In fairness I suspect that much of that bureaucratic hyperbole is due to the fact that as an incorporated body, or whatever the term is in the UK, they are bound by the regulations that allow incorporation so that individuals holding some position are protected from litigation in the same way as a company’s directors are protected.

That obviously is an UK organization – in the state of Victoria, Australia wherein I live the organization of which I am Secretary is an incorporated body and we have broadly similar rules in our constitution. There is nothing sinister or duplicitous in the rules of incorporation – they are designed so that a volunteer office holder is protected from losing their house or whatever in the event of the organization being sued or targeted by people who may bring vexatious litigation. The rules are there to offer protection if you are innocent but equally allow for malfeasance to be punished.

Well there’s a name that just rolls of the tongue.

I was thinking that Mark is making the most dedicated of rivet counting critics of scale models look like a complete amateur. 😀

I wonder if this is the derivation 😀

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=tonker

Malcolm, the cutouts from the Artefact are from various agencies such as the NTSB investigations taking samples, they weren’t present when the Artefact was first recovered in 1992.
Mark Pilkington

Thanks for the correction Mark.

I must admit one of the funnier discussions I had with them was a claim made about the supposed aircraft wreckage that Emily Sikuli, the daughter of one islander, claimed to have seen lying on the reef to the north of the Norwich City. I suggested that perhaps all she saw was some of the wreckage from the ship washed northwards by storms etc. I was also a little dubious that a then rather sheltered and very isolated 14 year old islander girl who had probably never seen an aircraft or a wrecked one would be so certain.

I was told that prevailing currents, wind etc. wash the wreckage from the Norwich City to the south and that’s that you ******** Doubting Thomas. Then low and behold they published a photo taken from a kite IIRC with a camera mounted on it which showed a partial aerial view of the wreck with some bits actually lying on the reef to the north of the Norwich City. The bending and twisting of the evidence in this saga is something to behold. 😀

I also found amusing the claims made about the partial skeleton found by Gallagher that was sent to Suva where Dr Hoodless examined them and said they were the bones of a stocky male. When TIGHAR attempted to transform them into the less than stocky and female Earhart they first had to claim that Hoodless was a rank amateur and not up to the job, but then to make them fit they took his measurements as accurate which in itself rather seems contradictory because they then were forced to take his skills as a matter of fact. In common terms it’s known as having your cake and eating it too.

It all descended into low farce when Tim Mellon started making his claims about being able to see not only the two bodies lying on the reef well under water but also claimed to see the canopy of the Electra covered in first day stamp covers by Earhart as a makeshift sunshade while she sat in the cockpit while waiting on the reef. This got even more farcical because even Mr Gillespie was forced to point out that the video that Mr Mellon was working from was completely unreliable as there was no scale appended to it to show distance. Most of the time the camera was little more than centimeters away from the reef and Mr Gillespie was probably going blue in the face trying to point that out.

Then there was the famous undercarriage leg which was revealed in the Bevington photo – a triumph of forensic photo analysis of what was in reality a tiny little dot in the emulsion on an already small print. They could never explain why there were similar looking dots to be seen in the clouds in the photo and why these appear not to have been forensically analysed. Of course the really strange thing was that Bevington was on the island not long after Earhart disappeared and one would think someone would have noticed an undercarriage leg complete with wheel and tire standing up in plain view. I even supplied a Youtube clip of a similar piece of wreckage at a dive site in the Caribbean to someone of similar doubts who posted it because I was banned – it stands out like the proverbial dog’s knackers. But no – that wasn’t how it was. Mr Bevington had clearly missed it so that’s all there is to say.

This thing has run its course – I think it’s time that Gillespie retired.

Seems to have concentrated on his stage and film career

http://www.theguardian.com/news/2002/dec/06/guardianobituaries.filmnews

Actually despite all the detailed analysis Mark I suspect that the deal killer is the absence of that double line of staggered rivet holes on the small piece of the artifact that extends below the claimed line where the rest were supposedly torn off.

I missed that, but had seen comments regarding a “larger house”, certainly in Australia a non-profit organisation wouldn’t be able to contribute to buying a volunteer a new house, regardless of being a founding member or life member? – do you have a link?

Perhaps that’s also why their sponsors are holding back their donations?

Mark Pilkington

PM sent.