dark light

MFowler

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 121 through 135 (of 306 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Another new look to the forum #766221
    MFowler
    Participant

    Perhaps they’ve decided to paint the barn door long after the horse has escaped?

     

    in reply to: Is the forum finally being fixed? #766700
    MFowler
    Participant

    I would use the word “fixed” very loosely. One thing I still have problems with is that in some threads, there is no blue menu bar at the top of the thread for the Historic Aviation forum, which means you have to go back to the main forum menu, click on Historic Aviation, and then drill back down to the discussion thread you were on …

    in reply to: Highland Air Museum Dalcross Governess #766701
    MFowler
    Participant

    It is sad, but … it always comes down to money. Someone has to pay to house the exhibits, do routine upkeep and the like. Most of us don’t have the deep pockets of the few gazillionaires who have aviation as a hobby/tax writeoff.

    in reply to: There it was, gone….gone #768251
    MFowler
    Participant

    Don’t hold your breath … you’ll turn a funny blue color.

     

    in reply to: Critique Of TIGHAR By Ex-member/Donor #768253
    MFowler
    Participant

    Every once in awhile, words come out of Gillespie’s mouth that make you wonder if he realizes what he’s saying, to wit his conclusion during a recent TIGHAR forum discussion about what was or was not heard during Earhart’s alleged post-crash radio calls:

    “My point is, if you make enough assumptions and excuses, you can find great significance in any piece of evidence. It’s called confirmation bias.”

    Which basically sums up his 30-plus-year quest to “prove” that Earhart landed on a deserted Pacific island. I could start listing his assumptions and excuses about what he calls his Nikumaroro hypothesis “evidence,” but it would take me into next week just to list the first few year’s worth.

    in reply to: Facebook Restoration Threads #773403
    MFowler
    Participant

    Peter – it’s not just you. Pretty much ALL of the links in old posts do that. Which Key has known about for months.

    in reply to: Quick question: How many Spitfires regularly fly? #774407
    MFowler
    Participant

    What is this spits fire thing you speak of?

    Just kidding. Sort of. 

    in reply to: There it was, gone….gone #774412
    MFowler
    Participant

    And I thought only the TIGHAR forums could get heavy-handed when you disagreed with them …

    in reply to: DH.89 Rapide for sale in the US. #776410
    MFowler
    Participant

    Odd that the NMUSAF is getting rid of any airplane, but perhaps it doesn’t have a strong enough US tie-in. Still, a very cool-looking airplane, one I hope makes it back across the pond to a good home.

    in reply to: Critique Of TIGHAR By Ex-member/Donor #776414
    MFowler
    Participant

    It’s been nominally interesting to watch how thought processes evolve on TIGHAR’s closed, member’s only forum. Now there is a great deal of discussion about a wire that was found tangled in the largish piece of aircraft aluminum that Gillespie insists is from Earhart’s aircraft, and which TIGHAR found in 1991 … almost three decades ago, https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,2120.0.html

    It seems that anytime interest flags in TIGHAR in general or the Earhart Project in particular, something “new” pops up to generate excitement. Even if it is an item or fact or whatever that TIGHAR has had for years and should have run down and categorized/analyzed/reported on at the time.

    in reply to: TVAL New Zealand #777190
    MFowler
    Participant

    Sad to hear about WingNut Wings. They make excellent stuff, sized for my aging eyes.

    in reply to: Critique Of TIGHAR By Ex-member/Donor #777193
    MFowler
    Participant

    Mr. Williams – first, welcome to the Key Aero forums, such as they are after the infamous  “update” last year.

    Second, to clarify, aviationmystery.com is not my baby; I have nothing to do with it. At one point I was an active participant but decided for personal reasons to step away. The reason you keep getting the “403-Forbidden, you don’t have permission to access” error is because the forum owner is very zealous in blocking IP addresses he considers hostile from a spam/malware/virus standpoint. Some people get the same 403-Forbidden error when they search for my TIGHAR analysis, http://myplace.frontier.com/~monty.fowler/tighar_analysis.htm , because my ISP is, well, @*#&^@#$%@#%(*@#^!!!.

    I’m not surprised that Gillespie has shredded your posts, and done so in a less-than-friendly manner. He has a business to protect, after all.

     

    P.S. – Key please note, the “insert hyperlink” button isn’t working …

    in reply to: New Posts/No New Posts buttons not working #218022
    MFowler
    Participant

    And as we speak, this topic had 2 New Posts, but No New Posts was indicated on the main forums page …

    in reply to: Critique Of TIGHAR By Ex-member/Donor #781550
    MFowler
    Participant

    Unfortunately, J Boyle, TIGHAR itself is the only source for its membership numbers. The IRS allows entities to “estimate” the number of volunteers, which is apparently what TIGHAR considers its members. Still, there are some odd variations …

    • 2009 – 600
    • 2010 – 600
    • 2011 – 600
    • 2012 – 1,100 No explanation for this 500 member jump.
    • 2013 – 1,000
    • 2014 – 1,000
    • 2015 – 1,000
    • 2016 – 1,000
    • 2017 – ??? As previously noted, this is now about two years past due.
    in reply to: New war film in the offing #781897
    MFowler
    Participant

    CGI or no CGI, I’ll be watching it.

    Yes, I know it requires a “willing suspension of disbelief” both for the semi-cartoonish aspects the CGI injects, and the inevitable “Hollywoodization” of what actually happened, but still … at least this movie looks like it is going to give SOME credit to the thousands of Merchant Mariners of all nationalities who died during the war while getting the vital supplies to the troops on the ground.

    PS – thumb’s up to the movie producers for using a fictional hull number for the main ship character (as well as a fictional name); I hope at some point the Greyhound moniker is explained as a common nickname for all destroyers.

    PPS – glad we finally got back the ability to edit our posts.

Viewing 15 posts - 121 through 135 (of 306 total)