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

Author Topic: Slow down a little - Bevington Object observations  (Read 46365 times)

Bruce Thomas

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 646
  • Now where did I put my glasses?
Re: Slow down a little - Bevington Object observations
« Reply #15 on: June 04, 2012, 05:24:10 PM »

I tried Googling 'objects similar to the Bevington Object' and all I got back was L10 landing gear...  ;D  Seriously, cool find.

Gosh, Jeff, you mean that you didn't find the ultimate object that it could have been?
LTM,

Bruce
TIGHAR #3123R
 
Logged

Randy Reid

  • T1
  • *
  • Posts: 41
Re: Slow down a little - Bevington Object observations
« Reply #16 on: June 04, 2012, 07:39:46 PM »

Jeff,

The skiff picture is an old outboard motor advertisement posted on an antique boating forum. My dad's first outboard motor looked like the one in the picture. When I got the idea that the "object" was a skiff with an outboard motor on it, I wondered if it was even possible. Were there even outboard motors that old? Well, one google search found outboards a lot older than 1937, some production models in the early 1900's. Hundreds of pictures of old skiffs with outboards but none from the same perspective as the "object". So I chose the advertisement pic without any enhancement other than cropping.

Randy
Logged

Malcolm McKay

  • Read-only
  • *
  • Posts: 551
Re: Slow down a little - Bevington Object observations
« Reply #17 on: June 04, 2012, 08:34:39 PM »

Isn't Emily Sikuli an eye witness in regards what she saw in that general location?

I never did like how some people discredited her account. Why would she be wrong? Is she "too native" for some to trust what she is talking about? Does she not have enough education for some to believe she may know the general appearance of an aircraft?

As I was at pains to point out Emily's "testimony" was unreliable for a number of reasons. Please let us not conflate a wild guess about "Nessie's" identity with supporting evidence from a demonstrably doubtful source.
Logged

Tom Swearengen

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 818
  • earhart monument, Hawaii
Re: Slow down a little - Bevington Object observations
« Reply #18 on: June 04, 2012, 09:02:26 PM »

Dr. Malcolm, how are you today? We certainly missed you in DC this weekend. It was a place where alot of different opinions were discussed by Experts and Novices. The experts even presented things in a way that even I could understand. (Thanks Dr. King and Lonnie!) Sure would have been great for you to have come.
As for saying something was reliable or not---well SIR---I guess you would have to have been in DC to get the real picture. My suggestion is that you might talk to some of the members that were there, or better yet---those members that actually spoke to her. IMHO and maybe that of some other members, Emily Sukuli provided some valuable information, some of which has been very accurate. So I guess if someone expressed to that they saw someone bury $5 million near a tree that doesnt exsist anymore, on a mountain top that was a volcano. As an archaeologist, you would still investigate  wouldnt you? Sir----dont knock it or TIGHAR for its efforts. They are going and doing-----and you?
Tom Swearengen TIGHAR # 3297
 
Logged

Malcolm McKay

  • Read-only
  • *
  • Posts: 551
Re: Slow down a little - Bevington Object observations
« Reply #19 on: June 05, 2012, 07:35:14 PM »

Dr. Malcolm, how are you today? We certainly missed you in DC this weekend. It was a place where alot of different opinions were discussed by Experts and Novices. The experts even presented things in a way that even I could understand. (Thanks Dr. King and Lonnie!) Sure would have been great for you to have come.
As for saying something was reliable or not---well SIR---I guess you would have to have been in DC to get the real picture. My suggestion is that you might talk to some of the members that were there, or better yet---those members that actually spoke to her. IMHO and maybe that of some other members, Emily Sukuli provided some valuable information, some of which has been very accurate. So I guess if someone expressed to that they saw someone bury $5 million near a tree that doesnt exsist anymore, on a mountain top that was a volcano. As an archaeologist, you would still investigate  wouldnt you? Sir----dont knock it or TIGHAR for its efforts. They are going and doing-----and you?

Well Tom - unlike some I don't need to fork out a few thousand dollars to be able to tell when a story doesn't add up. Still if you have the money to burn .....
Logged

Irvine John Donald

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 597
Re: Slow down a little - Bevington Object observations
« Reply #20 on: June 05, 2012, 07:57:02 PM »

Well.... I forked out a few dollars and had a perfectly enjoyable weekend listening to many points of view. I remained open minded and respectful of others opinions as they did with mine. I enjoyed several beers with Gary LaPook and have an even greater respect for him AND his opinions. As I did having dinner with Marty Moleski.  Two men with their own points of view. Learned men with great respect for the right of others to exercise their freedom of speech.  Both with a marvelous sense of life and humor.  Too bad you couldn't have been there. You might have enjoyed yourself too.
Respectfully Submitted;

Irv
 
Logged

Tom Swearengen

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 818
  • earhart monument, Hawaii
Re: Slow down a little - Bevington Object observations
« Reply #21 on: June 05, 2012, 08:08:21 PM »

I didnt either---and probably most of the attendees--I'd guess 80+ didnt either. Granted some of the theories didnt add up---thats why I went, and I'm sure others did too---to talk about them. Not banter back and forth anonomously on a forum. In person, face to face. Ask Gary LaPook. Flew in from California, to educate some of us. Dr. Tom King---noted archaeolgist, didnt necesarily agree with all the theories, but listened, and gave us his expertise. Tom Crouch, head of the Smitsonian Air & Space museum didnt agree on all of TIGHAR's points either, but was supportive of the efforts.
Look Dr. Malcolm. No one here is trying to change your mind about the theories. Really. Gary is still of the opinion of the crash and sank variety. But ---he gained a hell of alot of respect in DC by showing up and talking, and showing us his views. He wasnt trying to change anyone else opinion either. Just showing us what he was talking about.

So---if I can be bold, Malcolm give us your theories of this mystery, good bad or other wise. It cant be any worse than some we heard this past weekend, believe me. Alien abduction has already been mentioned, as well as 'other' paranormal oddities. Marty will ensure that you get equal time. And if I have to stand in the corner for speaking out, its ok----been there before. But , Marty didnt slap my fingers, he shook my hand, because I made the effort. Its your turn. and if I'm out of line, I'm sure the other members will let me know.
Tom
Tom Swearengen TIGHAR # 3297
 
Logged

Randy Reid

  • T1
  • *
  • Posts: 41
Re: Slow down a little - Bevington Object observations
« Reply #22 on: June 06, 2012, 12:08:37 AM »

Quote
I enjoyed several beers with Gary LaPook
Now you are making me jealous (and thirsty)

Randy
Logged

Jeff Victor Hayden

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1387
Re: Slow down a little - Bevington Object observations
« Reply #23 on: June 06, 2012, 06:18:00 AM »

Gary is still of the opinion of the crash and sank variety

Given the number of theories regarding the disappearance of the Electra Gary is very wise to keep the crash and sink one at the top of the likely suspect list. It has to be in the top two given the available information along with the 'stumbled upon Gardner Island' theory. As for the others, well I have a vivid imagination but, some sound like pure science fiction.
Occam's razor and the crash and sink/Gardner Island theories, ok. Anything else? pushing the boundaries of the available information. IMHO
This must be the place
 
Logged

Tom Swearengen

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 818
  • earhart monument, Hawaii
Re: Slow down a little - Bevington Object observations
« Reply #24 on: June 06, 2012, 06:37:38 AM »

Thats correct Jeff. Gary had a VERY well prepared presentation that he showed most of us. Whether we agreed or not wasnt the issue. He has valid points, and we all listened to him. He's intellegent, and very thorough. It just goes to show that people with desenting views CAN get together and discuss them. And you know what? Garys views may end up playing a BIG part of this whole project. Because alot is still theoritical, alot of these desenting views may end up bonding with others views to piece the whole puzzle together. And---i respect him for it. Now the aliens, and 'paranormal' stuff----thats kinda out there for me-----but was 'interesting'.
Tom Swearengen TIGHAR # 3297
 
Logged

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 2920
Re: Slow down a little - Bevington Object observations
« Reply #25 on: June 06, 2012, 06:55:25 AM »

Gary is still of the opinion of the crash and sank variety

You could tell that from the electronic "Crashed and Sank" billboard that he was wearing at the conference.   :o

LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
Logged

Ingo Prangenberg

  • T2
  • **
  • Posts: 50
Re: Slow down a little - Bevington Object observations
« Reply #26 on: June 06, 2012, 07:04:18 AM »

Malcolm,

I think that if Emily was a little girl in the States, talking about what she and/or her father witnessed, some people (including you?) may think differently. It may be a subconscious discrediting of natives as being too primitive to know what they are talking about. They may not have a Western-Anglo education, but we all share the common brain of Homo-Homo-Sapiens. How long did it take archaeologists to finally attribute Central American cities (or other great cities of past civilizations) to the people that live in the direct vicinity today? 

Just a thought, hope you don't understand it the wrong way. I'm aware of my biases, at least most of the time.

Also, her father would not have mentioned airplane parts unless they were airplane parts or he believed them to be airplane parts. These must have diffirenciated themselves in some way from the rusting hulk farther down the coast.

In an attempt to look at things from all sides, I hope Emily did not have a motive for feeding incorrect information. Was there a motive for personal gain? That would be a problem.



Logged

Tom Swearengen

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 818
  • earhart monument, Hawaii
Re: Slow down a little - Bevington Object observations
« Reply #27 on: June 06, 2012, 07:23:04 AM »

 ;D, but he is still respected for his views----by me anyway.
Tom Swearengen TIGHAR # 3297
 
Logged

Tom Swearengen

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 818
  • earhart monument, Hawaii
Re: Slow down a little - Bevington Object observations
« Reply #28 on: June 06, 2012, 09:31:53 AM »

Agreed Jeff. Ric was pretty plain about that in DC. Thats why he had the experts in their fields speak to us, AND be available to answers questions, which I think they all did without any constraint---expect maybe Jeff Glickman on friday afternnon, when we cornered him about the Bevington object ;D. Jeff was great about it, and understandably so. and IMHO was worth the wait
Tom Swearengen TIGHAR # 3297
 
Logged

Ingo Prangenberg

  • T2
  • **
  • Posts: 50
Re: Slow down a little - Bevington Object observations
« Reply #29 on: June 06, 2012, 11:36:31 AM »

I may be at risk of hijacking this forum. I am aware there exists a crash and sink discussion forum under "Alternate Theories". But this topic is being discussed here by others in this thread, so it may not be too out of place.

All respect to those who believe A and N crashed into the Ocean. Either they (crash)landed on land or crashed into the ocean. After looking at the images of the Symposium, I was surprised at the map/diagram that showed the search pattern for all boats and planes involved. Even though it is a large area, it was covered pretty well.

Compared to a landing, a crash at sea is rather messy. Bits and pieces of reflective material everywhere, slowly spreading out and covering a large area, waiting to be found. There is no evidence of this material. I guess in regards to "Crash and Sink" that only leaves the "Land gracefully at sea (hitting no swells) and sink neatly, so as to evade detection theory"?

The prerequisite for this theory must be an extraordinary water-landing involving sheer luck, especially in regards to previous "landing issues" involving our pilot. That seems like quite a stretch. Makes the Niku theory sound better all the time, especially with sightings of plane parts by multiple natives. "Just follow the parts" is my new motto.

If it looks like a duck...



Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5   Go Up
 

Copyright 2018 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 2.0.15 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines Powered by PHP