Advanced search  
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 15   Go Down

Author Topic: 3 Problems with Niku hypothesis / inconsistencies  (Read 166155 times)

Lisa Anne Hill

  • T1
  • *
  • Posts: 27
Re: 3 Problems with Nikumaroro hypothesis
« Reply #45 on: May 08, 2012, 05:41:32 PM »

Well said, Irv...

The first time I read Finding Amelia, and the chapter on Betty's notebook, I got chills down my spine thinking that AE might have been saying "Norwich City" in reference to where they were, and since Betty doesn't know what that is, she hears it as "New York City", and records those words. If AE had perhaps been trying to transmit latitude/longitude, or reading numbers off a debilitated FN's charts, in desperation, why wouldn't she also say something like "there's a giant shipwreck in front of me called the NORWICH CITY!!"
Logged

Irvine John Donald

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 597
Re: 3 Problems with Nikumaroro hypothesis
« Reply #46 on: May 08, 2012, 07:57:43 PM »

 I tried that little experiment Gary suggested. I asked 5 people about what message they would send. All said position in different ways. So I added a twist. I said that it's an island but you have no idea of your position or it's name.  That was a bit harder but they stuck with the idea of trying to give position. Three asked the size of the island and if there were landmarks. One asked about island shape and one was stumped. When I said there was a big shipwreck then two asked if we knew the name and would give that. The other two wanted to describe it. Essentially they all got the idea of using some defining visual image to use in reporting where they were.  That's neither scientific nor rocket science.

When lost people generally look around for landmarks. As Jeff N said earlier, no one is claiming that AE and FN couldn't figure out what to say.  It's possible they did but listeners failed to catch it. Nikumororo is a long way from anywhere and the antennae is not several thousand feet in the area but several feet off the ground. Probably not optimum transmission conditions.

All we can say is Betty may have heard AE, and the radio operators, trained in such matters, all noted a signal, which, when plotted on a map, triangulated to Gardner island, approximately.

The survey experiment just proves that the 5 people I talked with have some idea of what they would do if they could make one radio message out. This proves only that. Nothing more.
Respectfully Submitted;

Irv
 
Logged

Dan Swift

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 348
Re: 3 Problems with Nikumaroro hypothesis
« Reply #47 on: May 08, 2012, 09:13:39 PM »

My scenario...let me dream a bit. 
AE:  We've reached the LOP per FN.  He thinks, as everyone else does although we do not know this, that we are north of Howland.  So our first turn is south and...further way from Howland...although we did not know that.  After a while we do not see Howland or smoke from Atasca.  So, could we have missed it?  We turn north and report again....still no response.  It seems obvious they are still not hearing us.  Why...I don't know.  So FN thinks we must have been further north than we thought....so we turn back south again.  Further south....further south....what's the point in calling any more....they aren't answering us.  Gas is very low now.  We know there are islands south...but not north.  We have no idea where Howland was....and now we need to put 'her' down somewhere other than the middle of the ocean.  There are islands south if we were wrong and were south of Howland.  I have rather ditch near an island than.....  There, there's an island.  A shipwreck!  That could work....I have very little fuel left.  Let's do a fly over and check it out.  That reef looks pretty smooth out next to the ocean....and it is near that wreck.  I can do this.  Then taxi 'her' to the beach for safety.  Rough landing but in one piece.   Oh no!  I dropped the left main into a rutt or something.  Left engine will not pull me out of it.  I am stuck here!  Right engine will only pull me into the ocean.  Shut down and let's get out of here.  Later the tide is in but she is hanging on.  Left engine at water level, but right engine still above.  When the tide is out I can run that engine to charge the batteries and use the radio.....maybe someone will hear us.  Let's investigate the island and see if we can find any supplies from the wreck or......   Tide is out again.  Back to the plane for radio.  'She' moves a little each time the tide is in.  Then comes a rough surf....beating her up....we watch from the beach as she is beaten up and washed over the edge....and gone.  Have to find some place safer, cooler, and easier to get out and be seen.  George is looking for me.  .......................................
TIGHAR Member #4154
 
Logged

Brad Beeching

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 158
Re: 3 Problems with Nikumaroro hypothesis
« Reply #48 on: May 08, 2012, 09:27:47 PM »

I keep seeing comments alluding to the idea that if the post-loss radio messages were from Amelia on Gardner, why didn't she give her position? I believe she did every time she keyed the mic. The first report we get is on July 2 at about 9:00 pm Gardner time. If you look at report #30800LE, Mrs. Mabel Larremore reported “On the first night of Amelia Earhart’s disappearance I heard her SOS loud and clear, not on the frequency but on the one President Roosevelt said she might use. Her message stated the plane was down on an uncharted island. Small, uninhabited. The plane was partially on land, part in water. She gave the latitude and longitude of her location. I listened to her for 30-45 minutes.… I heard her message around 2 A.M. daylight saving time from my home in Amarillo, Texas. She stated that her navigator Fred Noonan was seriously injured. Needed help immediately. She also had some injuries but not as serious as Mr. Noonan.” Now I know that Mrs. Larremore didn't come forward until 1990, but as you can see from the link, "Nauru (Identifier #s 30831NA and 30843NA) and Itasca (Identifier 30843IA) reported credible voice transmissions during the time Mabel claimed to have heard Earhart. In 1990, that information had not yet been compiled, let alone published", and as you can see, the report has been deemed "credible". Another example is the report by Dana Randolph #41500RH in which he states he heard Amelia at around 4:00 am Gardner time on July 4th, giving her location before it faded out. What I find interesting is that "This sequence was repeated an unknown number of times during a 25 minute period." Thelma Lovelace  #71230LC reported " While tuning around a frequency where she usually heard a program of Japanese music every morning, she heard a voice, loud and clear, saying “Can you read me? Can you read me? This is Amelia Earhart. This is Amelia Earhart. Please come in.” Earhart then give her latitude and longitude, which Thelma wrote in a book, and continued: “we have taken in water, my navigator is badly hurt; (repeat) we are in need of medical care and must have help; we can’t hold on much longer.” Even Betty Klenck said she heard a series of numbers.

I have a feeling that if it was Amelia Betty heard, she heard latitude and longitude, she just didn't write it down, or misunderstood it. I find it hard to believe that someone with the experience of Amelia and Fred Noonan would have just picked up the radio mic and just start babbling useless information.

Brad
Brad

#4327R
 
« Last Edit: May 09, 2012, 04:57:46 AM by Brad Beeching »
Logged

Malcolm McKay

  • Read-only
  • *
  • Posts: 551
Re: 3 Problems with Nikumaroro hypothesis
« Reply #49 on: May 08, 2012, 09:51:37 PM »

Viewed in isolation Betty's notes are not really indicative of anything other than the fact that Earhart appears to have abandoned any logic in her broadcast for help until circumstances ended access to a working radio. The other problem is that we don't know with certainty that the message is from Earhart, and therefore we don't know if the message content is an accurate reflection of events after a purported landing somewhere. To assume that the message is from Earhart and to assume the scenarios proposed from their content are just that - assumptions, and assumptions based on a rather amateurish (if real) call for help. That is the reality until, or if ever, evidence is found on Nikumaroro or elsewhere to allow that reconstruction.

But to play the devil's advocate is it possible that Earhart and Noonan were broadcasting for help continually when circumstances allowed and in a much more logical fashion like "(call sign) on reef (position)" or some other similar but short message. Yet radio faults, poor reception etc. conspired to allow only the rather garbled and desperate plea that Betty picked up. Throughout the efforts to raise help Earhart and Noonan may have had no idea that their transmissions were simply not being picked up so one can expect an a feeling of frustration to creep in, and for one or either of them to get angry, especially if the aircraft was noticeably closer to being swept away. That persistence may have delayed them searching the island for food and water until whatever reserves they had on the aircraft were dangerously depleted, and would make a search for sustenance that bit more difficult. Staying with the Electra was for several days, I would imagine, the best alternative because both would expect a search to be underway - I can't see them running ashore and exploring if the aircraft with a working radio is sitting on the reef.

That is the only what if scenario that can put an acceptable interpretation on the Betty message that I can offer. But the reality is that I remain very sceptical about the Betty message, simply because I have to embroider it with imaginary background details to make it work - that is not a good way to get at the truth.
Logged

Irvine John Donald

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 597
Re: 3 Problems with Nikumaroro hypothesis
« Reply #50 on: May 08, 2012, 11:05:19 PM »

Speaking of assumptions Malcolm, isn't your first line "Viewed in isolation Betty's notes are not really indicative of anything other than the fact that Earhart appears to have abandoned any logic in her broadcast for help until circumstances ended access to a working radio.", also an assumption? 

You have assumed "the fact" that Earhart....  How do you know this is a fact?  The absence of a perfectly worded radio message with all "logic" is not proof that such a message was not transmitted. 

Let's first understand that this is not me attacking you because you don't believe in the hypothesis.  You have been clear that you are trying to understand what information there is and to evaluate it.

I am simply trying to point out that we all make assumptions about a lot of the information we have available. It's a lot of assumptions.  But we humans tend to believe that if "it walks like a duck, looks like a duck, and quakes like a duck then it's "likely" a duck".  That's not proof positive but us making a "likely" assumption.   

It's okay for any of us to make assumptions. Pulling facts into our assumptions provides more credibility. The more facts the more credible until we reach the point where we can say that we believe our assumption is real or true.   However we all interpret the facts in our own way. You find the lack of a received and documented message from AE to be possibly indicative that there were therefore no received post loss signals.   You find the assumption that AE made amateurish attempts to signal for help not to be valid. Is this because you have applied your own interpretation of what that radio call for help should have been?  Interpreting in your own manner and believing only your manner is correct?

On many advertisements you see phrases like "Try a slice of our delicious apple pie". Or "We have the best coffee in town". Well I have a problem with those phrases. Who decided the pie was delicious? Or that the coffee was the best?  Shouldn't that be up to each consumer to evaluate and decide?  Wasn't it an assumption by the writer?  Sure it's all marketing hype but you get my point. We all judge by our own standards. TIGHAR is simply presenting information to allow each of us to make our own assumptions. They try to present it without emotion and scientifically researched.

Your last post says that to assume the messages attributed to AE are just assumptions is correct.  However many TIGHAR believers have viewed these assumptions from their own perspective and believe that a few of these "assumptions" are possible so they have arrived at different conclusions than you. Nothing nefarious, devious, underhanded or wrong about that. It's just called a difference of opinion. And we are all equally entitled to those.
Respectfully Submitted;

Irv
 
Logged

Malcolm McKay

  • Read-only
  • *
  • Posts: 551
Re: 3 Problems with Nikumaroro hypothesis
« Reply #51 on: May 08, 2012, 11:22:50 PM »

Speaking of assumptions Malcolm, isn't your first line "Viewed in isolation Betty's notes are not really indicative of anything other than the fact that Earhart appears to have abandoned any logic in her broadcast for help until circumstances ended access to a working radio.", also an assumption? ...  etc.

No not really because one would expect that a person sending a message for help wouldn't wander off into mentioning the suitcase. Even if Earhart at times seems to adopt a somewhat eccentric approach to radio usage, Noonan is there also and he is the professional. As I said in my second paragraph I can make it all fit but, as I conclude, if that has to be done by imagining events rather than describing events then in the end the conclusion reached is worthless.

These post loss radio messages are as Prospero says

"... such stuff
As dreams are made on ..."


As I see it the public has been dreaming on all this for 75 years and it is about time that the curtain is lowered. The only way to that end is hard undeniable evidence.     
Logged

Irvine John Donald

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 597
Re: 3 Problems with Nikumaroro hypothesis
« Reply #52 on: May 08, 2012, 11:56:25 PM »

As I said. Differences of opinion.

Your phrase of "one would expect" means what?  Typically the "one" is substituting for "I" or "people like me".  Therefore you are again applying your standards to your assumption. 

How do you know AE hadn't been transmitting for hours and was now quite giddy from dehydration when she talked about a suitcase? It's all assumptions. You can't say our (TIGHAR believers) assumptions are wrong unless you have facts to prove it. We likewise can't say yours are wrong either. 

What events are you imagining rather than describing?  I don't think there are any you can describe because we have no facts to use. Only imagination. What is likely or probable is perhaps a better standard. The post loss radio signals fall into the "likely" category for me.

Think about it. AE is lost. Biggest news in the Pavific. 5 professionally trained radio operators are listening for her. Each records picking up a signal. They are in separate parts of the Pacific. They take a bearing on that signal. They all triangulate near one small island. Of all the ocean the signals could have pointed to they pointed at the group of islands the Navy first thought the likeliest. The island group that lay at the end of the LOP if followed. The island in fuel range of Howland.  But the radio signals weren't reviewed and triangulated in July 1937 and made to fit the puzzle. The signals were picked up and recorded then. You can't change those facts. The analysis done by TIGHAR shows the factual bearings of those signals by the operators of the day. No rewriting of history. Skeptics can believe the radio signals did not exist but why would they believe this?  They believe the reports were falsified?  To what end?  Do they think professional radio operators just falsely record radio signals to pass the time?  There was no massive conspiracy theory to create these signal records. 

You try to fit the pieces together Malcolm but you really have to also ask "What was likely?  AND  What wasn't likely?".
Respectfully Submitted;

Irv
 
Logged

Malcolm McKay

  • Read-only
  • *
  • Posts: 551
Re: 3 Problems with Nikumaroro hypothesis
« Reply #53 on: May 09, 2012, 05:42:22 AM »

As I said. Differences of opinion.

Your phrase of "one would expect" means what?  Typically the "one" is substituting for "I" or "people like me".  Therefore you are again applying your standards to your assumption. 
etc ...
You try to fit the pieces together Malcolm but you really have to also ask "What was likely?  AND  What wasn't likely?".

I think you are falling for the trap of trying to make what little is known fit into what you perceive as the likely outcome. The moment that starts happening you allow the hypothesis to pick and discard various parts of the data. If you are attempting to identify the nature of an unknown outcome from a known series of events then the moment you find that you are cherry picking certain pieces of data at the expense of other equally verified pieces of data then you have lost objectivity and allowed the hypothesis rather than the data to determine the result.

There is nothing essentially wrong with having a hypothesis so long as you recognise that that is all it is. People can become quite attached to particular hypotheses and happily assemble the facts to support them, but in many cases this often comes at the expense of shedding those bits that don't conveniently fit or tailoring them so that they do. The fate of Earhart and Noonan is currently the subject of 4 or 5 different hypotheses which we are all aware of. These all use various combinations of the known data and all downplay or dismiss bits of known data which don't fit.

The key in all of this is to stick to the known proven data. Things like the take off time from Lae, the intended flight path, the amount of fuel, aircraft performance, the proven radio intercepts and importantly the point in time when it becomes certain that the Electra can no longer be airborne. It is that last piece of data that brings us to where we are now which is discussing one of the hypotheses to account for the fliers fate.

The different hypotheses all use this data in different ways and some once they get Earhart and Noonan to wherever it is the hypothesis demands segue into quite imaginary reconstructions of events in which the purported post loss radio messages achieve diagnostic powers far in excess of their demonstrated reality or even content. On this forum alone Betty's notebook has created a whole series of very imaginative scenarios regarding Noonan's state of health, Earhart succumbing tragically under a tree, a plane sitting on a reef for several days then disappearing from view just before the Navy flies over etc. etc. All good fun but all equally completely imaginary.

Bluntly put the proven data doesn't even allow us to place Earhart and Noonan on Nikumaroro, in fact it doesn't even allow us to place them anywhere near the island or any other island. In the last demonstrated radio message from the Electra Earhart broadcasts that she is flying along the 157/337 line looking for Howland.  Others, as we know, have equally valid assertions that following that line would not have bought her near Nikumaroro, while others have her landing on East New Britain, the Marshalls, the Gilberts or simply succumbing to the inevitable in the Pacific Ocean. The proof of that colossal uncertainty is that if we had data that allowed such a fairly precise placing they or their remains would have been found long ago.

All one can do in any historical puzzle like this is to establish a time line with the proven data placed on it. In this case the time line finishes in thin air - what happens after that can only be shown by producing more proven data, which it is time TIGHAR did. Relying on what is likely or unlikely is simply hoping that uncertainty will be taken as certainty.
Logged

Andrew M McKenna

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 692
  • Here I am during the Maid of Harlech Survey.
Re: 3 Problems with Nikumaroro hypothesis
« Reply #54 on: May 09, 2012, 05:45:50 AM »

Another example is the report by Dana Randolph #41500RH in which he states he heard Amelia at around 4:00 am Gardner time on July 4th, giving her location before it faded out. What I find interesting is that "This sequence was repeated an unknown number of times during a 25 minute period."
Brad

This reception in particular is interesting to me for other reasons.  One, it was heard by multiple stations at essentially the same time - Dana Randolf in Rock Springs, Mrs. Crabb in Toronto, Pan AM in Ohau, and Pan Am in Midway.  If you continue with the details in Brandenburgs analysis that you have linked, you will find the following:
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
According to the local newspaper, Randolph heard a woman say “This is Amelia Earhart. Ship is on a reef south of the equator. Station KH9QQ” at about 0800 MST. The woman then began to give her location, but the signal faded out before it was given. This sequence was repeated an unknown number of times during a 25 minute period.

Source   “First Radio Contact with Miss Earhart Made by Rock Springs boy,” Rock Springs Rocket, July 6-7, 1937, p.1; Finding Amelia, p. 142; MSG8.PDF, p. 368; and MSG9.PDF, p. 372.

Probability   0.016

Qual Factors   A local Department of Commerce radio operator investigated and verified Randolph’s report, and found that the call sign heard was KHAQQ, and that the signal frequency was “near 16000” kHz, which is close to 15525 kHz, the 5th harmonic of 3105 kHz. It was plausible for Randolph to be tuning there, since 15525 kHz was near a shortwave broadcast band. The investigator also found that the signal included a statement – not reported by the newspaper – that the plane was “on a reef southeast of Howland Island.” The possibility of a hoax can be ruled out, given the investigation and the fact that the newspaper was published every other day, hence printed news of post-loss signals had not yet reached Rock Springs.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

So, not only did this 16 year old kid in Wyo hear her give multiple attempts at her location, but she also broadcast other relevant info "ship on reef south of Equator" and "on reef southeast of Howland Island". 

What is interesting about this one is the "ship on reef" which could be interpreted to mean the aircraft, commonly called a ship in the 30's, or the Norwich City, literally a ship on the reef.  South of equator, and southeast of Howland are both excellent descriptions if you don't have exact coordinates to give, your navigator has suffered a head injury or has otherwise gone bonkers, and that is all you know.

Same with the Betty notes, I find that there are quite a few oddities that in a vacuum she wouldn't have come up with, but the New York City getting repeated over and over could easily have been AE's attempt to give the best info she could on her location.  Anyone looking up the Norwich City could have figured out where it ended up.  There is logic to it in the context of Earhart that doesn't otherwise make sense.

Gary, isn't this exactly the kind of info you are arguing she would have broadcast? 

So it would seem that there are multiple examples in the body of post loss signals that do exactly what you are saying didn't happen, and which you base your conclusion that the signals did not come from Nikumaroro?  Are you now willing to reconsider possibility, especially in light of the radio DF bearings, one of which (Pan Am Mokapu Ohau bearing 213°) apparently was taken during the same reception as the one Dana Randolf heard?  Think about it, you've got a radio reception essentially saying "Ship on reef southeast of Howland, south of equator" and a DF bearing that hits Gardner island from the same transmission.  Where would you go look?



Malcolm says:

"I can't see them running ashore and exploring if the aircraft with a working radio is sitting on the reef."

I agree, they would not have strayed far, but they could not have remained in the aircraft during the day as the heat would have done them in.  The intensity of the light, both direct and reflected, would have turned the Electra into an oven and without huge amounts of fresh water it would have been a very dangerous thing to try to attempt.  Mark Smith, our camera / videographer on the last 3 expeditions, measured something like 3 times the ambient lumens on the reef flat compared to a normal sunny day in NYC area where he lives.  Being out there on the reef flat is a near painful experience it is so bright, and that is with hats and polarized sunglasses.  I don't think they went exploring far until after the Electra went over the edge, and the sound of the Colorado's airplanes faded away, and the realization that no one was coming sank in.

Which illustrates another aspect of the post loss radio signals.  Most of them were logged when it was nighttime and at or near low tide at Niku.  That does't mean that there weren't daytime transmissions that simply weren't heard for propagation reasons, but being out in the Electra during daytime or at high tide would have been very uncomfortable.  The pattern makes sense.

Andrew
« Last Edit: May 09, 2012, 06:08:55 AM by Andrew M McKenna »
Logged

Jeff Victor Hayden

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1387
Re: 3 Problems with Nikumaroro hypothesis
« Reply #55 on: May 09, 2012, 06:53:32 AM »

Having read all the posts on this thread the only question I have is did the post loss transmissions end?
If they are the sort of 'normal' background/unexplained/unknown signals that recievers pick up now and again then they would have continued and, continued to be monitored and logged presumably by the professional/military/aviation stations around the Pacific and recorded as unknown origin?
Is there a date recorded where these transmissions stopped, if they ever did?
Do records exist for 1938-1939?
Would that not provide a clue?
This must be the place
 
Logged

Irvine John Donald

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 597
Re: 3 Problems with Nikumaroro hypothesis
« Reply #56 on: May 09, 2012, 07:26:37 AM »

Malcolm, you say "The proof of that colossal uncertainty is that if we had data that allowed such a fairly precise placing they or their remains would have been found long ago".  The archaeological artifacts (shoe pieces, lotion bottles, aluminum pieces, etc.) are real.  They are physical items. You can touch them.  The reports on the bones found by the islanders are real reports. Not invented.   This is real physical evidence that "someone" died on the island and left their remains. This "may" be exactly what you're suggesting in your sentence above.

But neither myself or TIGHAR are making that claim that this is proof positive. Only making an assumption.


You say that I am falling into the trap of conveniently cherry picking the pieces that fit the hypothesis.  I don't believe I am doing this.  The post loss signals are a fine example to use.
Ask yourself....  Did the signals exist?  We're they real?  Or did 5 independent professional radio operators all make up false reports?  Two possible answers.  Yes or no. I can't answer for you Malcolm. I can only answer for me.  As such I have the right to my opinion as you have to yours. You really can't state that I'm wrong unless you have proof that shows my assumptions are wrong.  TIGHAR is attempting to find that proof.

You also say that it's time TIGHAR produced more proof. I would like to interpret that in a good way by saying you mean this as "given the constraints of time and money allows.". Remember that TIGHAR is under no obligation to prove anything. TIGHAR's name states the mandate which is historical aircraft recovery. Not "responsible for solving the earhart mystery".

Jeff Hayden. Review has shown the last "credible" reports were received on the evening of Wednesday, July 7, Gardner Island time. See the post loss signal reports here. http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/ResearchPapers/Brandenburg/signalcatalog3.html
Respectfully Submitted;

Irv
 
« Last Edit: May 09, 2012, 07:28:17 AM by Irvine John Donald »
Logged

Jeff Victor Hayden

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1387
Re: 3 Problems with Nikumaroro hypothesis
« Reply #57 on: May 09, 2012, 09:00:52 AM »

Irv
I was trying (badly) to enquire whether the 'normal' background unknown origin transmissions that you get increased during the period 3rd to 10th July and then returned to 'normal' after this period, does that sound right?
Here's a primitive graph to show what I mean
This must be the place
 
Logged

Irvine John Donald

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 597
Re: 3 Problems with Nikumaroro hypothesis
« Reply #58 on: May 09, 2012, 09:12:02 AM »

Hi Jeff

I am not clear on what you're really looking for.  "Background unknown origin transmissions" would not likely have been a part of the analysis done by Brandenburg and crew as they are in fact "unknown origin".  Background noise would be a question for Brandenburg.  Can you help me (us) understand where you are trying to go with this?  I think you are trying to figure out if the signals reported were just part of normal background noise clutter or real signal fragments.
Respectfully Submitted;

Irv
 
Logged

Jeff Victor Hayden

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1387
Re: 3 Problems with Nikumaroro hypothesis
« Reply #59 on: May 09, 2012, 09:23:51 AM »

I'll have a go Irv.
Any recieving station picks up transmissions which it can't understand/decipher or make sense of over any given period of time. Was there an increase in the number of these such transmissions in the time period of 3rd July to 10th july and, thereafter returning to usual level?
This must be the place
 
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 15   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