Advanced search  
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 12   Go Down

Author Topic: Stoutish walking shoe or sandal?  (Read 186890 times)

Joe Cerniglia

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 284
  • Niku in a rainstorm
Re: Stoutish walking shoe or sandal?
« Reply #15 on: January 13, 2013, 03:03:33 PM »

I think that it is more important to "talk about what shoes AE had with her on the world flight" otherwise what Gallagher thought or described has no significance.
She did leave some interesting but indefinite clues:

Last Flight, Amelia Earhart, p. 198:
"We carried, too, a pretty generous supply of water in canteens, concentrated foods, a small land compass, and very heavy walking shoes. Fortunately we did not have to walk!"

New York Herald Tribune, March 6, 1937:
"And this time she's taking along a pair of heavy, high walking boots, "just in case," as she puts it.

Gerald Gallagher, September 23, 1940:
"...It would appear that... (b) Shoe was a womans and probably size 10,

Gerald Gallagher, October 6, 1940:
"(f) Appears to have been stoutish walking shoe or heavy sandal..."

Google definition of stout:
Adjective, somewhat fat or of heavy build.

Joe Cerniglia
TIGHAR #3078 ECR
Logged

John Kada

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 110
Re: Stoutish walking shoe or sandal?
« Reply #16 on: January 13, 2013, 04:09:27 PM »

I think that it is more important to "talk about what shoes AE had with her on the world flight" otherwise what Gallagher thought or described has no significance.
She did leave some interesting but indefinite clues:

Last Flight, Amelia Earhart, p. 198:
"We carried, too, a pretty generous supply of water in canteens, concentrated foods, a small land compass, and very heavy walking shoes. Fortunately we did not have to walk!"

New York Herald Tribune, March 6, 1937:
"And this time she's taking along a pair of heavy, high walking boots, "just in case," as she puts it.


Were canteens found along with those shoe pieces?
« Last Edit: January 13, 2013, 04:12:03 PM by John Kada »
Logged

Bob Lanz

  • T4
  • ****
  • Posts: 422
Re: Stoutish walking shoe or sandal?
« Reply #17 on: January 13, 2013, 04:25:14 PM »

I think that it is more important to "talk about what shoes AE had with her on the world flight" otherwise what Gallagher thought or described has no significance.
She did leave some interesting but indefinite clues:

Last Flight, Amelia Earhart, p. 198:
"We carried, too, a pretty generous supply of water in canteens, concentrated foods, a small land compass, and very heavy walking shoes. Fortunately we did not have to walk!"

New York Herald Tribune, March 6, 1937:
"And this time she's taking along a pair of heavy, high walking boots, "just in case," as she puts it.

Gerald Gallagher, September 23, 1940:
"...It would appear that... (b) Shoe was a womans and probably size 10,

Gerald Gallagher, October 6, 1940:
"(f) Appears to have been stoutish walking shoe or heavy sandal..."

Google definition of stout:
Adjective, somewhat fat or of heavy build.

Joe Cerniglia
TIGHAR #3078 ECR

Joe, with all due respect to your diligent research on the Earhart Project, in the case of Mr. Gallagher, I don't think that "it would appear to be" and "appears to have been" and "probably size 10" are sufficient to make a determination of any archaeological significance.  I also don't think the "what if's" have a any place in the discussion unless those "what if's" have a basis to pursue given the artifacts in hand.
Doc
TIGHAR #3906
 
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 6122
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: Stoutish walking shoe or sandal?
« Reply #18 on: January 13, 2013, 04:35:49 PM »

Karen Hoy hit on one possibility.  What if the part-of-a-sole that Gallagher found was white or cream colored?  In 1937, a white or cream colored sole was almost certainly from a woman's shoe.

What if?  I can't see where Gallagher described it that way.

I didn't say he did. We're trying to figure out what made Gallagher so sure that it was a woman's shoe if he only had part of the sole.  There had to be something about it that said "woman" to a someone of his age and cultural experience.


Quote
What made him think it was from a stoutish walking shoe or heavy sandal rather than some other kind of shoe?

Did Gallagher describe it as a "stoutish walking shoe" or "a heavy sandal"?

Read the source material. Click here then scroll down to Gallagher's telegram of October 6, 1940

Quote
It seems to me that Gallagher's description makes sense if what he saw was part of a white or cream colored rubber sole with the heel molded in rather than nailed on.  Anyone have a better idea?

No it doesn't make sense if that is not how he described it.  Other than that it is just speculation as to what he said or thought.  A non starter IMO.

I disagree. Gallagher did not say what made him think it was a woman's shoe but there had to be a reason and we should be able to deduce that reason by examining the question logically.  It's call deductive reasoning.  I'll let Mr. Holmes explain it to you:

"In solving a problem of this sort, the grand thing is to be able to reason backwards. That is a very useful accomplishment, and a very easy one, but people do not practise it much. In the every-day affairs of life it is more useful to reason forwards, and so the other comes to be neglected. There are fifty who can reason synthetically for one who can reason analytically...Let me see if I can make it clearer. Most people, if you describe a train of events to them, will tell you what the result would be. They can put those events together in their minds, and argue from them that something will come to pass. There are few people, however, who, if you told them a result, would be able to evolve from their own inner consciousness what the steps were which led up to that result. This power is what I mean when I talk of reasoning backwards, or analytically."
A Study in Scarlet, Chapter 7, Conclusion

I think that it is more important to "talk about what shoes AE had with her on the world flight" otherwise what Gallagher thought or described has no significance.

I think you have it exactly backward.  Gallagher described his thought process quite clearly.  He found the skeleton of what he took to be a castaway.  With the bones was part of the sole of what he took to be a woman's shoe.  It was the notion of a female castaway that sparked his speculation that it might be Amelia Earhart.  It is, therefore, imperative that we try to deduce what it was about the sole that made it him think it was a woman's shoe.  If we can come up with a logic answer or a selection of logical answers we can then look at what we know about the shoes Earhart had and see if there might be a correlation.  If there is nothing about the soles of any of Earhart's shoes that might suggest a female shoe it lessens the chance that the skeleton was Earhart's.

  Add to that Gallagher's description "stoutish walking shoe" is an opinion only and his interpretation which may or not be valid.  How could he know if it was a shoe from a woman, a small man?

Regardless of whether his interpretation was valid or not, we need to figure out what he was interpreting.  It certainly was not size because his size estimate is more typical of a man.  So it was something else.  So far, color is the only thing I've been able to think of that might distinguish gender if all you have is part of a sole.
« Last Edit: January 13, 2013, 04:41:08 PM by Ric Gillespie »
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 6122
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: Stoutish walking shoe or sandal?
« Reply #19 on: January 13, 2013, 04:42:28 PM »

I also don't think the "what if's" have a any place in the discussion unless those "what if's" have a basis to pursue given the artifacts in hand.

You couldn't be more wrong.
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 6122
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: Stoutish walking shoe or sandal?
« Reply #20 on: January 13, 2013, 06:06:11 PM »


She did leave some interesting but indefinite clues:

Last Flight, Amelia Earhart, p. 198:
"We carried, too, a pretty generous supply of water in canteens, concentrated foods, a small land compass, and very heavy walking shoes. Fortunately we did not have to walk!"

This is from her description of a particularly dangerous flight over the southern Arabian peninsula.  Earlier in her narrative she described what she brought with her on the world flight.
"My one suitcase supposedly carried everything I could need on a world flight but of necessity it didn't contain many duplications.  My wardrobe included five shirts, two pairs of slacks, a change of shoes, a light working coverall, and a trick weightless raincoat, plus a minimum of toilet articles."  This description is borne out by the many photos taken during her various stops, including her statement that she had only two pair of shoes with her - and the second pair are not heavy hiking boots.  I've seen no photo of AE taken during the world flight where she is wearing shoes that could be called hiking boots.

New York Herald Tribune, March 6, 1937:
"And this time she's taking along a pair of heavy, high walking boots, "just in case," as she puts it.

That quote was from before the first world flight attempt.  The only reliable record of what she had with her on the second attempt is what we can see in photos taken after she left Miami.
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 6122
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: Stoutish walking shoe or sandal?
« Reply #21 on: January 13, 2013, 06:16:19 PM »

I think "almost certainly" is a little strong,

I don't.  All of your counter examples seem to be American.  Gallagher was a Brit and I think you'll find that British fashions - especially men's shoe styles - were more conservative than in America.  And even among your American counter examples the only white or cream colored soles are on the Keds shoes and they are hardly what I'd call stoutish walking shoes or heavy sandals.

The Keds ad also raises the question as to how, from just a part of a sole, a person could eliminate sneaker-type shoes as another candidate along with walking shoes or sandals; that is not clear to me.

Sneakers don't have raised heels.  Walking shoes and some sandals do.

The Taylor ad is from Life magazine in 1937 (see web site).  These I think would qualify as a "stoutish walking shoe".

I agree, but the sole is not white.
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 6122
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: Stoutish walking shoe or sandal?
« Reply #22 on: January 13, 2013, 06:34:20 PM »

Were canteens found along with those shoe pieces?

No, but a canteen made of thin steel might have rusted away.  Gallagher did find "corks on brass chains."  They are referenced by Dr. Steenson in his note to the file on July 1, 1941.  "Those corks on brass chains would appear to have belonged to a small cask."  Gallagher never mentioned them.  Small casks of water might have been part of the Norwich City cache, but wooden casks have steel hoops and there is no mention of hoops. Canteens and desert water bags sometimes feature corks with brass chains. Whatever they were from, "corks with brass chains" imply at least two stoppered containers that had degraded away. Because there was more than one, the stoppered containers probably arrived with the castaway rather than being beach-combed items.
Logged

Bob Lanz

  • T4
  • ****
  • Posts: 422
Re: Stoutish walking shoe or sandal?
« Reply #23 on: January 13, 2013, 07:36:05 PM »

Quote
I disagree. Gallagher did not say what made him think it was a woman's shoe but there had to be a reason and we should be able to deduce that reason by examining the question logically.  It's call deductive reasoning.  I'll let Mr. Holmes explain it to you:

Mr. Holmes also said "when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth".  But then, Sherlock Holmes was a fictional character now wasn't he?
Doc
TIGHAR #3906
 
Logged

John Kada

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 110
Re: Stoutish walking shoe or sandal?
« Reply #24 on: January 13, 2013, 07:47:55 PM »

Were canteens found along with those shoe pieces?

No, but a canteen made of thin steel might have rusted away.  Gallagher did find "corks on brass chains."  They are referenced by Dr. Steenson in his note to the file on July 1, 1941.  "Those corks on brass chains would appear to have belonged to a small cask."  Gallagher never mentioned them.  Small casks of water might have been part of the Norwich City cache, but wooden casks have steel hoops and there is no mention of hoops. Canteens and desert water bags sometimes feature corks with brass chains. Whatever they were from, "corks with brass chains" imply at least two stoppered containers that had degraded away. Because there was more than one, the stoppered containers probably arrived with the castaway rather than being beach-combed items.

Three years seems an awfully short period of time for a steel canteen to rust away. And that’s assuming their canteens were made of steel. Aluminum canteens were apparently in wide use by the time of the world flight, for instance US Army canteens used in WWI were made of aluminum. Desert water bags conveniently explain why no canteens were found by Gallagher, but is there evidence that AE and FN carried them on their flight? We have some reason to think that they carried their water in canteens. There is the statement that Joe Cerniglia cited indicating that they intended to carry canteens; there is film footage taken just prior to the first world flight attempt that shows Amelia holding a canteen in her hands as items are being weighed prior to loading into the Electra--a frame from that footage is attached below; and, the Luke Field Inventory lists 2 ‘type 4N’ canteens and 1 ‘type 6N’ canteen.

So the evidence we have seems to suggest they carried canteens, not desert water bags, although I suppose one can always suppose they decided to go with a more biodegradable material. Amelia always was a woman ahead of her time, wasn't she? ;D

I can find no information online indicating what type of metal these type 4N and type 6N canteens were made of; perhaps someone else out there can track this down.

As for the corks-and-chains, if the castaway arrived by lifeboat rather than be Electra, the corks-and-chains could have been from the water cask in the castaway’s lifeboat.
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 6122
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: Stoutish walking shoe or sandal?
« Reply #25 on: January 13, 2013, 08:47:03 PM »

Desert water bags conveniently explain why no canteens were found by Gallagher, but is there evidence that AE and FN carried them on their flight?

Convenience has nothing to do with it.  We're simply trying to think of possible sources for corks with brass chains but no reported remnants of containers (aside from the Benedictine bottle).

As for the corks-and-chains, if the castaway arrived by lifeboat rather than be Electra, the corks-and-chains could have been from the water cask in the castaway’s lifeboat.

True, but where are the remnants of the cask?  And where is the lifeboat?

BTW, here's the desert waterbag you asked for.  Unfortunately no stopper is visible.  We're not sure where or when this photo was taken.  The mechanic's coveralls seem to say (something) Canyon Airlines.  This could be the stop in Tucson on the way to Miami for the second attempt.
Logged

John Kada

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 110
Re: Stoutish walking shoe or sandal?
« Reply #26 on: January 13, 2013, 10:28:42 PM »

Desert water bags conveniently explain why no canteens were found by Gallagher, but is there evidence that AE and FN carried them on their flight?

Convenience has nothing to do with it.  We're simply trying to think of possible sources for corks with brass chains but no reported remnants of containers (aside from the Benedictine bottle).


As for the corks-and-chains, if the castaway arrived by lifeboat rather than be Electra, the corks-and-chains could have been from the water cask in the castaway’s lifeboat.

True, but where are the remnants of the cask?  And where is the lifeboat?

BTW, here's the desert waterbag you asked for.  Unfortunately no stopper is visible.  We're not sure where or when this photo was taken.  The mechanic's coveralls seem to say (something) Canyon Airlines.  This could be the stop in Tucson on the way to Miami for the second attempt.

Very good, we can see a water bag all right. But in your previous post you said “...corks with brass chains imply at least two stoppered containers...”. I only see one water bag, and I don’t see any corks with chains. Do you have evidence that these kind of bags could have come with cork stoppers and brass chains, or would they have been screw caps? 

I’m certainly willing to agree that AE and FN could have brought water bags along with them on their last flight based on that photo. However, I can’t picture Fred and Amelia taking swigs from that water bag while in flight, can you? So I’m still wondering why no canteens were found at the castaway's last camp. Surely Amelia and Fred didn’t fly for 20 hours without rehydrating. If some forum member can figure out what 'type 4N' and 'type 6N' canteens were made of I think that would great. Aluminum canteens would certainly persist for many years (and I still think steel canteens would be in pretty good shape after only 3 years).

Ric, you ask where the remnants of the cask and lifeboat are (or were in Gallagher’s time). Um, may I remind you that you believe that the Electra landed on Gardner and essentially disappeared into the sea with nary a trace?...you want me to believe that Gallagher missed an entire airplane but he must have seen a little ole lifeboat and water cask? ;D...Seriously, there are all sorts of possible explanations, aren't there, e.g., the lifeboat was left by the shore, perhaps it was even holed during the landing, and it eventually broke into pieces; the water cask was left at the castaway’s ‘camp zero’, which is not the camp where he died. Once the cask was empty, it was of little use to the castaway, except for the cork and chains, which were used for fishing, so the cask was left behind at camp zero. Perhaps it was eventually found by the colonists but considered unremarkable. Perhaps the water cask awaits discovery at the castaway's camp zero somewhere on Niku.

=====
added later: Incidentally, Ric, you speculate that the photo you attached in your post was taken in Tuscon, I think because the man's overalls say (something) Canyon Airlines. The film clip from the Critical Past web site that I linked to above is said to have been filmed in Oakland on March 17, 1937. The description of the clip says: "Earhart and Mantz begin weighing each piece of equipment, while George Putnam records the weights. Mechanic Bo McKneely appears in white coverall, with "Grand Canyon Airlines" written on back.". I don't know if what Critical Past says is correct, but if it is, then perhaps your photo wasn't taken in Tuscon.
« Last Edit: January 14, 2013, 12:41:06 AM by John Kada »
Logged

william patterson

  • T1
  • *
  • Posts: 45
Re: Stoutish walking shoe or sandal?
« Reply #27 on: January 14, 2013, 03:20:16 AM »

Its all guessing what Gallagher meant, but one way is by a stamped heel.
A brand name like cats paw or wolverine stamped into a thickish heel would imply to even a novice to be geared to hard work, or hard walking.
I am sure that like today there was marketing geared towards women and woman activities, tennis, hiking, social, so a brand name gallagher associated with outdoors walking could have been present.

The bigger question for me is why would Gallagher associate Earhart with such a badly degraded shoe? All but the sole was gone apparently.
I realize he was young with not a lot of experience, but he seems to have little knowledge of shoes, leather, clothing, to fancy tough shoe leather evaporated in such a short time. Perhaps he was an Earhart fan and had a good imagination, and very much wished he alone had solved this perplexing world mystery.
The degradation and the lack of any plane contents found suggest to me this sole was from an earlier visitor than 1937.
I doubt canteens, shoes leather, tools, all disintegrated in 3 years by the time Gallagher searched in 1940.
« Last Edit: January 14, 2013, 03:56:05 AM by william patterson »
Logged

Joe Cerniglia

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 284
  • Niku in a rainstorm
Re: Stoutish walking shoe or sandal?
« Reply #28 on: January 14, 2013, 04:41:17 AM »


She did leave some interesting but indefinite clues:

Last Flight, Amelia Earhart, p. 198:
"We carried, too, a pretty generous supply of water in canteens, concentrated foods, a small land compass, and very heavy walking shoes. Fortunately we did not have to walk!"

This is from her description of a particularly dangerous flight over the southern Arabian peninsula.  Earlier in her narrative she described what she brought with her on the world flight.
"My one suitcase supposedly carried everything I could need on a world flight but of necessity it didn't contain many duplications.  My wardrobe included five shirts, two pairs of slacks, a change of shoes, a light working coverall, and a trick weightless raincoat, plus a minimum of toilet articles."  This description is borne out by the many photos taken during her various stops, including her statement that she had only two pair of shoes with her - and the second pair are not heavy hiking boots.  I've seen no photo of AE taken during the world flight where she is wearing shoes that could be called hiking boots.

New York Herald Tribune, March 6, 1937:
"And this time she's taking along a pair of heavy, high walking boots, "just in case," as she puts it.

That quote was from before the first world flight attempt.  The only reliable record of what she had with her on the second attempt is what we can see in photos taken after she left Miami.

I never made any claim that I was presenting any kind of reliable record of what was brought on the world flight. The words I used to describe the facts stated in my post were "interesting but indefinite." I think that's a fair self-assessment of its limitations.

Earhart said she brought a pair of shoes that is similar in description to a pair that Gallagher described he found.  I would agree that the photographs tell of a small number of shoes brought on the trip.   Earhart's penchant for wearing full-length trousers no matter the climate, and the graininess of the hundreds of photos I have examined, make the task of sorting out exactly what types of shoes were worn a difficult one, in my opinion.  The fact remains we have no photographic evidence Earhart brought "high walking boots" on the second world flight attempt, as was stated in the article covering the first world flight attempt.  The second statement, which she made during the world flight while discussing Arabia, of "very heavy walking shoes," is somewhat subjective.  It could be referencing a pair we see in photos, or not. 

I would agree as well that the photographic evidence, and the two statements we both cited from the same book are contradictory with each other.  But my post was hastily assembled, and I had more balanced (pro and con) information, including our past discussions on shoes and photos of shoes, that I could have used had I taken the time to research it.  You'll find, I'm sure, that I can learn from my mistakes. 

Joe Cerniglia
TIGHAR #3078 ECR

« Last Edit: January 14, 2013, 05:17:57 AM by Joe Cerniglia »
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 6122
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: Stoutish walking shoe or sandal?
« Reply #29 on: January 14, 2013, 09:38:15 AM »

Very good, we can see a water bag all right. But in your previous post you said “...corks with brass chains imply at least two stoppered containers...”. I only see one water bag, and I don’t see any corks with chains. Do you have evidence that these kind of bags could have come with cork stoppers and brass chains, or would they have been screw caps? 

Look, I don't know what kind or how many water containers Earhart had with her on the Lae/Howland flight or how they were stoppered.  Nobody does. There is reason to think she probably had canteens with her.  There is also reason to think she may have had at least one desert water bag. If she had one she could have had two.  It seems reasonable to suppose that some canteens and some water bags were stoppered with corks on brass chains.   Maybe the corks on brass chains were from a water cask as Steenson suggested.   In any event, the castaway seems to have had some kind of container(s) that had corks on brass chains and the containers seem to have rotted away before Gallagher got there.

I’m certainly willing to agree that AE and FN could have brought water bags along with them on their last flight based on that photo. However, I can’t picture Fred and Amelia taking swigs from that water bag while in flight, can you?

It does seems rather awkward, but the bag is there.  Maybe it's only for a backup supply of water.

So I’m still wondering why no canteens were found at the castaway's last camp. Surely Amelia and Fred didn’t fly for 20 hours without rehydrating. If some forum member can figure out what 'type 4N' and 'type 6N' canteens were made of I think that would great. Aluminum canteens would certainly persist for many years (and I still think steel canteens would be in pretty good shape after only 3 years).

I think your question is reasonable.  I can think of a few possible answers.  There are probably more.
• Maybe the castaway was someone other than Amelia Earhart and didn't have any canteens.
• Maybe the castaway was Amelia Earhart but she used water containers other than canteens on the Lae/Howland leg. 
• Maybe for some reason the canteens didn't make it ashore or proved to be impractical.
• Maybe the canteens are there but we haven't found them yet.

Ric, you ask where the remnants of the cask and lifeboat are (or were in Gallagher’s time). Um, may I remind you that you believe that the Electra landed on Gardner and essentially disappeared into the sea with nary a trace?...you want me to believe that Gallagher missed an entire airplane but he must have seen a little ole lifeboat and water cask?

Point well taken.  If an Electra can disappear a lifeboat can disappear.

Once the cask was empty, it was of little use to the castaway, except for the cork and chains, which were used for fishing, so the cask was left behind at camp zero. Perhaps it was eventually found by the colonists but considered unremarkable. Perhaps the water cask awaits discovery at the castaway's camp zero somewhere on Niku.

Maybe.

added later: Incidentally, Ric, you speculate that the photo you attached in your post was taken in Tuscon, I think because the man's overalls say (something) Canyon Airlines. The film clip from the Critical Past web site that I linked to above is said to have been filmed in Oakland on March 17, 1937. The description of the clip says: "Earhart and Mantz begin weighing each piece of equipment, while George Putnam records the weights. Mechanic Bo McKneely appears in white coverall, with "Grand Canyon Airlines" written on back.". I don't know if what Critical Past says is correct, but if it is, then perhaps your photo wasn't taken in Tuscon.

Good catch.  So it appears that Bo had a pair of coveralls that said Grand Canyon Airlines on the back - so the guy standing at the cabin door in the water bag photo is probably Bo.  McKneeley was with her during preparations for both the first and second world flight attempts and he flew with her (and Putnam) as far as Miami on the second attempt.  The question is - was the water bag photo taken prior to the first or the second world flight attempt?  What clues does the photo offer?
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 12   Go Up
 

Copyright 2024 by TIGHAR, a non-profit foundation. No portion of the TIGHAR Website may be reproduced by xerographic, photographic, digital or any other means for any purpose. No portion of the TIGHAR Website may be stored in a retrieval system, copied, transmitted or transferred in any form or by any means, whether electronic, mechanical, digital, photographic, magnetic or otherwise, for any purpose without the express, written permission of TIGHAR. All rights reserved.

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

Powered by MySQL SMF 2.0.18 | SMF © 2021, Simple Machines Powered by PHP