Print

[Zach Reed]

I believe they already looked for the spot on a previous expedition, and found a place they thought matched the photo, but weren't sure. Correct me if I'm wrong.

The pages and pages of telegrams regarding the skeleton are a part of the official British record of colonialization of the island. There's no disputing them. The gender and ethnicity was thought dubious at the time-so noted. Again, based on when the skeleton was found, the items it was found with, the state it was found in, and subsequent cosmetics found in the near vicinity, I consider that fairly solid backing. Alternative theories as to the nature of the skeleton would have to be even more exotic than it being Amelia.

So I'm just trying to nail this down: do you believe the skeleton was from the 2.5 year time period post-Maude and pre-settlement? Or do you believe it was there when Maude & co toured the island?

[Malcolm McKay]

So I'm just trying to nail this down: do you believe the skeleton was from the 2.5 year time period post-Maude and pre-settlement? Or do you believe it was there when Maude & co toured the island?

I accept that there was a skeleton there. I have no idea, nor I stress does anyone else have any idea when the person who owned it arrived except that it was prior to its discovery by the PISS settlers. Therefore given that even though the island was visited for short periods in 1892 (Arundel Settlement), 1929 (Norwich City), 1937 PISS survey then various surveys in 1938 and then the settlement in 1939 which lasted until 1965 there is any number of plausible times. These are prior to 1892; between 1892 and 1929; between 1929 and 1937; then at at any time in the unoccupied months in each year from 1937 to 1939. Decay of the flesh and bone dispersal is fairly quick in that environment.

There was no proper excavation of the skeleton at the time so it is a mistake to claim that artifacts were found with it. All anyone can say with certainty is that at various times artifacts were found in the area where the skeleton was found. Some of which have their most likely source in the wanderings of the Norwich City survivors, the PISS settlers and the inhabitants of the LORAN station and that doesn't rule out a possibility that some came from the Arundel settlement or a stray unrecorded visit. That is why it is important, as an archaeologist, for me to continually point out that none of those artifacts are clearly associated with either the skeleton or any other presence on the island. People will keep using them to create castles in the air then starting to believe that what they want to believe is what happened.

So take your pick and also remember that there is a long history of Pacific islander fishermen being carried out to sea and drifting for weeks at sea until they strike land. Gallagher was aware of Earhart's disappearance which is why he gave the skeleton more attention than it otherwise would have warranted - or to put it another way if Earhart hadn't been lost the skeleton would simply have been recorded and buried along with any of the skeletal material from the Norwich City.   

[Ed Rosales]

... after Glickman's "enhancement" ...

Glickman didn't "enhance" the photo.

He obtained the best possible close-up of the section of the original print using an extremely high resolution Nikon camera.

You should show Jeff the courtesy of describing his work accurately, even if you disagree with his conclusions.

Which extremely high resolution Nikon camera was used? The reason I ask is, if this high resolution Nikon camera happens to be digital, at present, film cameras have higher resolution than all but some very high end medium format digital cameras.

Ed

[Malcolm McKay]

Glickman didn't "enhance" the photo.

He obtained the best possible close-up of the section of the original print using an extremely high resolution Nikon camera.

In other words he took a photograph of a photograph then made a guess - then TIGHAR took this to the State Department. Well I'll give you one thing - that's chutzpah. The Secretary of State must have had other things on her mind that day - I sincerely hope US foreign policy isn't hanging on similar levels of "evidence". I've seen the video presentation - it is now very revealing to see just how intangible the basis for it is.

[C.W. Herndon]

Which extremely high resolution Nikon camera was used? The reason I ask is, if this high resolution Nikon camera happens to be digital, at present, film cameras have higher resolution than all but some very high end medium format digital cameras.

Ed

Ed, here is one of Irvine John Donald's pictures from the Symposium showing Jeff Glickman taking a picture of the original Bevington photograph. Maybe you can determine what type of Nikon camera Jeff used by looking at the photo.

[Bruce Thomas]

Which extremely high resolution Nikon camera was used? The reason I ask is, if this high resolution Nikon camera happens to be digital, at present, film cameras have higher resolution than all but some very high end medium format digital cameras.

Ed

Simply using "Nikon" to search the TIGHAR website, I found Ric's words (as reported in a Forum posting by Marty on April 24, 2012), which gives the details of the Nikon camera that Jeff Glickman used in England.

[Tom Swearengen]

Malcolm----get a life----The bevington object was triangluated to plot its postion in 1937. OBVIOUSLY it isnt there now, or along the reef ledge near that location. And, after 75 years, may not be there anyway, as much I think it is. I gather that it isnt in the imagery that was taken, but I bet it will take several weeks to go over the data. It didnt jump out and say here I am.
The positon was discussed in DC---oh thats right ---you were absent when we were talking about it. If you think that Ric would sail on the luxury liner KOK to Niku, without having a really good idea where to search, well its like you telling us to search for the New Brittan wreck site without a map.
I'm going to get spanked---but give Ric a break.

[Martin X. Moleski, SJ]

Don't weasel out Marty - you and I both know what a statement that contains the means of being read whichever way suits the reader means.

The statement "Bigfoot is kosher" is not logically equivalent to Glickman's position that in 1998 he had not found a scientific standard by which to settle the question of whether Bigfoot did or did not exist.

In other words, the interpretation you gave of his text is demonstrably incorrect.

In other words, now that you have adopted a different position, you have abandoned your original position.

[Bruce Thomas]

Keep in mind that "Nessie" was A) probably hidden by water a good deal of the time, and B) quite a way from shore, out near the reef's edge.

Which brings us all back to my question - why if the Bevington object after Glickman's "enhancement" (and that purported u/c component in the coral) was so important to getting the State Department visit didn't the last trip concentrate on finding that? That, if it is a component of the Electra, is the "smoking gun" yet TIGHAR blithely ignores it after all the years of hype and runs this highly expensive underwater search. Surely if Glickman could enhance it as he did he must have had an accurate position triangulation so that he could work out relative component sizes.

I note now that along with the Navy searchers failure to find Earhart and the Electra due to incompetence we now are saying that the Maude survey team was also incompetent or blind. Isn't it time that TIGHAR supporters stopped blaming everyone else for TIGHAR's inability to find its "smoking gun".

Ah, but if you would only read for content, Malcolm, you'd know that your strawman question

... why if the Bevington object after Glickman's "enhancement" (and that purported u/c component in the coral) was so important to getting the State Department visit didn't the last trip concentrate on finding that? That, if it is a component of the Electra, is the "smoking gun" yet TIGHAR blithely ignores it after all the years of hype and runs this highly expensive underwater search.

is specious nonsense. 

I know -- from exposure to them daily in the classroom -- that today's university students are loathe to read anything but emails and twitter feeds, but a man of your advanced years and education can be expected to do a bit of reading of research logs and results.  Here, I'll help you with a link: the relevant daily report from the Niku VI expedition in 2010 that shows your strawman question to be the quatsch that it is.  Do a little reading, Malcolm.  It'll do you good.  Read the entire set of daily reports from that expedition.  You are a scientist, man.  Do what scientists do: continually educate yourself by reading all available information.  Speak from a wealth of background knowledge, and not from the abyss of ignorance.

Otherwise, you will just continue to be a master at framing nonsense strawman questions that are full of false words, insults, and gratuitous misdirection. You have a lot to contribute to this forum; you have already shown the value of healthy skepticism.  Please stop shooting yourself in the foot by turning into simply a verbal bully who uses this free forum to pound your chest and clutter the environment with dreck. 

[C.W. Herndon]

May we clap now??

[Dave McDaniel]

Ditto!!
LTM,
Dave

[JC Sain]

/E Clap

[Dave Potratz]

Hear that?  ..............that's the sound of one hand clapping in the middle of the desert...............

[Rafael Krasnodebski]

Of course once the team's tired eyes are rested and the world stops swaying under their feet, they could realise that the footage of that large coral boulder they saw has spark plugs, tie rods and a couple of piston rings hanging out of it ... that too would do the trick.

Just remember where you first heard it folks ...

[Tom Swearengen]