Stephan
Okay, RG is right. A latter day Columbus proving himself right in the face of scoffers.
So do you...and Ballard...buy the rest of his methodology (some would use a different term)?
Buying
this part of RG's spiel doesn't excuse the other nonsense he's been peddling for years. (Rather like today's political scene, if you buy any part of a politician's stance, you have to defend all of it).
-The character assassination of the doctor for having the nerve to say it wasn't AE. RG disagreed despite not being an MD or having examined the bones in person...unlike the doctor.
-"Batty's notebook" which has never been made available for outside research.
-The infamous patch...which had taken on a new life in the group's pantheon of "proof"..despite legitimate concerns over content and markings. If course it HAD to come from the Lockheed, as no other aircraft have ever visited that part of the Pacific.
-Assuming the shard of glass is from a freckle cream jar, even though the company apparently didn't use a jar of that size/color, THEN assuming AE used the cream.I
-finding show parts which MUST have come from AE, ignoring all the other people who are known to have spent time in the island. And when the shoes are shown to be too large, the answer is.." they were Fred's".
they seem to hang their case on a lot of assumptions. I'm no Harvard graduate, but I don't think that's accepted scientific methodology.
-I think he also puts a lot of stock on post fuel exhaustion radio transmissions which apparently require a dry running engine.
Again, I don't have a huge issue with the Gardner Island theory, but buying it almost forces one to subscribe to the rest of RG's nonsense.
And that's not even mentioning the Miller search (looking for a wood and fabric aircraft after 75 years in salt water), which certainly smells more like an excuse for fund raising rather than an honest search with the expectation of finding anything.
In short, would you buy a used car from the guy?
BTW...Will you still be writing about TIGHAR for the magazines you mention?
I think your 30 year membership and comments here might call your objectivity into question. And since you follow politics, we know you wouldn't want THAT to happen or be accused of biased reporting.