can provide a great deal of high-level oversight - but the 'how to' of a detailed sub-sea search is best contracted to an entity that can truly handle that with aplomb from start to finish.
IF one can attract the kind of sponsorship that is needed by a) confidence in the Niku arrival theory, and b) demonstrating a large-tent / success-bent plan that can provide greater confidence than we've known before: it would be gargantuan in relative terms.
-
To TIGHAR's credit, it appears to me that the land case is essentially exhausted now, as is the near-shore / relatively shallow areas off the reef flat.
I would agree that the near shore/relatively shallow areas off the reef flat at the western end of the atoll have now been thoroughly searched - a very real and important accomplishment of the Niku VIII expedition.
I emphatically do not agree that the "land case is essentially exhausted." I agree with Jon Romig that further archaeological work on land is likely to produce more information and artifacts that will increase our understanding of events.
-
I agree with most of what you say, Jeff, about wider-deeper and probably longer searches, the likes of which TIGHAR has never seen. Spend more, discover more, of course will probably come along with this theory. The Hail Mary was ingenious as a last resort in light of what was used and the excellent results obtained. Use that ingenuity and combine it with the proper tools, as TIGHAR has done in the past, only on a much larger scale, and the results would be fabulous. Solving a puzzle requires much more wrong moves than right moves, but when it's solved, it's solved! Moving from the small to the humungous and the chances of solving a large puzzle become realistic. It doesn't seem to my small mind that looking through an area with a sifter and brush will find what we are really looking for. All due respect to the land crews and those involved with searching land areas, that's where the after-effects and smaller, lighter articles would occur. We're looking for a Plane Here, aren't we??
-
I agree with most of what you say, Jeff, about wider-deeper and probably longer searches, the likes of which TIGHAR has never seen. Spend more, discover more, of course will probably come along with this theory.
If we could guarantee that spending more would discover more, raising the money would be easy. It's actually "spend more, risk more." It's easy to recommend that somebody else should spend more. Bear in mind that Jeff, by his own admission, now favors Crashed & Sank while he counsels TIGHAR to spend more on searching at Niku.
-
We're looking for a Plane Here, aren't we??
No. We're testing the hypothesis that the Earhart/Noonan flight ended at Gardner Island/Nikumaroro. Searching for whatever may remain of the plane is one of several a reasonable ways to test the hypothesis.
-
You're right, Ric. And I may be oversimplifying by saying we are looking for an airplane! But something bigger than what has been found would be nice. Some things don't blow in the wind or move by wave action quite so easily. And bits found on land may eventually lead to the bigger prize. Actually the "Crashed and Sank" theory isn't so far off from "hit the deck and sank" or"Ran out of gas and dropped to the beach, then sank" theory. If we expand on any one theory, and include possibilities from other theories, the envelope of possible solutions becomes larger. The expense is larger of course, but in some ways the hunt becomes easier. Think "multi-tasking" . Move around; gather info from multiple areas and all together may lead to the ultimate end. Site 7 may have items from survival needs; the shallow beach may have items from the landing and washing ashore; items found 1000 ft down may be from higher up and from being washed down. Highly unlikely that items were washed upward, and to the land areas from underwater, but could have been blown there from anywhere. (flight MH370 hollow flaperon) We all know these things, but get hung up on one location or theory or type of device or ease of investigation,etc. (My favorite is the pile of ruble in the early debri field!) Meanwhile, the environment is changing. I don't think we can afford to wait to finish this mystery while it is sure to just get more expensive to complete. We should get more info from more places and maybe use different techniques and machines to get it done!
-
Actually the "Crashed and Sank" theory isn't so far off from "hit the deck and sank" or"Ran out of gas and dropped to the beach, then sank" theory.
I'm not familiar with those theories.
-
Sorry, I meant the "Landed on the beach with low fuel, and washed over the reef leaving a landing gear" theory..
-
Sorry, I meant the "Landed on the beach with low fuel, and washed over the reef leaving a landing gear" theory..
What photographic evidence supports Crashed & Sank? What evidence - period - supports Crashed & Sank. How does Crashed & Sank explain the post-loss radio signals?
-
I'm not arguing with you, Ric. There is no evidence to support the "crashed and sank" theory that I know of. It's just a theory that some resort to when they get frustrated with other theories, in my mind. If you look at these two theories, however, they both end up in the water. Why doesn't anybody want to go in the water? I mean DEEP in the water, to find evidence?
-
Why doesn't anybody want to go in the water? I mean DEEP in the water, to find evidence?
I don't know where you get that idea. Four multi-million dollar expeditions have gone deep in the water (up to about 5,000 meters) around Howland looking for the plane. The side-scan sonar survey TIGHAR commissioned in 2012 went down 1,500 meters. That's pretty deep. We'd like to go deeper. It's just real, real expensive.
-
IF there was money enough (I'm not serious) , where would TIGHAR go and how deep would be realistic, do you think, to do a one - time, all out search near Nikumaroro? (Sorry I'm not in the right thread)
-
What kind of “wider-deeper” search? ROV’s or Sonar?
Is Sonar a good method for searching for small pieces in the area around Nikumaroro? If one wants to do a “one time” search with sonar, how can you expect there would be a big piece of airplane to stand out? If ROV’s are used to look for small pieces then how deep can they go?
Would the search for a “wider deeper search” area include calculating how long it would take an intact airplane with undamaged fuel tanks to sink, along with the worst case current speed? Would you factor in non-typical current direction based on finding NC debris north of the wreck? Where do you draw the limits of the search area? Where would you say, “we searched everything within these limits and there is no need to expand it”? If you start to think of it in those terms doesn’t it make sense to start with the prime areas and work out from there.
IMHO, Starting with the prime area, which to me means the area closest to the Bevington object and working out from there makes the most sense to me, eliminating them area by area. The shallow areas have been searched by divers. For areas and holes in the snail trails below this area that were not searched in 2012, I consider prime area to be searched first, and searched by ROV. The logic being an ROV is good for finding smaller objects and smaller objects are likely at the less deep unsearched areas closer to where wave action might break up a plane. (Some areas that the snail trail crossed, need to be searched in more detail like the Debris Field. )I think there is a limit of search area for the ROV. Then there is a deeper area around these limits that a Sonar search makes more sense. The logic being the plane got out deeper because the tanks kept a bigger piece afloat and a sonar might be able to spot it.
-
I don't know Greg. I'm not an expert on ROVs and sonar nor do I pretend to know what devices would work best or what their limits are. I'm asking the question, I don't have the answer. It would seem, however, that the ROVs would be useless after a certain depth and I think that limit has already been reached in previous dives. And I presume that is one reason the cost tends to skyrocket. Besides tedious calculations and research into the depths that may be encountered, and the conditions at those depths, such as pressure, the equipment is certainly expensive and scarce. There is probably very little known about the extremes in that area. Data would have to be taken from similar areas with similar conditions, I suppose, and starting points or areas of best chances for results would be determined by the western and southern beaches and their relation to the ocean current and prevailing wind direction at the time. Specifics won't be known until they do some test dives anyway, which makes it even more urgent.
-
What kind of “wider-deeper” search? ROV’s or Sonar?
Wider deeper is a wonderful concept. The devil is in the details.
Is Sonar a good method for searching for small pieces in the area around Nikumaroro?
No. Sonar is a poor method of searching for small pieces - period.
If one wants to do a “one time” search with sonar, how can you expect there would be a big piece of airplane to stand out?
You can't. You can say, "Airplanes that have been found underwater are in big pieces" but you can't conclude from that that all or even most airplanes underwater are in big pieces. The ones in little pieces are just much harder to find.
If ROV’s are used to look for small pieces then how deep can they go?
Very deep, but the deeper they go the bigger they are and the more tether they require and the bigger the ship it takes to support them. Ka-ching, ka-ching, ka-ching.
Would the search for a “wider deeper search” area include calculating how long it would take an intact airplane with undamaged fuel tanks to sink, along with the worst case current speed?
What are the chances that an aircraft that left a main landing gear assembly behind would be otherwise undamaged? How do you calculate how much damage?
Would you factor in non-typical current direction based on finding NC debris north of the wreck? Where do you draw the limits of the search area? Where would you say, “we searched everything within these limits and there is no need to expand it”?
All good questions.
-
....TIGHAR is a board-driven organization. The general membership does not vote and does not elect board members. Board members are nominated, elected, re-elected (or not) by the other board members.
Are Mr. Berwind and Mr. Carty no longer members of the TIGHAR board of directors? Both of them are listed as board members on TIGHAR's IRS Forms 990 submitted for at least the last several years. However, neither Mr. Carty or Mr. Berwind is listed as a board member on the "About TIGHAR" page on the TIGHAR website:
http://tighar.org/about.htm (http://tighar.org/about.htm)
This "About TIGHAR" page still shows Ric and Pat's home address as Wilmington, DE. Also, the page has a link to the "most recent TIGHAR IRS Form 990". This link points to the IRS Form for the time period 1 July 2011 to 30 June 2012, which is definitely not the most recent Form 990 submitted by TIGHAR.
So perhaps the "About TIGHAR" webpage has not been updated in a while as to the names and locations of the current members of the board of directors?
Mr. Carty made a handful of posts to the TIGHAR forum several years ago. His first post, to the "New Member Introduction" section of the forum, said he had been a member of the TIGHAR board of directors since "about 2007":
http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,222.msg23932.html (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,222.msg23932.html)
Is the "About TIGHAR" webpage this seriously out of date?
If Mr. Berwind and Mr. Carty really are no longer TIGHAR board members, what happened to them?
Jeff P.
-
Are Mr. Berwind and Mr. Carty no longer members of the TIGHAR board of directors?
They are not.
Both of them are listed as board members on TIGHAR's IRS Forms 990 submitted for at least the last several years.
The 990s are correct.
However, neither Mr. Carty or Mr. Berwind is listed as a board member on the "About TIGHAR" page on the TIGHAR website
Mr. Berwind resigned his position on the board on July 8, 2015 saying that he no longer felt that he had the level of enthusiasm and commitment TIGHAR deserves. He wrote,
"I truly believe in what TIGHAR is trying to accomplish, and greatly value the time I have spent working along with all of you. I look forward to following TIGHAR's progress going forward, and hope that the friendships I have formed with many of you will continue."
Mr. Carty resigned on July 28 citing the same reason. He wrote, "Janis [his wife] and I will continue our memberships with TIGHAR and I will begin participating on the Forum in areas in which I am interested.
It’s been fun."
Graham and Art are still very much "on board" but are no longer "on the board/"
Being a member of a nonprofit board is a pretty intense experience and it's not uncommon for board members to burn out after several years. Turnover is healthy.
The same day Mr. Carty resigned Lee Paynter was elected to the TIGHAR board. Lee was on the Niku VIII dive team and also served as the expedition communications officer. He's a skilled businessman and the Chief Operating Officer of a large corporation. He's also a highly experienced pilot and diver and licensed amateur radio operator. He'll be a great asset to TIGHAR.
We expect to add more new board members in the near future.
This "About TIGHAR" page still shows Ric and Pat's home address as Wilmington, DE. Also, the page has a link to the "most recent TIGHAR IRS Form 990". This link points to the IRS Form for the time period 1 July 2011 to 30 June 2012, which is definitely not the most recent Form 990 submitted by TIGHAR.
Yes, the page needs updating. We've been just a tad busy lately. We'll get it updated asap.
-
Thanks for the reply and the info, Ric. Relieved to here that at least Mr. Carty's and Mr. Berwind's departures from the board were not due to any sort of health problems.
Jeff P.
-
This "About TIGHAR" page still shows Ric and Pat's home address as Wilmington, DE. Also, the page has a link to the "most recent TIGHAR IRS Form 990". This link points to the IRS Form for the time period 1 July 2011 to 30 June 2012, which is definitely not the most recent Form 990 submitted by TIGHAR.
Yes, the page needs updating. We've been just a tad busy lately. We'll get it updated asap.
Thank you for updating the page and posting the most recent 990 form. However, the link to the PDF is broken and brings up a 404 error. Thought you'd want to know about it.
-
However, the link to the PDF is broken and brings up a 404 error. Thought you'd want to know about it.
Darn! Thanks. We'll fix it. We'll also add a new name to the list of TIGHAR board members. Dawn Johnson, the TIGHAR archaeologist who thought up and carried out the brilliant forensic dog experiment, has just been elected to the board. I'll start a new topic on the "Doggie-Knows" tests. Fascinating stuff, and a potential game-changer in the search for conclusive evidence of Earhart's presence on Nikumaroro.
-
However, the link to the PDF is broken and brings up a 404 error. Thought you'd want to know about it.
The link is now fixed.
-
I was a little disappointed that the April 2016 TIGHAR Tracks discussed the Niku bones issue in general but made no mention of the only peer-reviewed paper that has looked at the same measurements taken by Dr. Hoodless in 1940. It came to a different conclusion.
Pamela Cross and Dr. Richard Wright's paper, published in The Journal of Archaeological Sciences, concludes that, "Without access to the missing original bones, it is impossible to be definitive, but on balance, the most robust scientific analysis and conclusions are those of the original British finding indicating that the Nikumaroro bones belonged to a robust, middle-aged man, not Amelia Earhart." See https://www.academia.edu/12660477/The_Nikumaroro_Bones_Identification_Controversy_First-hand_Examination_versus_Evaluation_by_Proxy_-_Amelia_Earhart_Found_or_Still_Missing (https://www.academia.edu/12660477/The_Nikumaroro_Bones_Identification_Controversy_First-hand_Examination_versus_Evaluation_by_Proxy_-_Amelia_Earhart_Found_or_Still_Missing)
TIGHAR's efforts hinge on Dr. Richard Jantz, who with the late Dr. Karen Burns reanalyzed Hoodless's measurements and concluded they more likely fit a European female. To date that effort has been presented at a scientific conference, but it has not been formally published. Dr. Jantz is awaiting a better estimate of Earhart's height from TIGHAR before he does another analysis, which is a prudent step; you can never have too much information as far as scientists are concerned.
Jantz is a world-recognized leader in his field of expertise, and I'm extremely gratified that he's taken an interest in the Niku Hypothesis to the degree that he has. I hope that this latest analysis will lead to a peer-reviewed paper published in a recognized scientific publication so that others can perform their own analysis and arrive at their own conclusions.
LTM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 EC
-
I hope that this latest analysis will lead to a peer-reviewed paper published in a recognized scientific publication so that others can perform their own analysis and arrive at their own conclusions.
How is the ability of others to perform their own analysis and arrive at their own conclusions reliant upon a peer-reviewed paper published in a recognized scientific publication? TIGHAR has published all of the original source data. Wright and Cross used it to write their paper (although they got much of it wrong as I pointed out in an earlier post (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1697.msg37463.html#msg37463)). Are the opinions expressed in the Wright/Cross paper more credible for having appeared in a peer-reviewed journal? Of the dozens of TIGHAR research papers published on the TIGHAR website, none has appeared in a peer-reviewed journal. Are they therefore of no account? TIGHAR is not an academic institution (thank God). We do open-source aviation historical investigation with the help of our members and volunteer experts in various fields, few of whom have PhDs. Our credibility rests on the quality of our work as judged by the interested public, not on the blessing of unnamed reviewers. We'll work with Dr. Jantz to do a fresh evaluation of the bones. If he wants to submit it for publication in a peer-reviewed journal that will be up to him.