Advanced search  
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
 1 
 on: February 18, 2018, 12:20:31 PM 
Started by Ric Gillespie - Last post by Bill Mangus
A short article about Dr. Jantz's paper has appeared in The Economist Magazine:

     https://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21736428-bones-found-1940-may-have-been-those-lost-aviatrix-new-evidence

 2 
 on: February 12, 2018, 11:36:59 AM 
Started by Ric Gillespie - Last post by Andrew M McKenna

[/quote]
 my height is actually 70 inches (6ft just sounded better).
[/quote]

Certainly improved your BMI...

amck

 3 
 on: February 09, 2018, 11:43:27 PM 
Started by Kurt Kummer - Last post by Kurt Kummer
This video is totally different than Amelia and Fred's situation was in 1937.  It's filmed in British Columbia, not Niku.  The major problem is cold, not heat.  But it's kind of interesting to see how experienced pilots, knowing they're going to spend ONE NIGHT after a forced landing, and having their emergency bag ready, still have such a tough time.  And how the smallest things can make a difference.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMzTrR93FJQ

If you add a sudden "There's a plane!" moment how would these folks have responded after a few days in the bush?  Would they have been able to add smoke-producing fuel to their fire?  Would they have had the energy to run 50 yards to jump and wave and draw attention to themselves?

 4 
 on: February 09, 2018, 04:35:02 PM 
Started by Ric Gillespie - Last post by Ric Gillespie
Curious as to whether pilots on the Forum remember having been measured for height as a license requirement. Documents I've found seem to indicate height is just something you fill in on the form

This will provide a data point.  This old copy of my airman's certificate (aka pilot's license) dates from 1971 when I was in the Army at Ft. Hood.  My birth date is correct, but my height is actually 70 inches (6ft just sounded better). My hair was blond back then but my eyes are actually blue.  I was, and still am, male.  The USA is still good.

 5 
 on: February 09, 2018, 04:11:45 PM 
Started by Ric Gillespie - Last post by Joe Cerniglia
Thank you. That sounds reasonable.

I've enjoyed this edition of TIGHAR Tracks and highly recommend anyone with a lapsed membership to renew so they can receive one.

Curious as to whether pilots on the Forum remember having been measured for height as a license requirement. Documents I've found seem to indicate height is just something you fill in on the form, and the 1928 agenda for pilot medical exams doesn't even mention height. Just curious.

Joe Cerniglia
TIGHAR #3078R

 6 
 on: February 09, 2018, 03:40:18 PM 
Started by Ric Gillespie - Last post by Ric Gillespie
But I'm curious as to whether that was meant to create exclusivity to members, or some other reason.

Normally we don't put the contents of TIGHAR Tracks up on the website until a month after the members get their copies, but in this case, due to the high level of interest in the Jantz paper, we decided to put all of the papers associated with the bone measurements and the British investigation up on the website in one place right away.  Tom King's paper is about archaeology and will go in the archaeology section in the next few days.

 7 
 on: February 09, 2018, 03:07:04 PM 
Started by Ric Gillespie - Last post by Joe Cerniglia
As a listing of papers specifically about the bones, the new web page is accurate enough, but Tom King's "The Archaeological Context of the 1940 Nikumaroro Bones Discovery" was omitted from the list. I don't make those decisions, and I'm guessing it was simply an oversight. But I'm curious as to whether that was meant to create exclusivity to members, or some other reason.

Joe Cerniglia
TIGHAR #3078R

 8 
 on: February 09, 2018, 01:47:22 PM 
Started by Ric Gillespie - Last post by Ric Gillespie
I do have a question about the body weight: why would we trust people's judgement of what she "should" weigh based upon a few mostly-clothed images, over the weight on her pilot's license?

We wouldn't trust just anyone's judgement but Richard Jantz does this all the time as part of his work.

And how important is her weight to the analysis after all - is it just to suggest her bone structure may have been more stocky than expected?

Yes, it's an important point.

The waist size from her trousers was a great find, by the way. Kudos to the team.

Thanks. It was a team effort.  Richard said it would be good to have her waist size.  I remembered that Purdue has a pair of trousers.  Fortunately, I've established an excellent relationship with the archivist and she agreed to let us take measurements of the trousers and a jacket.  Gary Quigg recruited a friend who is an experienced seamstress and expert in historical clothing.  They went to Purdue and got extensive measurements of both garments. We. of course, gave a copy to Purdue so that they won't have to handle the garments again for that purpose.

Rick, I believe that you mentioned a few weeks ago that TIGHAR would be publishing additional related material concurrently with the paper. Are we still to expect that?

All three papers - Jantz's, mine, and Tom King's are in the new TIGHAR Tracks. Members who get it as a PDF already have theirs.  The paper journal will go out early next week, but we've put the three papers plus the infamous Cross/Wright critique on the TIGHAR website at https://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/BonesForensicAnalysis/BonesForensicAnalysis.html

 9 
 on: February 09, 2018, 01:04:45 PM 
Started by Ric Gillespie - Last post by Jon Romig
The paper is extraordinary and quite authoritative. Everything that was promised and more. I have this odd feeling that TIGHAR's job is now complete, even though I know it is not.

Unfortunately early media reports are positioning this as just another bit of noise in the AE cacophony. We will see if later, more considered articles will recognize the extraordinary significance of this analysis.

I wish there were a summary of the issues addressed in the paper, with a key to their significance, determinative probability, etc. I may try to create one myself.

I do have a question about the body weight: why would we trust people's judgement of what she "should" weigh based upon a few mostly-clothed images, over the weight on her pilot's license? And how important is her weight to the analysis after all - is it just to suggest her bone structure may have been more stocky than expected?

The waist size from her trousers was a great find, by the way. Kudos to the team.

Rick, I believe that you mentioned a few weeks ago that TIGHAR would be publishing additional related material concurrently with the paper. Are we still to expect that?

Thanks to everyone who contributed to this. I can't express enough my satisfaction.

Jon

 10 
 on: February 07, 2018, 08:41:39 PM 
Started by Martin X. Moleski, SJ - Last post by Andrew M McKenna
Brandis that showed up last week on eBay - Marty you already put this one in the table, but I wanted to document it here.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/1917-WWI-Brandis-Sons-US-Navy-Surveying-Sextant-with-Box-Case-/173126547032

Seller’s response to my query about any numbers

"The number on the arch is 4129. The blue stamped number is 4483. Sincerely, Blue Crab Antiques"

I believe that the “blue stamped” 4483 is the faintly visible stenciled number near the right hinge.

so it would look like we have

Brandis 4129
Navy 1530

In box for Brandis 4483
No Navy number
Odd that the box has a USNO calibration certificate, but no Navy number indicated on that cert.

Ric pointed out the following

Brandis 4129 is 629 sextants later then Brandis 3500.
Navy 1530 is only 12 sextants earlier than Navy 1542.

With thanks to Jim Thompson for his sharp eyes.

amck

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
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