Advanced search  
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Down

Author Topic: Did the dogs find the spot?  (Read 9022 times)

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 5258
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: Did the dogs find the spot?
« Reply #15 on: July 29, 2017, 07:02:47 AM »

Soil samples were collected and there is an effort underway to see if DNA can be extracted. It's admittedly a long shot but it has worked before in other cases.

My question is this:
Suppose a reputable lab is successful in getting DNA from soil taken from where the dogs alerted, and suppose the DNA matches a reference sample from an Earhart relative.  Will the public accept that as smoking gun proof that Amelia Earhart died on Nikumaroro?
Logged

Bill Mangus

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 277
Re: Did the dogs find the spot?
« Reply #16 on: July 29, 2017, 08:21:55 AM »

My guess is, probably not.  While most people understand what DNA is from TV/movies, in this case it's not something you can see and hold, like an identifiable part of the airplane.  To accept the Tighar hypothesis, most will require extraordinary proof.

Heaven knows what holders of the other theories would say.

Just my unscientific opinion.
Bill Mangus
Researcher #3054SP
 
Logged

John Klier

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 33
Re: Did the dogs find the spot?
« Reply #17 on: July 29, 2017, 09:05:32 AM »

With 6-7 percent of Americans (significantly higher in other countries)  thinking the moon landings were fake, even with overwhelming evidence, I would vote no. If the evidence is purely scientific it's like voodoo to these people.  They will only believe in what they gather with their eyes and only to the limit of their understanding so they ignore scientific facts.

Using the moon landings as an example. Many of the hoaxers say that it was obviously shot in a studio since you can't see stars in the photographs. The fact is the stars are extremely underexposed because the lunar surface is so bright. They think since they see stars in a dark sky it should be so in the photos.
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 5258
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: Did the dogs find the spot?
« Reply #18 on: July 29, 2017, 09:23:06 AM »

Using the moon landings as an example.

I can think of others, but I won't go there.

Most people get their news from the media, so the real questions are;
• Would the media accept DNA from soil as proof?
and
• Would the public accept what the media said?

In answer to the first question, I would expect major mainstream media to accept scientific proof if presented in a respected peer-reviewed journal.
The second question is more difficult to answer.
Logged

Brian Tannahill

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 27
Re: Did the dogs find the spot?
« Reply #19 on: July 29, 2017, 09:37:48 AM »

I'm thinking of the recent coverage of the History Channel's "photo of Fred and Amelia".  A lot of people seem to have been swayed by the media coverage, which was generally respectful and presented the Fred-and-Amelia-in-Jaluit-harbor story as a serious possibility.

If it's presented to people as a solid scientific finding, and if plausible counterevidence doesn't surface shortly after, I think a lot of people will accept it.

For what it's worth, I am not good at predictions.
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 5258
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: Did the dogs find the spot?
« Reply #20 on: July 29, 2017, 09:57:43 AM »

I'm thinking of the recent coverage of the History Channel's "photo of Fred and Amelia".  A lot of people seem to have been swayed by the media coverage, which was generally respectful and presented the Fred-and-Amelia-in-Jaluit-harbor story as a serious possibility.

Good point.  Pre-broadcast, the media were, for the most part, woefully derelict in their journalistic duty. A few of the more respected outlets - the BBC and the Washington Post - sought out opposing viewpoints and even the less-than-well-respected Daily Mail was openly critical of the claims.
The History Channel show itself was, to any rational observer, pure entertainment. And yet many - probably most - viewers swallowed it hook, line, and sinker.  If there's a lesson in all this it's that most of the media and most of the public will buy anything.  (I again refrain from citing further examples.) :-)
« Last Edit: July 29, 2017, 11:08:59 AM by Ric Gillespie »
Logged

John Klier

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 33
Re: Did the dogs find the spot?
« Reply #21 on: July 29, 2017, 10:44:58 AM »

.]
I can think of others, but I won't go there.
.

I can name that tune in one note! ;)

(I loved that show when I was a kid!)
Logged

Jim M Sivright

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 24
Re: Did the dogs find the spot?
« Reply #22 on: July 29, 2017, 01:24:48 PM »

Soil samples were collected and there is an effort underway to see if DNA can be extracted. It's admittedly a long shot but it has worked before in other cases.

My question is this:
Suppose a reputable lab is successful in getting DNA from soil taken from where the dogs alerted, and suppose the DNA matches a reference sample from an Earhart relative.  Will the public accept that as smoking gun proof that Amelia Earhart died on Nikumaroro?

My guess is probably not either. This possible evidence sure would put another "arrow in our quiver" as sales managers used to say, but I think something more tangible, like what has been said many times on this forum, a piece of aircraft with a serial number on it. But even that is not going to convince everybody.

Jim
 
Logged

Greg Daspit

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 709
Re: Did the dogs find the spot?
« Reply #23 on: July 29, 2017, 01:56:04 PM »

I think those with other theories will work it into their theory. (They moved the body).The media will exploit. The scientific community will accept. The public will be all over the place. Some won't care, some will make OJ jokes or work it into a political statement and some will accept
3971R
 
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 5258
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: Did the dogs find the spot?
« Reply #24 on: July 29, 2017, 03:50:36 PM »

a piece of aircraft with a serial number on it.

As far as I know, the only things on the aircraft that had serial numbers were:
• the aircraft itself (for that we would need the data plate from the cockpit).
• the engines (need the data plate from the back of the case).
• the prop hubs (need the hub)
• the prop blades (need the blades)
• the radios (no record of the serial numbers)
• probably the gear motor and flap motor (no record of the numbers)

But any identifiable piece of a Lockheed 10 should be sufficient.  Hers was the only Electra that could possibly be within thousands of miles of that place.
Logged

Jim M Sivright

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 24
Re: Did the dogs find the spot?
« Reply #25 on: July 29, 2017, 04:09:39 PM »

a piece of aircraft with a serial number on it.

As far as I know, the only things on the aircraft that had serial numbers were:
• the aircraft itself (for that we would need the data plate from the cockpit).
• the engines (need the data plate from the back of the case).
• the prop hubs (need the hub)
• the prop blades (need the blades)
• the radios (no record of the serial numbers)
• probably the gear motor and flap motor (no record of the numbers)

But any identifiable piece of a Lockheed 10 should be sufficient.  Hers was the only Electra that could possibly be within thousands of miles of that place.

Well, I guess we'll just have to keep looking, wish  I could do more, but I am in it for the duration.

Jim
Logged

Jon Romig

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 75
Re: Did the dogs find the spot?
« Reply #26 on: August 04, 2017, 12:08:06 PM »

If the dogs detected the remains of a cadaver they were sensing the still-extant chemicals typically given off by a decomposing body called cadaverines. Cadaverines include carboxylic acids, aromatics, sulfurs, alcohols, nitro compounds, aldehydes and ketones. Most of these chemicals are relatively small molecules with as few as 4 atoms each. But it is amazing that even these molecules remain detectable at the site after 80 years.

For DNA it is a different story. Each "letter" or nucleotide (C, G, A or T) in a strand of DNA has 13 or more atoms, and it takes between 76 and 80,000 pairs of them linked together to create a single gene. So simply to detect DNA we are looking for molecules (or at least parts of them) that are a multiple orders of magnitude bigger than a cadaverine molecule. And very large molecules like DNA are much more fragile than small ones. Entropy, you know.

It seems unlikely to me that we will be successful in detecting DNA in the samples, never mind associating the DNA with a single individual, but we can hope.

Jon
Jon Romig 3562R
 
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Up
 

Copyright 2018 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