Print

[Jeff Victor Hayden]

I propose that the front part be called a fender and the back part a mud guard.

That will work until we can find out what Lockheed called them.  It's always best to call things by their right names.

Maybe "splash-guard" like on this Lockheed 12. (I did a sketch a while back I never posted with the few parts I knew the names of and questions about others. I will post it later) I agree and would like to know the correct names

Any idea if part 83 "corrugated sheet inner skin" in your JPEG image of the Model 12 is also a part of the Model 10?

[Chris Johnson]

What I sometimes wonder is why TIGHAR spent time away from the BO area in the last expedition?

Chris, I hope you haven't been drinking tainted Kool-Aid. 

I think that a quick review of the tracks of the ROV voyages will show that there was appropriate attention paid during the Niku VII expedition to the area off the reef at the location of the Bevington Object. For instance, see page 15 of the February 2013 edition of TIGHAR Tracks.

But after 75 years, who would know definitively how the interaction of storm driven seas and disintegrating reef structure would have moved any aircraft debris? During the 2010 expedition, Ric and other team members crossed the reef to stare down at the place on the reef edge where Jeff Glickman calculated that the Bevington Object would have been back in 1937, based on the old photo. Nothing there. Hence the wider ranging ROV and AUV tracks during the 2012 expedition, as shown on page 22 of that same issue.

It's sort of reminds me of the old saying concerning looking for something you've lost: "You always find what you're looking for in the last place you look."

Just asking questions to get things sorted in my mind, its the way my brain works unfortunatly

[Russ Matthews]

Any idea if part 83 "corrugated sheet inner skin" in your JPEG image of the Model 12 is also a part of the Model 10?

In a word .. yes.

[C.W. Herndon]

Here is a partial answer to the question.

[Jeff Victor Hayden]

Thanks Russ and Woody, that's all I needed to know. Nice picture Woody, very helpful indeed.

[Tim Collins]

"Fact", Greg, because the Complaint is based not just on my opinion, but the analysis of experts. ...

Care to share their analysis report? Is not substantiation part of the foundation of veracity?

[Ric Gillespie]

"Fact", Greg, because the Complaint is based not just on my opinion, but the analysis of experts. ...

Care to share their analysis report? Is not substantiation part of the foundation of veracity?

How about it Tim?  This is a no-brainer.  You're the one who wanted to make your case here on the Forum.  You're the one who suggested that we "agree all around to move forward on a more honest basis." You can't bolster your amateur opinions by citing secret "experts."  If we're going to argue this issue here, as you insist upon doing, then let's all put our cards on the table. TIGHAR has been totally transparent about our expert.  Attached is his CV in case you haven't already seen it.  Many here have met him in person, as have you.  You don't like his opinion.  Okay.  Show us an opinion you do like.  Show us your experts' qualifications. Show us a screen capture from the video that your experts say is definitely a piece of aircraft wreckage and their explanation for how they know that. We're all willing to be convinced, so convince us. 
Charlie Chisholm accused me of being afraid of you.  What are you afraid of?

[Monty Fowler]

*points up*

Yeah, what Ric said.

LTM, who knows who wasn't in Casper,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 CER

[Tim Mellon]

"Fact", Greg, because the Complaint is based not just on my opinion, but the analysis of experts. ...

Care to share their analysis report? Is not substantiation part of the foundation of veracity?

How about it Tim?  This is a no-brainer.  You're the one who wanted to make your case here on the Forum.  You're the one who suggested that we "agree all around to move forward on a more honest basis." You can't bolster your amateur opinions by citing secret "experts."  If we're going to argue this issue here, as you insist upon doing, then let's all put our cards on the table. TIGHAR has been totally transparent about our expert.  Attached is his CV in case you haven't already seen it.  Many here have met him in person, as have you.  You don't like his opinion.  Okay.  Show us an opinion you do like.  Show us your experts' qualifications. Show us a screen capture from the video that your experts say is definitely a piece of aircraft wreckage and their explanation for how they know that. We're all willing to be convinced, so convince us. 
Charlie Chisholm accused me of being afraid of you.  What are you afraid of?

Nice try, Ric.

I respectfully suggest that you chat with John Masterson.

[Monty Fowler]

Nice try, Ric.

I respectfully suggest that you chat with John Masterson.

*ponders the differences between an entity that cites known experts with quantifiable skills, and an entity that has unknown experts of unknown skills, but insists that those experts be treated the same as the known experts*

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

LTM, who knows who wasn't in the courtroom that day,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 CER

[Ric Gillespie]

How are you able to plot these positions so precisely?  In 2010 the ROV positioning system was not working and we've discovered huge discrepancies in the 2012 positioning data delivered by Phoenix.

I start with the position of the Rope/Cable dive reported in Research Bulletin #63, Site #1 (see attachment). Whether the lat/long position provided by Phoenix is accurate or not does not affect the analysis here. By comparing the 2012 videos relative to this dive with the 2010 HD video about the Wire and Rope, I am able to conclude that both show the same area: the rope is draped over some of the same objects and lies next to other identifiable (to me) objects.

Tim, this doesn't make any sense to me.  Maybe I'm just dense (that's one of the allegations in your Complaint) but I don't see how you can know precisely where something is without a good fix.  I can understand that you feel that you can recognize the same terrain features in videos that are two years apart but in neither case do we have reliable information about exactly where the videos were shot.

The areas shown in both years are populated by many of the same objects: a main landing gear with fork and tire, a cockpit area with discernible instruments and flight controls, the center lifting section of the Electra elevator, the nose compartment, the Rope (determined to be a tie-down rope as opposed to the HF antenna), the Wire (displaced from its perch in 2010 by repeated ROV nudging), and so forth.

As you know, I don't see any airplane parts in the 2010 Wire & Rope video but I do see what you now acknowledge is Rope (which Jeff Glickman tried to tell you was rope but you, at that time, insisted was control cable and later decided was HF antenna cable) and the "wire" (possibly whip coral) which, I agree, was dislodged by the ROV.  Where exactly in the 2012 video do you see these items?  I'm not saying they're not there.  I'd just like to see if I agree with your opinion that they're the same items that appear in the 2010 video.

While no one object can itself provide scale, the aggregate of objects all of comparable scale to one another provides confidence that the objects are related. Furthermore, the objects all lie within an area that I have previously described as being no larger than a basketball court (although obviously on a slope).
So when a new object is discovered, such as the "possible aileron", its size and can readily be compared with objects nearby, and its position relative to other objects can be readily determined.

That works fine for images of clearly identifiable objects.  If I have a photo that clearly shows place settings on a dining room table I don't need for there to be ruler in the picture to have a pretty good idea of how big the plates are - but that's not the case here.  These are coral-covered shapes that, to you, have a similarity to various airplane components (not to mention body parts and musical instruments, etc).  Establishing scale is absolutely essential.

I have retained experts in material analysis and coral formations to analyze specific objects in greater detail and with rigorous methods common to such analysis. Their conclusions support my assertions, and I am therefore highly confident that the Amelia Earhart mystery is near solution.

Great.  Let's see what these experts you hired had to say. Who are they?  Show us their credentials. How much did you pay them?  (We haven't paid Jeff Glickman a nickel.)

I too feel confident that the Amelia Earhart mystery is near solution.  I'm delighted that you have now publicly acknowledged that the assertions made in the Facts Common To All Claims section of your Complaint - that the mystery was solved in 2010 and "TIGHAR did not disclose the discovery" - are in error. 

[Ric Gillespie]

Nice try, Ric.

I respectfully suggest that you chat with John Masterson.

Oh I do, I do.

[Monty Fowler]

Willard said it best:

"Never get out of the boat. Absolutely *** **** right. Unless you were goin' all the way." Martin Sheen as Capt. Benjamin Willard, Apocalypse Now.

LTM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 CER

[John Balderston]

"Fact", Greg, because the Complaint is based not just on my opinion, but the analysis of experts. ...

Care to share their analysis report? Is not substantiation part of the foundation of veracity?

How about it Tim?  This is a no-brainer.  You're the one who wanted to make your case here on the Forum.  You're the one who suggested that we "agree all around to move forward on a more honest basis." You can't bolster your amateur opinions by citing secret "experts."  If we're going to argue this issue here, as you insist upon doing, then let's all put our cards on the table. TIGHAR has been totally transparent about our expert.  Attached is his CV in case you haven't already seen it.  Many here have met him in person, as have you.  You don't like his opinion.  Okay.  Show us an opinion you do like.  Show us your experts' qualifications. Show us a screen capture from the video that your experts say is definitely a piece of aircraft wreckage and their explanation for how they know that. We're all willing to be convinced, so convince us. 
Charlie Chisholm accused me of being afraid of you.  What are you afraid of?

Nice try, Ric.

I respectfully suggest that you chat with John Masterson.

Tim,

I believe you know I consider you a decent and honorable person, and that I care for your well-being.  In that spirit, would you be good enough to share the principle guiding your actions in this forum?   I'm trying very hard to see this situation from your perspective, and I honestly am having difficulty understanding what is going on here.

I understand Mr. Chisholm's position because he told us - he was fed up with what was going on, and he wasn't going to do it anymore.  He also said some spiteful, mean-spirited things.  I can't answer for him, but in my opinion he behaved the way many of us do when we are living in the moment, reacting to circumstances, forgetting the big principles.  We lash out, we say things that we don't mean.  Then it's only by our fellow human being's intentional grace, and our own intentional acts to make amends that we move forward.  At least that's how it is in my own experience.

Your intentional act through this law suit is putting a significant strain on all of us.  Some become casualties, like Mr. Chisholm.  Is there a principle here, or are we in the moment?  What is the vision for the end state?  If there is truly a harmonious end state in mind, how do we get there?  What does it take to make amends? 

Don't we always want things to have been better for us having been there?

I remain very respectfully yours, John

[Ted G Campbell]

Tim Mellon,
I have one very simple question.

Now that you have found the plane what are you going to do about it?

Ted Campbell