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

Author Topic: Slow down a little - Bevington Object observations  (Read 53188 times)

Gary LaPook

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1624
Re: Slow down a little - Bevington Object observations
« Reply #45 on: June 07, 2012, 01:50:20 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
Even Ric got a kick out of that.

gl
Logged

Gary LaPook

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1624
Re: Slow down a little - Bevington Object observations
« Reply #46 on: June 07, 2012, 01:56:20 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...
Well if you believe that then you probably believe that those five Navy Avenger aircraft of "Flight 19" must have been spirited away by Martians because no trace of those five planes was ever found after an exhaustive search just off the coast of Florida.

gl
Logged

Gary LaPook

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1624
Re: Slow down a little - Bevington Object observations
« Reply #47 on: June 07, 2012, 01:59:42 AM »

good point Ingo.
and BTW Gary---you need to get some of those sign thingys and sell them! Attracted alot of attention, and was cool. programable of course---

Try here.

gl
Logged

Tom Swearengen

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 818
  • earhart monument, Hawaii
Re: Slow down a little - Bevington Object observations
« Reply #48 on: June 07, 2012, 05:43:38 AM »

I dont disagree with people that have a difference of opinion. In fact, SIR, its great to have those differences, and being able to discuss them. Gary is a great example.  and yes, he probably did spend alot of money to come and give us the benefit of his experience. The difference is that Gary, and others, did listen to alternative theories, and injected some very good comments about them. Everyone still has their own opinions, just like you do. And that is one great thing about this organisation--we can make alternative comments about things. And I too have been polite sir.
Oh one other thing---hard for you to give constructive comments on artifacts, or theories when you havent seen them-----you werent there--
Tom Swearengen TIGHAR # 3297
 
Logged

Tom Swearengen

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 818
  • earhart monument, Hawaii
Re: Slow down a little - Bevington Object observations
« Reply #49 on: June 07, 2012, 05:49:08 AM »

But you are correct--$1900. US is expensive for a flight from AUS to DC.
Tom Swearengen TIGHAR # 3297
 
Logged

Irvine John Donald

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 597
Re: Slow down a little - Bevington Object observations
« Reply #50 on: June 07, 2012, 06:26:30 AM »


Suggesting that I "stick" to the same course as you just reaffirms that, yet again, you believe only your methodology is right.

My methodology is really quite simple - I look at each artifact and try and understand how it might advance or contradict a hypothesis. Just because one person sees an incontrovertible link with the subject of the hypothesis doesn't mean that someone else does. By questioning assumptions we eventually arrive at a close approximation of reality, it might not be the reality we were seeking but then any answer (providing it is right) is better than nothing.

You missed the point. I do not question your methodology. I question your statement that i too should use your methodology because its right, based on your say so. 

That's a common theme in your arguments. Just because you "think" things happened a certain way doesn't make it fact. That's the part I have trouble with here. As stated many times previously, you are entitled to your opinion, just don't criticize anyone else if their opinion is not the same as yours.  No one has that right.

It's like a restaurant that advertises "delicious apple pie". Who says its delicious?  Isn't that up to me to decide?  It's my right to decide.  Not yours.
Respectfully Submitted;

Irv
 
Logged

Randy Reid

  • T1
  • *
  • Posts: 41
Re: Slow down a little - Bevington Object observations
« Reply #51 on: June 07, 2012, 10:50:12 AM »

Quote
Oh one other thing---hard for you to give constructive comments on artifacts, or theories when you havent seen them-----you werent there--

One would think this would apply to everybody on the forum.......in 1937 anyway ;D

Randy
Logged

Ingo Prangenberg

  • T2
  • **
  • Posts: 50
Re: Slow down a little - Bevington Object observations
« Reply #52 on: June 07, 2012, 11:30:35 AM »

Well, the forum thread is called "Slow Down A little".

Looking at most of the comments, not only are things not "slowing down a little", but rather speeding up. Also, once again the thread has turned into drivel, mainly concerning the validity of the Niku theory.

So this has become a thread of comment-volleys. I wish it could be more productive, but I hear mostly Malcolm repeating himself over and over. What has he left to say? Can we use our time to possibly look for new ideas, angles or items that may have been missed. I suggest he delve into a project that he may feel passionate about and apply his knowledge to in a productive way, for he is not productive on either end of the arguement.

This forum has become a self-gratifying breeding ground for a couple of people who need an audience. I suggest a thread called "for the nay-sayers" (sp?) to isolate those who want to have an argument and argue the same point repeatedly. "But this forum is open for all to express your views". Yes, I know, but its taking away any forward movement and motivation.

At this rate every thread is being watered down quickly by the same person, who obviously needs attention. Enough already. Our focus could be more directed, but no, we go back to the same discussion on the validity of the Niku theory.

And yes, for what its worth, I have a degree in Archaeology too, didn't find a need to mention it, because it doesn't really matter and make me more credible here. It would be nice to move the thinking forward instead of going in circles, allowing a couple of people the audience they really crave.

Take away the toy, continue productive discussion.

Logged

Chris Johnson

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1069
  • Trying to give a fig but would settle for $100,000
Re: Slow down a little - Bevington Object observations
« Reply #53 on: June 07, 2012, 12:33:26 PM »

Ingo,

a bit unfair as Malcolm has contributed some interesting topics and debate such as Fish Traps and Islander Fraternisation.

As i'm more interested in the Archeology of Niku maybe we could discuss the first 10cm of the seven site and what may lurk beneith.

FYI i'm only a armchair digger but if you need a sound marketing plan or an idepth analysis of the scotch whisky trade to South America then i'm your man  ;)
« Last Edit: June 07, 2012, 02:05:12 PM by Chris Johnson »
Logged

Bruce Burton

  • T1
  • *
  • Posts: 19
Re: Slow down a little - Bevington Object observations
« Reply #54 on: June 07, 2012, 12:51:58 PM »

.... Also, once again the thread has turned into drivel, mainly concerning the validity of the Niku theory. So this has become a thread of comment-volleys. I wish it could be more productive.... Enough already. Our focus could be more directed, but no, we go back to the same discussion on the validity of the Niku theory....It would be nice to move the thinking forward instead of going in circles....

I concur wholeheartedly with your sentiment expressed above.  :)
Logged

Chris Johnson

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1069
  • Trying to give a fig but would settle for $100,000
Re: Slow down a little - Bevington Object observations
« Reply #55 on: June 07, 2012, 12:56:47 PM »

maybe so Bruce but it takes 2 to Tango and 3 or more to conga
Logged

Tom Swearengen

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 818
  • earhart monument, Hawaii
Re: Slow down a little - Bevington Object observations
« Reply #56 on: June 07, 2012, 01:56:43 PM »

Guilty as charged--maybe. But I dont need, or want an audience. I started by expounding the virtues of TIGHAR. Truce!!
Ingo---Thanks for letting us know about your degree! No really, because some of us now have another person that we can ask specialized questions to.
yes---slowing down and taking a deep breath is correct. There is alot about this mystery that= we dont know, but little bit by little bit, we are piecing this large puzzle together. The archaeology does play a major part in all of this, and the more we can dig up, the more 'possible' evidence to Amelia being on Niku we can gather. Whether that is at the seven site, the north west corner, the village, or possibly some place 'we' havent thought of yet, its all important. just as important as the 'underwater archaeology' search for the Electra. I'm alittle partical to the aircraft side of this, because we havent found enough evidence that NR16020 was there. Something was for sure, but if the Electra did NOT land on Niku, then what happened, and then how did Amelia and fred get to Niku? As a scientist, I think that you can understand my question. We know she left Lae in the Electra. We 'think' she landed on the reef at Niku, and for a time was a castaway. If TIGHAR finds the evidence about the Electra needed to prove that it is the wreckage on the reef, then might we assume that she was there? But---what if it isnt the Electra, but some other unknown aircraft for times past? That doesnt mean she wasnt there, just that we havent found enough evidence to verify it.

Ingo----I think you can play a big part in this, because of your knowledge. If you dont mind every now and again answering some questions from a non-archaeologist.
Glad you are here!
Tom
Tom Swearengen TIGHAR # 3297
 
Logged

Malcolm McKay

  • Read-only
  • *
  • Posts: 551
Re: Slow down a little - Bevington Object observations
« Reply #57 on: June 07, 2012, 06:35:59 PM »


So this has become a thread of comment-volleys. I wish it could be more productive, but I hear mostly Malcolm repeating himself over and over. What has he left to say? Can we use our time to possibly look for new ideas, angles or items that may have been missed. I suggest he delve into a project that he may feel passionate about and apply his knowledge to in a productive way, for he is not productive on either end of the arguement.

This forum has become a self-gratifying breeding ground for a couple of people who need an audience. I suggest a thread called "for the nay-sayers" (sp?) to isolate those who want to have an argument and argue the same point repeatedly. "But this forum is open for all to express your views". Yes, I know, but its taking away any forward movement and motivation.

At this rate every thread is being watered down quickly by the same person, who obviously needs attention. Enough already. Our focus could be more directed, but no, we go back to the same discussion on the validity of the Niku theory.

And yes, for what its worth, I have a degree in Archaeology too, didn't find a need to mention it, because it doesn't really matter and make me more credible here. It would be nice to move the thinking forward instead of going in circles, allowing a couple of people the audience they really crave.

Take away the toy, continue productive discussion.

Now Ingo if indeed you do have a degree in archaeology you probably realise that artifacts must be examined with a view to their location, stratigraphy and very importantly in terms of their presence in the assemblages of other users who may also have occupied a site. Just because an artifact could have been used by the user group or culture that is the centre of one's attention doesn't necessarily rule out, especially in the case of Nikumaroro, use by another group in a very narrow time band.

So far the artifacts that have been found can with equal validity be allocated to the presence of people other than Earhart and Noonan because of the very narrow occupation span on the island, and the general similarities in the artifact assemblage of each group. Now that is not to deny that some of the artifacts may have belonged to Earhart and Noonan but it is saying that so far none of the artifacts have been shown to actually belong to Earhart and Noonan. I hope that is clear.

TIGHAR have stated themselves that so far no incontrovertible evidence has been found - others may read it more optimistically but as yet that optimism is unfounded. TIGHAR's assessment of the artifacts that have been found is that some may possibly be from Earhart and Noonan but they cannot rule out contamination from the presence of the other groups and settlers that were on the island from 1937 to 1965. There are some tantalising things like the partial skeleton (now missing) and the size 9 shoe but neither is as yet more than a hypothetical link.

The accounts of Emily Sikuli and the two other islanders are interesting but they lack independent verification - something that witness statements in general require. Also from some practical experience of indigenous accounts I am gently sceptical until other evidence emerges. Human memory is not the most reliable thing to base a theory upon - but TIGHAR have been quite open in their reporting and their view of the veracity of those accounts.

At the moment all of this discussion awaits any new evidence that may be found in July. It is becoming quite clear that for the hypothesis to move forward that something substantial in the form of an artifact or wreckage that can be directly linked to Earhart needs to found, or else this discussion is simply going nowhere. 
Logged

Ingo Prangenberg

  • T2
  • **
  • Posts: 50
Re: Slow down a little - Bevington Object observations
« Reply #58 on: June 07, 2012, 06:44:39 PM »

Malcolm, after reading just the first part of the first sentence in your post I was forced to stop, due to the patronizing "if indeed" tone. I assume the rest of your post repeats items you have already stated before.

Red x applied...

Off to productive new ideas and angles.

Regards,
Logged

Tom Swearengen

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 818
  • earhart monument, Hawaii
Re: Slow down a little - Bevington Object observations
« Reply #59 on: June 07, 2012, 06:47:51 PM »

Malcolm---we agree on that. There isnt any incontrovertible evidence linking the artifacts to AE or FN. Alot of circumstancial evidence mind you, but nothing that jumps out and says AE or FN.
You are also correct about the wreckage search, and its hopes of that evidence we look for.
But---I think that even if the wreckage isnt linked to AE, this discussion will on. Hope you will continue also.
Tom
Tom Swearengen TIGHAR # 3297
 
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5   Go Up
 

Copyright 2019 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