Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]   Go Down

Author Topic: Current Status of Niku 7 video analysis  (Read 103773 times)

Dan Kelly

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 125
Re: Current Status of Niku 7 video analysis
« Reply #135 on: November 26, 2012, 05:25:39 PM »


You just quoted me saying, "Jeff has not written a report on his Bevington Photo research."  Would you like me to say it again?
 ....

I apologize for my delay in responding Mr Gillespie - work sometimes forces its way into my life. I thank you for you taking the time to explain the background to how you put together your research and work. I can understand that it is difficult.

I have read in one of your posts where you say that, I might be wrong, the State Department OK'd the interpretation of Mr Glickman's. But as I read it this was verbal only - is that right? Darn there goes the phone again - shouldn't complain, many folks don't have a job.

 
Logged

richie conroy

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1412
Re: Current Status of Niku 7 video analysis
« Reply #136 on: November 26, 2012, 05:34:58 PM »


You just quoted me saying, "Jeff has not written a report on his Bevington Photo research."  Would you like me to say it again?
 ....

I apologize for my delay in responding Mr Gillespie - work sometimes forces its way into my life. I thank you for you taking the time to explain the background to how you put together your research and work. I can understand that it is difficult.

I have read in one of your posts where you say that, I might be wrong, the State Department OK'd the interpretation of Mr Glickman's. But as I read it this was verbal only - is that right? Darn there goes the phone again - shouldn't complain, many folks don't have a job.

 
maybe he hadn't at time of asking  :)
We are an echo of the past


Member# 416
 
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 5591
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: Current Status of Niku 7 video analysis
« Reply #137 on: November 26, 2012, 05:54:49 PM »

I have read in one of your posts where you say that, I might be wrong, the State Department OK'd the interpretation of Mr Glickman's. But as I read it this was verbal only - is that right?

That's right.  They made it clear at the time that they would not give us a written report nor could we talk publicly about what they had just told me.  I honored their request and revealed their validation of Jeff Glickman's opinion only to the TIGHAR board of directors and, of course, to Jeff.   I didn't even mention it to Kurt Campbell, the Ass't Sec. of State who asked the Bureau of Intelligence and Research to help us out. I assumed they would report their findings directly to him.  But they didn't and Kurt only learned about it a couple months later when I mentioned it in passing in an email inviting him to attend our Earhart 75 symposium.  Kurt got excited, checked with the Bureau to confirm what I had told him and the next thing i knew I was called to Washington for a meeting where I was informed that State would help us generate the public awareness necessary to raise the money for a hi-tech underwater search and that the Secretary of State wanted to announce the expedition at a big public event at the State Department.  I was quite surprised when, at the event, Kurt spoke openly of the State Dept. photo analysts' validation of Jeff's work.  I didn't blow their cover.  He did - but he's an Ass't Secretary of State.

« Last Edit: November 26, 2012, 05:56:29 PM by Ric Gillespie »
Logged

Dan Kelly

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 125
Re: Current Status of Niku 7 video analysis
« Reply #138 on: November 28, 2012, 04:50:27 AM »

That's right.  They made it clear at the time that they would not give us a written report nor could we talk publicly about what they had just told me. 

Thanks for your reply Mr Gillespie and I am sorry for the delay in my reply, but I had to think this one through. Are you saying that all you have are verbal opinions from the Dept. of State as to what that thing on the edge of the reef is - nothing in writing. I'm sure you know what you are doing but that strikes me as brave. Have other folk asked for written confirmation or reports when you've mentioned your identification of it to them?
« Last Edit: November 28, 2012, 04:52:15 AM by Dan Kelly »
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 5591
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: Current Status of Niku 7 video analysis
« Reply #139 on: November 28, 2012, 08:43:51 AM »

Are you saying that all you have are verbal opinions from the Dept. of State as to what that thing on the edge of the reef is - nothing in writing. I'm sure you know what you are doing but that strikes me as brave.

I've found that bravery is required for many aspects of this work but taking U.S. Government photo analysts at their word isn't one of them. I accepted what they told me to be their honest opinion.

Have other folk asked for written confirmation or reports when you've mentioned your identification of it to them?

No.  No one - not me, not Jeff Glickman, not the State Dept. analysts - is saying the object in the Bevington Photo is Electra landing gear.  All we're saying is that that's what it looks like to us.
Logged

Dan Kelly

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 125
Re: Current Status of Niku 7 video analysis
« Reply #140 on: December 14, 2012, 10:43:51 PM »


I've found that bravery is required for many aspects of this work but taking U.S. Government photo analysts at their word isn't one of them. I accepted what they told me to be their honest opinion.


My apologies for this exceptionally tardy response Mr Gillespie, I didn't mean taking the word of the State Department is brave, but that it is brave to use something which according to you, if I read you correctly, is not supported by any producible analysis or proof as one of the means to attract donations to fund the search. To me that is a step in the dark.
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 5591
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: Current Status of Niku 7 video analysis
« Reply #141 on: December 15, 2012, 11:30:35 AM »

My apologies for this exceptionally tardy response Mr Gillespie, I didn't mean taking the word of the State Department is brave, but that it is brave to use something which according to you, if I read you correctly, is not supported by any producible analysis or proof as one of the means to attract donations to fund the search. To me that is a step in the dark.

Welcome to the dark Mr. Kelly.  We don't claim to have proof.  We're conducting an investigation. Searching and doing research is expensive. We try to attract donations to fund the search and the research by freely sharing the information we have. We try very hard not to over-state or misrepresent. Every individual is free to make his or her own judgements and to contribute or not as they see fit.  I make no apologies for fund raising.  Without funding we would not be here to answer your criticism of our fund raising.  How much have you contributed?
Logged

richie conroy

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1412
Re: Current Status of Niku 7 video analysis
« Reply #142 on: December 15, 2012, 01:13:09 PM »

Hi All

Firstly Ric what i meant by releasing video clips of poss debris field, Was to take burden off Jeff G, An see what public opinion is of debris field and ongoing investigation,

Secondly i Believe this video, Show's that the only thing Jeff Glickman had to do to get image we see today, Is use his zoom able magnifier to get good enough image,  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zcqb26Lz6V8

Thirdly, I believe it's the technology at hand, That has thwarted Tighar's attempts at proving Hypothesis

 :)

 
We are an echo of the past


Member# 416
 
Logged

Dan Kelly

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 125
Re: Current Status of Niku 7 video analysis
« Reply #143 on: December 16, 2012, 04:36:38 PM »


Welcome to the dark Mr. Kelly.  We don't claim to have proof.  We're conducting an investigation. Searching and doing research is expensive. We try to attract donations to fund the search and the research by freely sharing the information we have. We try very hard not to over-state or misrepresent. Every individual is free to make his or her own judgements and to contribute or not as they see fit.  I make no apologies for fund raising.  Without funding we would not be here to answer your criticism of our fund raising.  How much have you contributed?

Thank you for your prompt reply Mr Gillespie. If as you say you don't have proof, which is an honest admission, why then was so much made of the nature of the Bevington Object when in fact as you have honestly said there is no published and independently attested data to support its identification by yourself as an undercarriage leg from the Electra? Is the complete uncertainty of its identification made absolutely clear to any people you are courting for donations?
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 5591
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: Current Status of Niku 7 video analysis
« Reply #144 on: December 16, 2012, 08:57:19 PM »

Is the complete uncertainty of its identification made absolutely clear to any people you are courting for donations?

Complete uncertainty? Are there degrees of uncertainty? If something is not certain it is, by definition, uncertain.  If the identification of the object was certain we would be celebrating the conclusive solution of the Earhart mystery.  The Bevington Object is a fascinating piece of evidence and deserves close attention but we've never claimed that the identification of the object is certain.  I think we've made that very clear in everything we've published.  If I'm mistaken I invite you to point out where we have misled anyone.
Logged

Mark Appel

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 112
Re: Current Status of Niku 7 video analysis
« Reply #145 on: December 16, 2012, 09:40:48 PM »

Mr. Kelly. Forgive me for jumping in, but your posts pushed me over the edge to finally take the required half minute to register and post. While your tone is distinct, what eludes me in your badgering of Mr. Gillespie is the precise nature of your concerns...

Are you suggesting that Mr. Gillespie is in fact misleading or defrauding donors? Or do you simply have some kind of broad, altruistic concern for donors to non-profit organizations?

Given the documented, self-evident fact that Mr. Gillespie has indeed gone far out of his way in this forum to repeatedly disclaim any definitive discovery of anything, are you suggesting he's taking a radically different approach in his solicitations for donations? If so, what evidence do you have that such is the case? Are you familiar with or have direct personal knowledge of Tighars fund raising tactics and donor relations? Have any donors suggested to you that they've been misled? Or are you speculating that such is the case? Again, if so, what facts or events prompted such speculation?

Also you describe the "complete uncertainty" of the identification of the object in the Bevington photo. While identification of the object is uncertain (as Mr. Gillespie has repeatedly stated) I presume that your judgement dismisses the multiple, expert analyses supporting some degree of possible identification, and finds them in fact irrelevant and or incompetent.

Not trying to be argumentative. Simply trying to pull the veil off your implications and understand the nature, degree, and factual support of your concerns. Thanks!
"Credibility is Everything"
 
Logged

Dan Kelly

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 125
Re: Current Status of Niku 7 video analysis
« Reply #146 on: December 16, 2012, 10:39:29 PM »


Complete uncertainty? Are there degrees of uncertainty? If something is not certain it is, by definition, uncertain.  If the identification of the object was certain we would be celebrating the conclusive solution of the Earhart mystery.  The Bevington Object is a fascinating piece of evidence and deserves close attention but we've never claimed that the identification of the object is certain.  I think we've made that very clear in everything we've published.  If I'm mistaken I invite you to point out where we have misled anyone.

Thank you Mr Gillespie for your reply. As it appears that nothing that is verifiable has been published on the item, something that you have confirmed yourself, then how can it be properly assessed by anyone? Or has the meaning of your reply escaped me.

What I am trying to say is that for a great many people, like myself for instance, professional knowledge of an Electra's undercarriage is lacking. So if I followed your suggestion and thought it was the undercarriage then my opinion, even if accompanied by a donation, would be worthless in supporting your claim. However if the details of the identification process were fully published and had been assessed by people with that knowledge in some sort of expert review process, and they had confirmed in writing that you had a sound case then that would be a better thing to use wouldn't it. Certainly in the current situation of uncertainty as an average person with all the costs of staying alive I would be unwise to part with any money unless much more detail was available, which is proper business practice you will agree for both TIGHAR and I.
Logged

Tom Swearengen

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 818
  • earhart monument, Hawaii
Re: Current Status of Niku 7 video analysis
« Reply #147 on: December 17, 2012, 07:58:26 AM »

Dan---If I can jump in here for a second. NOTHING has been verified. If it were, there wouldnt be a mystery. We have theories, and are working towards getting results of scientific investigation of those theories. I dont necessarily agree with all the theories, but at least something is being done, vice sitting on our hands and conjuring up ideas.
Tim's meeting with Jeff is just one of those things that on the surface looks strange. Here's a wealthy guy that is genuinely interested in finding some answers, and has the means to make it happen. He took HIS time, and money to fly out to see Jeff, and I assume, discuss the photos, videos, and how interuptations are done. Good for Tim!. Possibly, out of that meeting, some real artifacts can be seen, then a PLAN can be put into place to go recover them.
Never, in the history of the Earhart disappearance, has so much information been accumulated. Look at it this way------with the 2010 and 2012 videos, there are some 'targets'. Now we know their locations, and with sufficient funding , can go recover, and 'possibly' identify them.
Stay tuned.
Tom Swearengen TIGHAR # 3297
 
Logged

Tom Swearengen

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 818
  • earhart monument, Hawaii
Re: Current Status of Niku 7 video analysis
« Reply #148 on: December 17, 2012, 02:12:43 PM »

Like Jeff, I too did some studying before I signed up for DC. Not only airframe and undercarriage, but possibly what they may have looked like after a reef landing. Unfortunately for me, my flight experience isnt in a plane like a 10E. So, I questioned some pilots I knew, one of which has 40,000 + hours in a bunch of different aircraft, from DC3 to 767, from C150 to Globe Swifts. He gave me alot of insight. I took that info with me to DC, and came to my own conclusions over the Bevington object photo.
So, my minor contributions to this project pale by comparison to most others. I too, have no regrets.
Tom
 
Tom Swearengen TIGHAR # 3297
 
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]   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