Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 34 35 [36] 37 38 ... 51   Go Down

Author Topic: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund  (Read 617432 times)

JNev

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 778
  • It's a GOOD thing to be in the cornfield...
Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
« Reply #525 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?
- Jeff Neville

Former Member 3074R
 
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 5897
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
« Reply #526 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.
Logged

John Wallace

  • T1
  • *
  • Posts: 27
Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
« Reply #527 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.
Logged

Greg Daspit

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 762
Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
« Reply #528 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.
3971R
 
« Last Edit: March 03, 2014, 08:34:03 PM by Greg Daspit »
Logged

Monty Fowler

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1078
  • "The real answer is always the right answer."
Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
« Reply #529 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
Ex-TIGHAR member No. 2189 E C R SP, 1998-2016
 
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 5897
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
« Reply #530 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.
Logged

JNev

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 778
  • It's a GOOD thing to be in the cornfield...
Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
« Reply #531 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.
- Jeff Neville

Former Member 3074R
 
« Last Edit: March 04, 2014, 08:12:37 AM by Jeffrey Neville »
Logged

Jeff Lange

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 149
Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
« Reply #532 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.....
Jeff Lange

# 0748CR
 
Logged

Tim Collins

  • T4
  • ****
  • Posts: 316
Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
« Reply #533 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.   
Logged

Dan Swift

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 348
Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
« Reply #534 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. 
 
 
TIGHAR Member #4154
 
Logged

JNev

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 778
  • It's a GOOD thing to be in the cornfield...
Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
« Reply #535 on: March 04, 2014, 12:28:56 PM »

Excellent analysis, Dan.  Concur.
- Jeff Neville

Former Member 3074R
 
Logged

John Wallace

  • T1
  • *
  • Posts: 27
Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
« Reply #536 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.
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 5897
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
« Reply #537 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. 
Logged

JNev

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 778
  • It's a GOOD thing to be in the cornfield...
Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
« Reply #538 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'.
- Jeff Neville

Former Member 3074R
 
Logged

Mark Appel

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 112
Re: TIGHAR Legal Defense Fund
« Reply #539 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.
"Credibility is Everything"
 
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 34 35 [36] 37 38 ... 51   Go Up
 

Copyright 2021 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