Advanced search  
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 9   Go Down

Author Topic: Confidence  (Read 110839 times)

John Balderston

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 139
Re: Confidence
« Reply #45 on: July 23, 2012, 07:21:20 PM »

Has anyone heard what Hilary Clinton has had to say?

Dr. McKay, in the interest of relations between our two nations, you might properly refer to our Secretary of State as "Secretary Clinton".  Or if you are on a first-name basis with the Secretary, you might take the time to ensure her name is spelled correctly. 
John Balderston TIGHAR #3451R
 
Logged

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 3006
Re: Confidence
« Reply #46 on: July 23, 2012, 07:41:35 PM »

Maybe Marty can weigh in on this as I don't have the numbers but I am sure he can get them.

When it comes to numbers, I never repeat anything I've heard at EPAC unless TIGHAR publishes it for all to see.

I don't think the costs for land expeditions is a secret, but I don't remember any of the numbers offhand.  I'm checking in from a cottage in the Muskokas, so I don't have a lot of time to see what kind of numbers have been published for the more recent Nai'a expeditions.
LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
Logged

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 3006
Re: Confidence
« Reply #47 on: July 23, 2012, 07:46:08 PM »

The "enhanced" photo is just that, enhanced to show what is claimed to be an u/c leg ...

I would be grateful if you would try to stick a little closer to the facts, Malcolm.

The photo in question was not "enhanced" to show a u/c leg.

It was taken with a high-resolution camera in order to retrieve the information that is in the photo.  Using that image, Jeff showed how various parts of what is in the photo were consistent with parts of the Electra landing gear.

He did not "enhance" the photograph.

He did not claim that no other interpretations were possible.

He did not go beyond the bounds of his science, in which he holds proper credentials for the kind of work that he did.
LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
Logged

Malcolm McKay

  • Read-only
  • *
  • Posts: 551
Re: Confidence
« Reply #48 on: July 23, 2012, 08:02:49 PM »

Malcolm can you show me then what the image really shows, As you seem to be expert on the object ?

If as you imply, Gallagher was as conscientious as you make out, Why would settlers need to inform him ? As to wreckage on reef, As HE should of known about it without being informed Right?

Harry Maude went to survey the island not the reef, From the distance the photo was taken how and why is there no mention of this object sticking out the water in the report's, As you say Earhart went missing in area, so Maude should be aware that Earhart have Landed on Niku so should be checking reef an forest for wreckage, But then if you are not looking for something why would a object sticking out water be out of place if you did notice it ?

Richie, for Glickman to have "reconstructed" or "enhanced" that pic to show the u/c he would have had to triangulate from objects of known size and location which therefore would give an accurate location. As so far this is the closest to a "smoking gun" that TIGHAR has come up with then it should have been a top priority to relocate the object, which I presume was that thing "enhanced" with yellow lines that was "found" in the photo of the coral in the shallows and which was released to the media. We all remember the confident suggestions made here that the black line around it was leaking oil or hydraulic fluid - what's happened to those I wonder?

If the islanders were happy to chatter to each other about aircraft wreckage then they were obviously aware that the source of that wreckage would have been a plane flown by the owner of the skeleton that was reported to Gallagher and which he thought might be Earhart's. As they didn't report the wreckage to him then it naturally follows that it wasn't there to be reported and as Gallagher himself makes no mention, despite his clear interest in the skeleton possibly being Earhart's, then it follows that there was no wreckage.

Maude arrived several months after the disappearance - the US Navy had overflown the island and found nothing. No wreckage seen, no survivors only traces of the Arundel and Norwich City occupations. If there had been anything like a plane wreck there Maude would have seen it. If the Bevington object was of interest they would have noted it - it was in plain view the entire time. As would have the later surveys by the teams researching the island as a flying boat base.
Logged

Malcolm McKay

  • Read-only
  • *
  • Posts: 551
Re: Confidence
« Reply #49 on: July 23, 2012, 08:08:25 PM »

The "enhanced" photo is just that, enhanced to show what is claimed to be an u/c leg ...

I would be grateful if you would try to stick a little closer to the facts, Malcolm.

The photo in question was not "enhanced" to show a u/c leg.

It was taken with a high-resolution camera in order to retrieve the information that is in the photo.  Using that image, Jeff showed how various parts of what is in the photo were consistent with parts of the Electra landing gear.

He did not "enhance" the photograph.

He did not claim that no other interpretations were possible.

He did not go beyond the bounds of his science, in which he holds proper credentials for the kind of work that he did.

Isn't Glickman the person who claims that the Sasquatch film is kosher?

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/biology/nasi.htm

And you didn't answer the comment about the need to properly triangulate the object to allow some sort of size estimation. If that wasn't done then the exercise was a waste of time and money.
Logged

Zach Reed

  • T1
  • *
  • Posts: 47
Re: Confidence
« Reply #50 on: July 23, 2012, 08:27:58 PM »

Malcolm, you say "visible at all times", but isn't it likely that the tide obscured the "Nessie" object for much of the time? And while Maude searched the entire island, after all A) didn't they miss the skeleton, and B) weren't they only on the island for two-and-a-half days, with a full working agenda? 

http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Bevington_Diary.html


Moving on...I agree that naturally Gallagher would have been told by the natives about the plane wreck. I think you make a good point...I was pondering that a few nights ago. But if we entertain a scenario where the aircraft quickly disintegrates (again, by the surf and especially by the Day 3 storm) into a chaotic bundle of pieces large and small, which then become mixed in with the NC debris field...it might have taken the natives awhile to determine that it was indeed a plane. A skeleton is a skeleton-no guesswork there-but to arrive at a new island, and mentally reconstitute a subset of the NC debris field into a plane...I would expect that to take some time for both discovery and mental processing. And Gallagher was only magistrate for a short time before an early death, and then the war intervened, etc.
Logged

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 3006
Re: Confidence
« Reply #51 on: July 23, 2012, 08:42:28 PM »

Isn't Glickman the person who claims that the Sasquatch film is kosher?

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/biology/nasi.htm


You seem to have trouble reading texts, Malcolm.

He says in the last sentence that he has not been able to falsify the film.

"Not falsified" does not equal "kosher."

I've been aware of Jeff's work on Bigfoot since March 29 of this year.  That is when I added the link to the full-length article, which has a suitably modest conclusion.

Quote
And you didn't answer the comment about the need to properly triangulate the object to allow some sort of size estimation. If that wasn't done then the exercise was a waste of time and money.

I figured I would start with the most easily accessible and demonstrable facts, which you passed over in silence.

Jeff did triangulation.  In his one-hour presentation in DC, he did not have time to show all of the steps in the process.
LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
« Last Edit: July 23, 2012, 08:53:48 PM by Martin X. Moleski, SJ »
Logged

Greg Daspit

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 788
Re: Confidence
« Reply #52 on: July 23, 2012, 09:10:16 PM »

Here are some of the pictures Irv Donald posted of the Glickman presentation at DC.
3971R
 
Logged

Malcolm McKay

  • Read-only
  • *
  • Posts: 551
Re: Confidence
« Reply #53 on: July 23, 2012, 09:39:51 PM »

That is when I added the link to the full-length article, which has a suitably modest conclusion.

Modest conclusion? I suggest you read it more closely or else you do not have sufficient grounding in hominid physiology to be able to understand the nuances in the text. We are talking Big Foot here, popular "science" for the tinfoil hat brigade.

As for the triangulation of the Bevington object  - now that the balloon has deflated and we are seeing much more modest claims for it (give it a month or two and it will have been officially forgotten), how about all details being made available. Wasn't this the thing that won the audience with the Secretary of State, and Ballard's imprimatur or was that a different object that no one seems to want to revisit to confirm it is that wonderful thing outlined in the photo.
Logged

Malcolm McKay

  • Read-only
  • *
  • Posts: 551
Re: Confidence
« Reply #54 on: July 23, 2012, 09:44:43 PM »

... didn't they miss the skeleton, and B) weren't they only on the island for two-and-a-half days, with a full working agenda? 

Might it be possible that the skeleton post dates the Maude survey? That skeleton is more convenient by its absence than its presence.
Logged

Zach Reed

  • T1
  • *
  • Posts: 47
Re: Confidence
« Reply #55 on: July 23, 2012, 11:44:12 PM »

Well it's certainly possible, but that's a narrow window: Maude/Bevington toured the island in October 1937, and Gallagher relocated there in September 1940. Note that the first wave of colonists were already there by March 1940.

http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/25_GallagherNiku/25_GallagherNiku.html

So if the skeleton post-dates Maude, then there is at most a three year window between Maude and its discovery. Moreover, this skeleton apparently kept handy a benadictine bottle, a sextant box, a lens, and assorted women's cosmetics from America. When the Earhart scenario is the least improbable of two scenarios, then the alternative scenario is one heckuva humdinger.

Speaking for myself, I enjoy some of your needling and skepticism...I think that's healthy. I just disagree with you on this point.
« Last Edit: July 23, 2012, 11:57:45 PM by Zach Reed »
Logged

Zach Reed

  • T1
  • *
  • Posts: 47
Re: Confidence
« Reply #56 on: July 24, 2012, 12:16:59 AM »

Just a small point of clarification: the skeleton was discovered by a working party of native colonists in April 1940; Gallagher would not arrive until that September. So the window for your scenario would be 2.5 years.

http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Bones_Chronology.html
Logged

Chris Johnson

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1069
  • Trying to give a fig but would settle for $100,000
Re: Confidence
« Reply #57 on: July 24, 2012, 05:57:24 AM »

Zach Reed Said

Quote
Moving on...I agree that naturally Gallagher would have been told by the natives about the plane wreck.

This might not be the case, will need to check out the reference but have read recently that most islanders were 'retisent' (my wording) to approach Gallageher due to initial language difficulties.

Also my opinion but what value would they put to the aircraft in terms of "I must tell Mr Gallagher about this" or was it just another resource to be used?
Logged

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 3006
Re: Confidence
« Reply #58 on: July 24, 2012, 06:36:19 AM »

Modest conclusion? I suggest you read it more closely or else you do not have sufficient grounding in hominid physiology to be able to understand the nuances in the text.

For a man so sensitive about being quoted accurately, you have no trouble putting words into Glickman's mouth ("Bigfoot is kosher") that are not warranted by the text.  Here is an excerpt from the conclusion of the paper:

"Proof of the source of the Bigfoot phenomenon that is acceptable to the scientific community is the objective of this research. This may come from social science or psychological research into manufacturing and perceptual failure. In the event the phenomenon originates from an uncataloged animal, it is unfortunate, but nonetheless true, that anthropologists will demand a type specimen. By definition, the taxonomy of an uncataloged animal is unknown, which raises complex ethical and moral questions. To date, no type specimen of Bigfoot has been discovered, perhaps because it does not exist, but possibly because of the millions of acres of habitat and the natural disposal system in the montane environment – carcasses of known animals, such as bear, are rarely found."

Quote
We are talking Big Foot here, popular "science" for the tinfoil hat brigade.

Name-calling is not a substitute for argument.  By categorizing Jeff's article as part of the "tinfoil hat brigade," you do not come to grips with any of his methods for collecting and analyzing data.  It seems to me that he is trying to keep an open mind; you are not.  I don't see a single syllable in what you have written that reflects an objection to Glickman's work from your familiarity with hominid physiology.  "Bigfoot supporters are idiots" is not a finding from hominid physiology.

Quote
As for the triangulation of the Bevington object  - now that the balloon has deflated and we are seeing much more modest claims for it (give it a month or two and it will have been officially forgotten), ...

Do they teach prophecy in your trade?  That seems to be a fact-free declaration of belief, not a scientific conclusion from data.

Quote
... how about all details being made available?

I suppose the decision about how and when to publish his argument is up to Jeff.  He certainly did make his argument "available" in the Symposium.

Quote
Wasn't this the thing that won the audience with the Secretary of State, and Ballard's imprimatur or was that a different object that no one seems to want to revisit to confirm it is that wonderful thing outlined in the photo.

Yes, Jeff's analysis is what catalyzed the event at the State Department.

Nothing has changed.  It is an error in logic to say that because nothing was found with the time and equipment available that we now know that the Bevington Object was not from the Electra.  I believe several searches for the Titanic failed before Ballard picked up the trail of debris that led to the wreck site.

In fact, as others have pointed out, the boat is still in transit to Hawaii.  Time will tell whether there is anything of interest in the tapes brought back that may have escaped the notice of the crew during the search. 

Here are the logical possibilities consistent with Niku VII not finding any identifiable artifacts from the Electra:
  • The Electra was never on Niku.  The Niku hypothesis is false.
  • The Electra has been pulverized (Howard's Hypothesis); the Niku Hypothesis is true, but cannot be proven from underwater searches.
  • The Electra parts are in the area searched, but are hidden in crevices or caves, or are mingled with parts of the Norwich City.
  • Identifiable parts are to be found outside the area that was searched on this expedition.
LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
Logged

Tom Swearengen

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 818
  • earhart monument, Hawaii
Re: Confidence
« Reply #59 on: July 24, 2012, 06:37:30 AM »

Ok--i'm older than I was in June in DC, but I seem to recall the discussion about the Bevington object, and Jeff's presentation. My friend Irv captured it. My recollection was that the object was "CONSISTANT" with a 10E landing gear. Some of us, ME INCLUDED, saw it as a pretty good facsimile of a landing gear. NO one ever said positively tht it was for sure a landing gear. But, seeing what I SAW, ruled out alot of things.
Jeff, the professional that he is, was NON COMMITTAL on what the object was. He left that to us, showing us different options, ans leaving it up to US to make our own determinations.
Malcolm, seeing things in person is different that seeing them in a supposed enhanced picture. IT was specifically stated the the pic inquestion was a HD version of the one in Oxford, taken by Jeff, with Ric in attendance. Yeah, with a computer, you can make the moon look like Hawaii. There was , and IS too much at stake for the pic to be 'doctored'.
I know what I saw, and what I think. And I know that the others in attendance have their own recollections, and thoughts.
Guess you just had to be there.
Tom Swearengen TIGHAR # 3297
 
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 9   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