TIGHAR

Amelia Earhart Search Forum => General discussion => Topic started by: Brad Beeching on April 08, 2012, 01:52:15 PM

Title: After the Landing
Post by: Brad Beeching on April 08, 2012, 01:52:15 PM
Scenario: Plane lands on reef edge, landing is rough enough to injure but not incapacitate occupants. After recovering some strength the crew disembarks and pilot injures ankle negotiating reef flat. Walking in the surf is very difficult so life line is tied off from plane to trees along the shore. Radio calls begin and continue for several days. Crew explores vacinity of shore around airplane, find boats and debris from Norwich City. Tides continue to rise until plane is torn off the landing gear and is submerged in the surf. Crew forced to shore. Search Planes fly over. Crew unable to draw attension for whatever reason, asleep? exploring in bush? unable to walk quickly enough? In time castaways move to "Seven Site" where one or both perish under the ren tree....

Your turn to put it all together and write your own scenario. Try to keep it on topic, it's all theory and we are not trying to argue points or tear ideas apart. If you have a scenario of what happened after the last known radio call lets see it!  Gary; It's just for fun so lets see your idea of what happened!
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Jeff Victor Hayden on April 10, 2012, 07:37:49 AM
Brad, You might not be far from what happened in your previous post...
Quote
Since we are merely playing the "what if" game, how about this:
After sustaining fairly serious injuries in a very rough landing, Fred and Amelia are effectively trapped inside the aircraft. Amelia cannot reach the rear of the aircraft to retrieve the correct charts and instrumentation to allow them to positively identify where they have come down. After a time, Amelia is able to get free and find the name of the ship on the reef, and discover that the aircraft is able to run the right engine allowing her to recharge the nearly flat batteries. This allows further use of the radio. A few days pass, the airplane is being washed back and forth and Amelia cannot get Fred out of the cockpit hatch due to his injuries as well as her own. His condition continues to deteriorate until he passes away and Amelia abandons the wreckage to the sea. During the days that the aircraft was still transmitting, Amelia is forced to try to find help on the island, finding none she begins to understand what awaits her...

I'm in agreement that there is a chance they reached Gardner Island
Not certain the landing was 'good'
Snagged groove in reef at speed on landing
Left wing and landing gear totalled = nessie?
Occupants injured
Can run right engine, temporarily
Electrics not submerged, yet = can transmit, temporarily
Damage sustained on landing enough to weaken airframe enabling wave/tide/current dismantling = shadow in surf line?
Some sections washed over reef edge (Bouyancy)
Airplanes remains washed further out and down 7 days (Bouyancy)
Castaway 14 to 21 days max
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Brad Beeching on April 10, 2012, 03:59:49 PM
Of all I have read of the fire features, artifacts and other evidence found at the Seven Site (http://tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/2000Vol_16/sevensite.pdf), I can't seem to find an official current estimate of how long the castaways may have survived. If its because of a reluctance to share it publically, I can understand. But it would be fun to hear something even if it is just a S.W.A.G.!

Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: richie conroy on April 10, 2012, 04:19:25 PM
that would be hard to predict, due to the fact either lighter fuel or matches run out before they perished

the compact mirror they could have used for a while to start fires etc, but then they cud have used the mirror to attracted fly over planes by reflecting sun off mirror, maybe it broke before then an the smaller pieces were to small an hot to handle

 :)
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on April 10, 2012, 04:29:39 PM
Of all I have read of the fire features, artifacts and other evidence found at the Seven Site (http://tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/2000Vol_16/sevensite.pdf), I can't seem to find an official current estimate of how long the castaways may have survived.

So far as I know, the effort to estimate the number of calories from fish, birds, clams, and the turtle is as yet incomplete.

One also has to assume that all of the food remnants come from the person who left their skeleton at the site (if the Seven Site is where the skeleton was found).

My impression from what I've heard through the grapevine about the evidence of food consumption at the Seven site is that it would not have kept the castaway alive very long.

Of course, we don't know what other sites and other resources the castaway might have exploited before arriving at the Seven Site (if the Seven Site is, in fact, where the castaway died).
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Malcolm McKay on April 10, 2012, 07:16:40 PM
1. I accept that there is a possibility that they might have reached Gardner Island - simply because of the enigmatic 157/337 radio message. Where and if they landed is not known.

2. I am not convinced they landed on the outer edge of the reef.

3. The post disappearance radio signals are problematic as to location.

4. There is not sufficient evidence yet to say that whoever occupied the 7 site was indeed one or both of the aviators. I remain unconvinced about the re-identification of the missing skeletal material as a caucasian female.

5. The next expedition to Nikumaroro needs to find unequivocal material evidence.   
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Brad Beeching on April 10, 2012, 07:51:20 PM
Well Malcolm, You appear to be somewhat skeptical of the landed on Gardner theory. As I stated in the original post, Lets hear YOUR scenario of what happened after the last known radio message. Thats the whole idea behind this thread, I don't want to debate it (yet) but lets have some fun with it. If you believe aliens flew behind her, lets hear it! Crashed and sank, Lets hear it! Simply stating that your not convinced isn't anything new, plenty of people who share ideas here aren't convinced either, and I'd be willing to bet some of 'em are pretty prominent figures in the Tighar organization. So Malcom lets hear it!  What happened AFTER the last radio transmission? ;D

Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Adam Marsland on April 10, 2012, 08:00:51 PM
I've been following TIGHAR's work for 8 or 9 years, and am pretty up on all the minutiae of the investigation (more so, I can tell, than a lot of the naysayers that have posted here).  I believe in the methodology used by TIGHAR and when I had regular employment did contribute.  But I haven't registered and posted here, until now...though I've been following the conversation with interest.

The reason I just registered with TIGHAR again was because in reading this thread, I was just totally gobsmacked by a thought that had never occurred to me before, and I am fairly sure no one else has ever posted, either.  It's an answer to the relevant question:  why did AE and FN leave the plane, and how did they get clear down to the other side of the island, especially if FN was injured?  Why didn't they stick close to the plane and the NORWICH CITY and await rescue there?

I can tell you exactly why.  I can't believe it hasn't come up before.

The reason AE and FN left the plane when and if the radio stopped working and/or it went over the reef is that, now that they had no way to contact the outside world and no real expectation of a search party given their understanding of the situation, assuming they heard the KGMB broadcasts (and there is evidence they did), they did exactly what you would do in the same situation:  they went for help elsewhere. 

Because AE and FN could not know for sure the island was uninhabited.

Think about it.  Yes, they probably overflew the island, just like Lambrecht did.  Lambrecht saw signs of recent habitation, but thought there was nothing hinky about it, because for all he knew, a couple of natives were hanging out there from time to time.  AE's and FN's information would be no better; despite not seeing anything concrete from the air, it's a big island...for all they knew it was inhabited, or at least got some regular visitations from nearby natives.  If help wasn't coming from elsewhere, they had to hope that there was someone else, somewhere, on the island.  It was their best option.  Way better than trying to drag a lifeboat around.

So yeah, it's day 3 or 4 or 5, nobody's coming to the rescue, nobody's acknowledged getting my distress signals, nobody's appeared on the horizon, and FN is dying on me, and I'm AE.  What am I going to do?  I am gonna find out if anybody else is on this fricking island.  I'm going to feel pretty stupid if, LOST-style, there's someone else hiding out in a hut on the other side and I never went to find them.

I think this also gives a partial explanation as to why they missed the overflight.  Any number of things could have been going on -- exhaustion-induced post-sleep stupor slowing their reflexes, some kind of a medical emergency, or both -- to keep them from breaking cover.  But I would bet money they were already making their way to the other side of the island by that point, and very likely moving slowly and in the shade.  With the party injured and food and water scarce, time would have been of the essence.  Remember, it was a full week later that Lambrecht showed up.  Way past time for them to start looking at other options than rescue.

Maybe in their minds there was only 10% chance there was someone else there.  But compared to sitting there and dying waiting for a rescue that seemed likely not to arrive, it was their best shot.
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: richie conroy on April 10, 2012, 08:29:12 PM
Malcolm whats your hypothesis then ?
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Malcolm McKay on April 10, 2012, 09:25:18 PM
A reply to both Brad and Richie.

The one last definite piece of evidence is the 157/337 radio message. Unfortunately there is no indication of where on the flight path Earhart and Noonan decided to adopt that course in search for Howland Island. So if they had overflown Howland Island then they were flying that line over a rather big stretch of ocean. If they had headed NW then chances of finding land are minimal, if they flew SE bearing in mind the sun position above the horizon and the difficulty of distinguishing cloud shadows from islands then finding land is still difficult even though there are better chances on the south-eastern leg. The same applies if they adopted the 157/337 line if they were short of Howland Island on their chosen course. So even accepting that they flew the 157/377 line does not provide us with a certainty that they will sight Gardner on that course.

So what happens then leaves us with four believable scenarios as distinct from the abducted by aliens, spying for FDR or similar flights of fancy. These are -

1. They overflew Howland Island and ran out of fuel and ditched in the ocean. After an unknown time they succumbed to sharks or just drowned. The remaining physical evidence of that would be aircraft wreckage somewhere in a vast area of ocean.

2. They overflew or couldn't find Howland Island and knowing they were lost and, as per the radio message, commenced flying on a line 157/337 which, because we do not know at what position on their original course they started that, could have found Gardner Island and landed on the reef. They survived there for a short time probably only a few days given the local conditions, possible injury and died. Their remains were dispersed and destroyed by crabs and the weather. The aircraft was washed off the reef and lies somewhere in the water around the island at great depth. This is the TIGHAR hypothesis and they have detailed why they propose it.

3. Having discovered that they had not found Howland Island Earhart and Noonan adopted the contingency plan and flew towards the Gilberts. Somewhere in that area they either ditched in the ocean or came down on or near an island where the wreckage might still be.

4. They instead opted to fly a reciprocal course which eventually led them to crash on New Britain which is the hypothesis based on the testimony of the Australian patrol that claimed to have found an unidentified aircraft wreck in 1945. This has merit also because we do not know precisely where Earhart and Noonan were when they decided they couldn't find Howland. The strength of radio signals is not a precise method of estimating a position by the receiver and Earhart did not, it appears, understand how to operate the DF device they had, or, it appears, knew how long she had to transmit for to enable the receiving station to get a fix.

In summary then I see four possible fates for Earhart and Noonan of which only one can be right. Which is to say the remains of the Electra can only be in one place. As I said the evidence of the post-disappearance messages is at best are problematic because they do not give a location - if genuine they could have come from a reef or uninhabited island in the Gilberts to the north-west as much as from Gardner Island.

I've said it before that the material evidence found on Gardner (shoe parts, compact mirror and that one fragment of aircraft skin) is interesting but are not conclusive. The account by the settlers of the PISS about plane wreckage is interesting but unverified and "Nessie" at present could be anything. The skeletal remains were initially identified physically as a male and probably a person of Pacific Islander heritage - the recent re-identification is not based on the physical evidence and is at best only a hypothesis. After all a male Polynesian castaway on Nikumaroro is as likely, given the documented cases of Pacific Islanders being carried long distances by storms and surviving and one could have suffered that fate and come ashore on Nikumaroro sometime in the early 30s or even late 20s.

So my position in this matter is undecided and will only be decided if material evidence that is irrefutable (skeletal and subsequent DNA or dental verification, the actual wreck of the Electra or parts thereof or something else of similar certainty) is found to indicate their landing and subsequent death on Nikumaroro or elsewhere. Frankly at this stage, given the evidence available, the actual fate of Earhart and Noonan is not yet demonstrated. Everything else, however emotionally compelling, is hypothesis.

All of which aside I wish TIGHAR every success in finding the crucial evidence, as I do to anyone else investigating the fate of the lost aviators.

 :)
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Gary LaPook on April 10, 2012, 09:30:08 PM

So yeah, it's day 3 or 4 or 5, nobody's coming to the rescue, nobody's acknowledged getting my distress signals, nobody's appeared on the horizon, and FN is dying on me, and I'm AE.  What am I going to do?  I am gonna find out if anybody else is on this fricking island.  I'm going to feel pretty stupid if, LOST-style, there's someone else hiding out in a hut on the other side and I never went to find them.



Why wait for day 3, 4 or 5 why not the day they landed, day 1, or first thing the next day, day 2, at the latest? Why wait til you are hungry and thirsty, go find help now. In reality, isn't that what you would have done?

How long do you think it would take to walk all the way around the island? Read Bevington's journal (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Bevington_Diary.html). He managed to walk the entire circuit, without any water or food, starting at 9 am and finishing at 3:30 pm, a total of only six and half hours and they were doing investigations along the way. The slowest members of his group took three hours longer. So there is no reason to believe that they could have only made it as far as the "7" site before giving up.

gl
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Adam Marsland on April 10, 2012, 10:02:30 PM

So yeah, it's day 3 or 4 or 5, nobody's coming to the rescue, nobody's acknowledged getting my distress signals, nobody's appeared on the horizon, and FN is dying on me, and I'm AE.  What am I going to do?  I am gonna find out if anybody else is on this fricking island.  I'm going to feel pretty stupid if, LOST-style, there's someone else hiding out in a hut on the other side and I never went to find them.



Why wait for day 3, 4 or 5 why not the day they landed, day 1, or first thing the next day, day 2, at the latest? Why wait til you are hungry and thirsty, go find help now. In reality, isn't that what you would have done?

How long do you think it would take to walk all the way around the island? Read Bevington's journal (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Bevington_Diary.html). He managed to walk the entire circuit, without any water or food, starting at 9 am and finishing at 3:30 pm, a total of only six and half hours and they were doing investigations along the way. The slowest members of his group took three hours longer. So there is no reason to believe that they could have only made it as far as the "7" site before giving up.

gl

Hell no, that's not what I would have done.  While there's a visible landmark (plane), an outside tether to the world (radio), and means to operate (battery/remaining gas), I am staying right by that plane.  I have a limited window to run the radio before the juice runs out and (as may have become increasingly evident) the plane itself disappears.  Add to that the supposition that FN was injured, which may have prevented them from, say, splitting up...no way.  Leaving the area of the plane would be completely idiotic.

Once the radio and plane are gone, though, and a day or two have gone by without rescue, that changes the game.  As for how long Bevington took to go around the island, how is that relevant to AE and FN's situation? -- four days out, probably massively dehydrated, exhausted from lack of sleep (remember they had not slept for 24 hours when they landed), and with the likelihood that one or both of them are injured (if Betty's notebook is to be believed, we have a delirious FN and a possible ankle injury with AE).  None of these factors is going to make for a speedy trip.  As for why the Seven Site specifically -- the hypothesis isn't that they could go no further, as you suggest, but that in 1937 it was about the best place on the island both to be relatively comfortable climate-wise, to await rescue, and to hunt food.  And after making a circuit of the island, that's the NEXT logical thing I would do...OK, no one's here, we're tired, nothing back at the plane site anyway, let's hang here.  Ergo, Seven Site.

It all hangs together perfectly logically to me.  I'm well aware of your skepticism from reading the board, Gary, but to score points in an intellectually honest way it's not enough just to poke holes in a theory -- anyone can do that to what is, simply, a hypothesis being tested, and in a singularly thorough and above-board manner.   You need to present an alternate hypothesis that makes more sense and fits the available facts as well, or better. 
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Adam Marsland on April 10, 2012, 10:16:34 PM
In summary then I see four possible fates for Earhart and Noonan of which only one can be right. Which is to say the remains of the Electra can only be in one place. As I said the evidence of the post-disappearance messages is at best are problematic because they do not give a location - if genuine they could have come from a reef or uninhabited island in the Gilberts to the north-west as much as from Gardner Island.

I've said it before that the material evidence found on Gardner (shoe parts, compact mirror and that one fragment of aircraft skin) is interesting but are not conclusive. The account by the settlers of the PISS about plane wreckage is interesting but unverified and "Nessie" at present could be anything. The skeletal remains were initially identified physically as a male and probably a person of Pacific Islander heritage - the recent re-identification is not based on the physical evidence and is at best only a hypothesis. After all a male Polynesian castaway on Nikumaroro is as likely, given the documented cases of Pacific Islanders being carried long distances by storms and surviving and one could have suffered that fate and come ashore on Nikumaroro sometime in the early 30s or even late 20s.

So my position in this matter is undecided and will only be decided if material evidence that is irrefutable (skeletal and subsequent DNA or dental verification, the actual wreck of the Electra or parts thereof or something else of similar certainty) is found to indicate their landing and subsequent death on Nikumaroro or elsewhere. Frankly at this stage, given the evidence available, the actual fate of Earhart and Noonan is not yet demonstrated. Everything else, however emotionally compelling, is hypothesis.

All of which aside I wish TIGHAR every success in finding the crucial evidence, as I do to anyone else investigating the fate of the lost aviators.

 :)

Hi Malcolm...glad to have a chance to engage with you too.  I respect your opinion, but you're oddly overlooking -- intentionally or otherwise -- two key bits of evidence that make TIGHAR's case much stronger than you imply above. 

With respect to the radio messages being absent a location, you have 5 (out of 7 I believe) direction fixes on post-loss messages that intersect at or near Gardner Island.  In at least one of those cases the operator was firm both as to the quality of the fix and that he heard Earhart's voice.  So it's wrong to say there is no direct radio evidence that the post-loss messages eminated from Gardner.  In fact, the evidence is very strong that it did.  Adding to that is the fact that other than AE and Itasca, there should have been no one on that frequency in the South Pacific.  Yes, you can suggest that there was a hoaxer somewhere in the South Pacific and that all the DF bearings were wrong, and that is certainly possible...but that is a far LESS probable explanation than that AE was transmitting from Gardner.

With respect to the skeletal remains, I do respect your questioning the analysis of the bones.  It's at best a split decision.  However, your hypothesis that a native washed ashore does not jibe with the gender- and period-specific discovery of cosmetics, a woman's shoe (Gallagher himself saw one, which is what put Earhart in his mind), and other items that a native male would simply not be carrying.  Again, Occam's Razor applies: Yes, one can fabricate another explanation perhaps.  But is it the simplest and most logical one?  I think not. 

I think to suggest that the amount of evidence TIGHAR has uncovered is "scant" is not a fair reading of the facts.  It is perhaps not conclusive.  But, again, evidence is not proof.  It is supporting material to a theory, and a careful as opposed to surface review of what TIGHAR has uncovered reveals that they have amassed quite an impressive amount of admittedly circumstantial information that supports their case.
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Malcolm McKay on April 10, 2012, 11:35:34 PM

Hi Malcolm...glad to have a chance to engage with you too.  I respect your opinion, etc.

Hello Adam

I think even TIGHAR admit that the radio messages only provide very scant evidence of Earhart and Noonan's location. The extrapolation to Gardner Island using them really only hinges on the 157/337 line transmission.

The skeletal re-examination without access to either the bones or scaled photographs does not provide anything other than an informed guess. Currently, despite TIGHAR's rather hopeful thinking following that re-examination that they are of a white female (ergo Amelia Earhart), I have no reason to doubt Dr Hoodless's original conclusion. That is not to say I am closed to further proven evidence or examination of the island, just that as someone with a background in field archaeology and bone recovery I see nothing in the new claim that conclusively overturns his findings.

Also and very importantly there is no exact information regarding the exact locus of their recovery, by that I mean physical data like depth, stratigraphy etc., and how any other items were associated with them. Working as an archaeologist I have recovered skeletal remains which were either very fragmentary or more complete and it is exceedingly difficult work - especially working out if any items found with them are in fact part of the grave assemblage or simply chance juxtapositions due to natural or unrelated activity.

I won't reiterate the four hypotheses as I see them but I can say that currently the physical evidence produced so far, from my experience in archaeology, is too scant to make Nikumaroro any more certain than any of the four competing hypotheses. The key to proof is the recovery of the Electra wreck - and once more nothing conclusive has been found so far.

Therefore as to offering hypotheses about the hypothetical movements of our hypothetical crash survivors who are suffering from hypothetical injuries I prefer to abstain. All it will turn into is an exercise in fantasy like the identification of aircraft fragments on the ROV footage when one doesn't even have a scale with which to work out sizes of what are, to all intents and purposes, amorphous chunks of coral debris.

 :)   
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Gary LaPook on April 11, 2012, 12:12:36 AM


Hell no, that's not what I would have done.  While there's a visible landmark (plane), an outside tether to the world (radio), and means to operate (battery/remaining gas), I am staying right by that plane.  I have a limited window to run the radio before the juice runs out and (as may have become increasingly evident) the plane itself disappears.  Add to that the supposition that FN was injured, which may have prevented them from, say, splitting up...no way.  Leaving the area of the plane would be completely idiotic.

"Fred, according to Betty you're injured, so you better wait here. Keep a sharp lookout for any planes or boats. Try to stay in the shade a bit but don't go very far into the bush, you need to be able to get out and wave if something comes by."

"What are you going to do, Amelia?"

"I'm going to see if I can find some help."

"Why don't you wait til tomorrow?"

"Because I'm worried that I may be weaker and unable to do it tomorrow due to hunger and thirst, today is my best shot."

"How long will you be gone, I don't like being left alone."

"Well, the island didn't look too big when we were landing so I will see if I can walk all the way around it, that way I can't miss finding help if there is someone on the island. I"ll be back before sundown, after all, I can't get lost, it is an island after all."

gl
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Adam Marsland on April 11, 2012, 01:25:19 AM

Hi Malcolm...glad to have a chance to engage with you too.  I respect your opinion, etc.

Hello Adam

I think even TIGHAR admit that the radio messages only provide very scant evidence of Earhart and Noonan's location. The extrapolation to Gardner Island using them really only hinges on the 157/337 line transmission.


I don't think TIGHAR has referred to the evidence as "scant" or otherwise.  I think it's extremely compelling myself.  You appear to simply dismiss it out of hand.  That's fine, but it's hardly scientific.  At the very least, it's quite a coincidence; you simply choose to ignore it.  And your last sentence is incorrect.  The DF bearings on the post-loss messages is a totally separate evidentiary matter from the bearings in the last confirmed transmission.  Taken together, they are very suggestive, but the people that took the DF bearings were doing just that: taking bearings.  They led where they led, irrespective to the 157-337 factoid.

Quote
The skeletal re-examination without access to either the bones or scaled photographs does not provide anything other than an informed guess. Currently, despite TIGHAR's rather hopeful thinking following that re-examination that they are of a white female (ergo Amelia Earhart), I have no reason to doubt Dr Hoodless's original conclusion. That is not to say I am closed to further proven evidence or examination of the island, just that as someone with a background in field archaeology and bone recovery I see nothing in the new claim that conclusively overturns his findings.


What you have is a non-expert (Hoodless was a medical professional but not, I understand, an athropological one) who had the bones who said one thing, and an expert who did not have the actual bones saying something else.  You say "you have no reason to doubt" Hoodless' original finding, and then betray the bias in your thinking by talking of TIGHAR's "hopeful"ness.  There IS reason to doubt Hoodless' original finding in that a later examination of the evidence came to a different conclusion.  That's not, as you point out in changing the goal posts in the next sentence, the same as conclusively overturning his findings.  It simply calls them into question.  You're free to doubt TIGHAR's expert and question their findings...but it IS evidence in favor of their hypothesis.  Again, evidence is not, nor does it need to be, proof. 

You also have nothing to say about the other items found at the site which point to a European female (at least one of which Gallagher himself mentioned), so I'm assuming you're blowing that information off as well in deciding to take Hoodless' evaluation as the sole data point that clears the evidentiary bar.  To me, the fact that a woman's shoe was found at the site and Gallagher associated it with the skeleton at least lends credence to the idea that Hoodless MAY have been mistaken.  It doesn't prove anything, but it should at least raise a question.  There's some evidence that Hoodless felt slighted and intercepted the bones so as to make the evaluation himself, which is suggestive to me, though hardly conclusive...but I've encountered many self-styled experts in my time who didn't necessarily know what they were talking about, but were very forceful about how they expressed themselves and got away with it.  If you choose to believe in one data point and blow the rest off, great.  But to me, that's not the scientific method.  TIGHAR has not proved Hoodless was wrong, and I agree that his report is a data point against the TIGHAR hypothesis; but it's surely not much of a stretch to conceive that he may have been wrong, when the other evidence is fairly considered. 

Quote

I won't reiterate the four hypotheses as I see them but I can say that currently the physical evidence produced so far, from my experience in archaeology, is too scant to make Nikumaroro any more certain than any of the four competing hypotheses. The key to proof is the recovery of the Electra wreck - and once more nothing conclusive has been found so far.


Well, you have four competing hypotheses, a good deal of evidence, some of which you choose to completely discount (as opposed to approaching with open-minded skepticism) for what seem to be totally arbitrary reasons, has been amassed in favor of one, and as far as I know little or none for the other three.  I respect your opinion, and I agree that nothing is conclusive.  I simply submit that your means for reaching it is not as scientific nor as objective as you would have us believe.

Quote
Therefore as to offering hypotheses about the hypothetical movements of our hypothetical crash survivors who are suffering from hypothetical injuries I prefer to abstain. All it will turn into is an exercise in fantasy like the identification of aircraft fragments on the ROV footage when one doesn't even have a scale with which to work out sizes of what are, to all intents and purposes, amorphous chunks of coral debris.


1.  It's fun.  It's also just people on a message board. 
2.  People thinking out of the box, and with a firm grasp on the big picture, very often arrive at the correct answer where people who consider themselves experts, and so blind themselves to answers that are before them, but may conflict with long-standing biases or lie beyond the narrow focus of their own sense of expertise, do not.

:)
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Adam Marsland on April 11, 2012, 01:32:01 AM


Hell no, that's not what I would have done.  While there's a visible landmark (plane), an outside tether to the world (radio), and means to operate (battery/remaining gas), I am staying right by that plane.  I have a limited window to run the radio before the juice runs out and (as may have become increasingly evident) the plane itself disappears.  Add to that the supposition that FN was injured, which may have prevented them from, say, splitting up...no way.  Leaving the area of the plane would be completely idiotic.

"Fred, according to Betty you're injured, so you better wait here. Keep a sharp lookout for any planes or boats. Try to stay in the shade a bit but don't go very far into the bush, you need to be able to get out and wave if something comes by."

"What are you going to do, Amelia?"

"I'm going to see if I can find some help."

"Why don't you wait til tomorrow?"

"Because I'm worried that I may be weaker and unable to do it tomorrow due to hunger and thirst, today is my best shot."

"How long will you be gone, I don't like being left alone."

"Well, the island didn't look too big when we were landing so I will see if I can walk all the way around it, that way I can't miss finding help if there is someone on the island. I"ll be back before sundown, after all, I can't get lost, it is an island after all."

gl

So how does making a script to match this scenario make it any less nonsensical?  They've just crashed the plane on a reef, but they're got gas and a working radio, and the whole world's waiting for word from her.  Rescue is days away even if the distress call goes out immediately.  Fred's injured, and Amelia just goes, well hell, the whole world can wait, suck it up Fred, I'm going to poke around on the off chance there's someone here instead of phoning for help until I run out of gas?  On my possibly busted ankle, on no sleep whatsoever? 

Seriously, man...you're a pilot, right?  You're saying after you lost contact with the tower and you land your plane in an unknown location and incur injuries with the crew, and you're just going to ignore the radio, dump your injured navigator to fend for himself and limp off on a day trip? 

Please don't ever fly my plane.
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Gary LaPook on April 11, 2012, 02:31:14 AM


So how does making a script to match this scenario make it any less nonsensical?  They've just crashed the plane on a reef, but they're got gas and a working radio, and the whole world's waiting for word from her.  Rescue is days away even if the distress call goes out immediately.  Fred's injured, and Amelia just goes, well hell, the whole world can wait, suck it up Fred, I'm going to poke around on the off chance there's someone here instead of phoning for help until I run out of gas?  On my possibly busted ankle, on no sleep whatsoever? 

Seriously, man...you're a pilot, right?  You're saying after you lost contact with the tower and you land your plane in an unknown location and incur injuries with the crew, and you're just going to ignore the radio, dump your injured navigator to fend for himself and limp off on a day trip? 

Please don't ever fly my plane.
Rescue is days away unless there is a village at the other end of the island in which case it is only a few hours away. And you might be able to get some medical attention for poor Fred, he can't wait several days, he'll die unless he gets some medical care immediately. And where did you come up with the busted ankle, even Betty didn't claim that?
And the two options are not mutually exclusive. If Earhart circled the island and didn't find succour then she ends up back at the plane and fires up the engine and can try to send out radio calls.

Also, she does NOT know that her radio works, as far as she knows it wasn't working before and the gas will still be there when she gets back from her walk.

So no, it is not nonsensical.

gl
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on April 11, 2012, 06:13:08 AM
... There's some evidence that Hoodless felt slighted and intercepted the bones so as to make the evaluation himself, which is suggestive to me, though hardly conclusive...

Hoodless went to Fiji as a math tutor.

He trained as a medical doctor in a highly compressed fashion on breaks from the foreign service.

Source: Misi Utu: Dr. D.W. Hoodless and the development of medical education in the South Pacific / by his daughter, Margaret W. Guthrie.

He was not a specialist in forensics.  He had a textbook whose formulas from the 1890s were based on the examination of approximately 90 skeletons.  Source: not available this morning.  I heard about this either on EPAC or in other threads on this forum.  The FORDISC analysis (http://tighar.org/wiki/1999_Bones_Search_I) suggested that the highest probability was that the bones were from a female of Northern European descent, but that doesn't mean that they could be male or non-European.  Strange things do happen.

Hoodless did not intercept the bones.  That was Isaac/Verrier (http://tighar.org/wiki/Verrier).
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Malcolm McKay on April 11, 2012, 06:33:02 AM


1.  It's fun.  It's also just people on a message board. 
2.  People thinking out of the box, and with a firm grasp on the big picture, very often arrive at the correct answer where people who consider themselves experts, and so blind themselves to answers that are before them, but may conflict with long-standing biases or lie beyond the narrow focus of their own sense of expertise, do not.

:)

Hello Adam

If you read very carefully and thoroughly what I said then you will see that nowhere have I blown off the evidence as you so oddly put it. However what you are actually saying is that you find the fact that I am clearly not overwhelmed by the case put forward by TIGHAR somewhat of an affront to yourself.

I was asked a question - I put forward my reasons for not indulging in what I consider to be useless and scientifically unsound speculation about a purely hypothetical event. That is what sensible people do, especially people from an archaeological background like myself. I have no interest in creating an imaginary reconstruction of Earhart and Noonan's last days based on the quite inconclusive information from Betty's notebook of a transmission she heard which might have come from Gardner or an island in the Gilberts. Seems to me all the theories put forward about the hypothesised events on Gardner Island come from that garbled account. A victory of imagination over rational consideration.

Dr Hoodless was a experienced doctor, he also was conversant with the physical anthropology of Polynesians. He was not some village general practitioner viewing his first set of skeletal remains. It may well be the people who carried out the assessment of his notes are right but that will not be known until or, if ever, the missing fragments of the skeleton are found on Nikumaroro or the ones that Hoodless examined turn up. That is all one can say given the current level of evidence. I am not denying anything I am simply pointing out that there is not enough available to build a case.

The artifacts recovered by Gallagher were recovered in far less than ideal archaeological circumstances. Very simply put we have no record of their actual physical relationship to the skeletal material. Clearly they have significance but what do they signify? Parts of a woman's shoe are found near some partial skeletal remains that is identified by an experienced anatomist as that of a short male of Polynesian heritage. Over 50 years later two physical anthropologists are asked by the team investigating if Nikumaroro is where the Earhart round the world flight ended. They don't have these partial remains at all yet they say that Dr Hoodless was completely wrong and that the skeleton was instead that of a slender tall white woman who just happens to match Amelia Earhart's physique. Now I am not saying there is anything wrong occurring, what I am saying is that I would like to see some more evidence to support that assertion. I think anyone who has an ounce of scientific training would say the same thing.

As for -

Quote
Well, you have four competing hypotheses, a good deal of evidence, some of which you choose to completely discount (as opposed to approaching with open-minded skepticism) for what seem to be totally arbitrary reasons, has been amassed in favor of one, and as far as I know little or none for the other three.  I respect your opinion, and I agree that nothing is conclusive.  I simply submit that your means for reaching it is not as scientific nor as objective as you would have us believe.

I can reply to that in detail if you wish although I find the tone offensive. The three others are -

1. The first hypothesis is commonly known as the crashed and sank model. The only evidence of that would be if the wreck of the Electra is located on the ocean floor. Two separate expeditions have searched around Howland Island and not found it. That doesn't mean that the wreck doesn't exist, only that in that vast area of ocean it was not found. No one can say fairer than that given the current amount of data available.

2. Earhart and Noonan adopt their contingency plan as recounted to Vidal by Earhart which was that if they failed to find Howland then they would attempt to fly to the Gilberts where there are more islands and therefore a better chance of a landfall. Again no evidence is known but this could be in the ocean as in the first hypothesis or equally on some remote part of an island. No one knows. Therefore it cannot be discounted except by finding the Electra elsewhere.

3. The New Britain hypothesis where according to http://www.electranewbritain.com/   an Australian army patrol in 1945 found the wreck of a twin engined aircraft that was not a military type and was unknown to the US military to whom it was reported. Far fetched? possibly but as we don't know at what point Earhart and Noonan actually felt that they were lost then they may have flown a reciprocal course back. I am not convinced myself but the C/N on the metal tag on the engine mounts is quite compelling.

Now against that we have the TIGHAR Nikumaroro which is based on -

1. Some small parts of a woman's shoe,

2. A partial skeleton identified at the time by a qualified anatomist as that of a short Polynesian male and 50 or more years later after the bones have vanished is re-identified as a slender tall caucasian woman by two anatomists working off the notes taken by the first anatomist.

3. One bone fragment that was of unknown origin. Human finger bone or turtle flipper bone.

4. A broken blade, some fragments of an ointment jar, the tag of a zipper, a snap clip and other assorted small items. None offering any evidence other than that they possibly could have belonged to Earhart.

5. One piece of aluminium it is claimed fits the Electra, but which is disputed by other researchers. Some other fragments of aircraft skin which probably come from the crash on another island which is documented.

I could go on but you can see I am being quite open minded in my scepticism. I haven't denied that any of the things could be from Earhart, Noonan or the Electra, instead what I have said consistently is that there is no evidence that conclusively points to them being from Earhart, Noonan and the Electra - there is a vast difference and something you have appeared to have ignored.

Now TIGHAR have published the computer reconstruction of what appears to be the remains of part of the undercarriage lying on the reef and have reported the sudden discovery of that anomaly (Nessie) in the photo taken on the New Zealand expedition as part of the PISS project in 1937 which is purported to be consistent with the undercarriage leg of an Electra standing upright on the reef. Both of those await to be confirmed or otherwise later this year. There is that open minded enough? I am being as rigorous and open minded as possible, this isn't a game.
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Jeff Victor Hayden on April 11, 2012, 06:36:53 AM
I know I've mentioned it before but, that's because I believe it's the most significant factor regarding the castaway theory. Water, water everywhere but, not a drop to drink! My survival timeline was based upon water intake, 14 to 21 days...
http://www.survivaltopics.com/survival/how-long-can-you-survive-without-water (http://www.survivaltopics.com/survival/how-long-can-you-survive-without-water)
I'm not convinced yet that either of them would have the knowledge or experience to be able to collect drinkable water, Fred maybe, if not injured. Water left behind by SS Norwich City in my opinion would be unusable and, the only way they could have discovered this was to drink it, disaster.
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on April 11, 2012, 08:28:41 AM
Dr Hoodless was a experienced doctor, he also was conversant with the physical anthropology of Polynesians. He was not some village general practitioner viewing his first set of skeletal remains.

What evidence do you have to that effect?

Quote
They don't have these partial remains at all yet they say that Dr Hoodless was completely wrong and that the skeleton was instead that of a slender tall white woman who just happens to match Amelia Earhart's physique.

Paper tiger / straw man.  You are NOT accurately describing what the forensic anthropologist said (http://tighar.org/wiki/Bones_I).  This is a basic failure of reasoning and courtesy on your part.  She said there are reasons to think that Hoodless may have been mistaken because his measurements, run through a modern forensic system, suggest that a different analysis is probable.

Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Heath Smith on April 11, 2012, 02:40:00 PM
Quote
3. The New Britain hypothesis where according to http://www.electranewbritain.com/   an Australian army patrol in 1945 found the wreck of a twin engined aircraft that was not a military type and was unknown to the US military to whom it was reported. Far fetched? possibly but as we don't know at what point Earhart and Noonan actually felt that they were lost then they may have flown a reciprocal course back. I am not convinced myself but the C/N on the metal tag on the engine mounts is quite compelling.

Very far fetched. The fact they that were nearly at Howland (signal strength 5 in radio logs) and the fact that they said "We must be on you but cannot see you" discounts that entire theory. Given the fuel consumption, they probably could not travel in excess of 500SM after arriving where they thought Howland was.
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Adam Marsland on April 11, 2012, 04:18:35 PM
I'm sure I'm partially responsible for the thread shift, and I apologize...but my motive was to contribute something (hopefully) new to the discussion...that AE and FN probably could not be absolutely sure that the island was uninhabited, and explains why, once options with better odds of rescue were gone, it would have made sense to immediately decamp and look for help on the off chance someone else was lurking on the island, or at least some other resource that could be of help to them.

Gary -- Yeah, it doesn't really matter how many times you restate the premise, your scenario sounds pretty nonsensical to me.  But hey, my opinion.

Malcolm -- I'm sorry you found the tone of my posts offensive, or misunderstood me to believe that I saw an attack on TIGHAR as an affront to me personally.  I have no connection with them other than having great respect for the way they do their research.  Such was not my intent, other than to tease you a little bit at the bottom.  :)  But I did call into question your basis for evaluating what is and isn't substantive evidence.  I think it's totally subjective, and I told you why.  Your detailed response, which I think displayed a bit of confusion about some of the facts of the case, rather reinforced that impression.  But hey, man, that's great.  We're all here to kick around ideas and valid criticism is a part of that.  But you have to be able to take it as well as dish it out -- if someone takes the logical basis of your criticisms apart, that's just what you should expect.  If you're not used to having that done, I am sorry.  But it is a two-way street. 

I think both your opinions are valid and I respect them.  Nothing conclusive has been discovered and it should be restated, because it seems to be lost on a few, that no one has claimed otherwise.  So anybody's theory could be right...the world's a funny place.  But as far as being more plausible, more supported by the evidence, more convincing...um, no.  You got your theories and that's great...but there's far more holes to be poked in them, I think, than the holes you have poked in TIGHAR's, and I took a few seconds to give you, in detail, my empirical reasons for that opinion.  That's all I'm sayin'.

Martin -- Thanks for the corrections.  Duly noted.

LTM, as they say... :)
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Adam Marsland on April 11, 2012, 04:28:44 PM
OK, here's another thought.  Let's look at the theory that they were dead or dying by the time of the overflight.  And engage in some hypothesising.  Anybody who does not wish to participate has the option of not doing so.

Is there enough time for them to be dead or dying by July 9th, assuming
1.  safe landing on Gardner
2.  post-loss messages until...I think July 5th is the last credible one, right?
3.  decamp to 7 site, probably slowly and checking the island out as they go
4.  eat a lot of turtles and die.

Timing seems tight to me for that all to have happened in a week, but I suppose it's possible.  Thoughts?
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Jeff Victor Hayden on April 11, 2012, 05:36:00 PM
Again assuming the Gardner reef landing theory. Can you imagine the level of panic being experienced at different times since the landing?
1. The landing? Good/bad?
2. No ones answering the radio transmissions?
3. The island is un-inhabited!
4. The rescue planes that didn't signal us?
5. The lack of water!
6. The rescue planes didn't return!
7. We're thirsty and hungry
8. They've stopped searching for us!
9. We're going to have to escape by ourselves!

Panic is a strange thing, sometimes it is instantaneous, a shot rings out, an explosion, sometimes it slowly builds up on you as you realise more and more of the situation. I'm sure you other ex-military guys know the feeling of being isolated in an unfamiliar and unfriendly place and you just know that the only way back depends on you, no one else. You've been trained not to panic in these situations, you've been trained what to do, you've practiced.
Now imagine the panic a civilian would feel in this situation, sad.
All IMHO of course
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Malcolm McKay on April 11, 2012, 08:18:36 PM
Quote
3. The New Britain hypothesis where according to http://www.electranewbritain.com/   an Australian army patrol in 1945 found the wreck of a twin engined aircraft that was not a military type and was unknown to the US military to whom it was reported. Far fetched? possibly but as we don't know at what point Earhart and Noonan actually felt that they were lost then they may have flown a reciprocal course back. I am not convinced myself but the C/N on the metal tag on the engine mounts is quite compelling.

Very far fetched. The fact they that were nearly at Howland (signal strength 5 in radio logs) and the fact that they said "We must be on you but cannot see you" discounts that entire theory. Given the fuel consumption, they probably could not travel in excess of 500SM after arriving where they thought Howland was.

Equally therefore they could have ditched and sank which is hypothesis 1.

To state the obvious that outcome has never been ruled out by any subsequent information. Oddly the New Britain hypothesis is the only one that actually has identified (if subsequently lost) wreckage - the C/N tag noted on the engine mounting frame. Even the oral accounts of the Nikumaroro residents concerning aircraft wreckage do not have something as specific as that C/N tag.

Which is simply to say that I am not ruling any of the four hypothesis out of contention - if on the next trip TIGHAR come up with the much sought "smoking gun" then I will accept it. I have no dog in this fight - to use that quaint expression.  :)
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Malcolm McKay on April 11, 2012, 08:23:18 PM

Paper tiger / straw man.  You are NOT accurately describing what the forensic anthropologist said (http://tighar.org/wiki/Bones_I).  This is a basic failure of reasoning and courtesy on your part.  She said there are reasons to think that Hoodless may have been mistaken because his measurements, run through a modern forensic system, suggest that a different analysis is probable.

That is still a hypothesis unsupported by any physical skeletal material - if the next expedition finds any further remains then it can be properly tested against actual skeletal material. In archaeology and physical anthropology second guessing previous findings without having the original material present is very risky - probably is not certainly.
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Malcolm McKay on April 11, 2012, 08:39:05 PM
Malcom: "5. The next expedition to Nikumaroro needs to find unequivocal material evidence."

Or what?  I won't be giving up and you can't make me...  :D 

The Gardner search will find legs as long as there are enough people of enough means who believe in it to make a search happen.  Is it anyone's intent to kill such a creature for us sad folk who would persist?  Perish the thought - it's still a free country.

Really? that is a pretty unscientific method of approaching the problem. And I might add that nowhere have I said that TIGHAR should abandon the search after this trip - what I did say was that at some point any responsible person who is spending someone else's money has the obligation to recognise that the answer may not be where they are looking. That's how the real world of funding for scientific activity works - do you have a reason why it shouldn't be the same for this matter, other than the somewhat nebulous reason of faith?

I can presume therefore that you are happily providing part of the funding and you are happy to continue to - if so that is your right and no one should deny it. But if there are people who have contributed to help solve the mystery because the TIGHAR hypothesis seemed to them to be a possible solution do they have the right to say enough is enough because no final solution has emerged which, unfortunately, is the current situation. In the end if cut off points are not declared then it develops into a sort of research Ponzi scheme.  :)
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Malcolm McKay on April 11, 2012, 09:02:08 PM
I think it's totally subjective, and I told you why.  Your detailed response, which I think displayed a bit of confusion about some of the facts of the case, rather reinforced that impression.  But hey, man, that's great.  We're all here to kick around ideas and valid criticism is a part of that.  But you have to be able to take it as well as dish it out -- if someone takes the logical basis of your criticisms apart, that's just what you should expect.  If you're not used to having that done, I am sorry.  But it is a two-way street.
LTM, as they say... :)

Hello Adam

Nowhere have I seen where you have taken the logical basis of my comments apart. All you said was that I discounted some of the evidence without much comment. Some things are so vague in their material associations with the hypothesis or provide so little diagnostic evidence that comment is unnecessary. I commend TIGHAR for noting these limitations in its discussion of the items - it is a pity that some of their supporters appear unable to do the same.

Initially I was asked what my hypothesis was concerning the fate of Earhart and Noonan, which I answered by providing a brief synopsis of the four main hypotheses and which I qualified by saying honestly that I felt that there was insufficient evidence available for me to make a choice of any of them. To support my concerns I briefly mentioned the problem of the archaeology of the finds on Nikumaroro, as archaeology is the specific discipline in which I have some experience - Masters, Ph.D, fieldwork in various parts of the world etc.

My main fault it appears, is that I have not unequivocally accepted the Gardner Island hypothesis although as I recall I have never said that I don't accept it. All I have ever said is that it, like the others, remains unproven. If you find that hard to understand then there is no more I can say to make it clearer to you.
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on April 11, 2012, 09:43:10 PM
That is still a hypothesis unsupported by any physical skeletal material - if the next expedition finds any further remains then it can be properly tested against actual skeletal material.

That's why TIGHAR has sent three teams to Fiji, looking for the bones found in 1940.

We kind of understand that it would be nice to have modern scientists examine them directly.

Quote
In archaeology and physical anthropology second guessing previous findings without having the original material present is very risky - probably is not certainly.

That's exactly what our forensic anthropologist said.  She indicated a probability, based on Hoodless's measurements and run through a modern forensic database.  She did not claim certitude.  That is why your putting a false claim in her mouth is so contrary to the etiquette of argument.  Carl Sagan calls it a "Straw man--caricaturing a position to make it easier to attack"  (Candle in the Dark, 215).

You criticize TIGHAR for saying something it has never said.  When I point this out, you then make exactly the same point I made.  Kar's argument is based on probabilities.  That means that it was not ever and is not now a claim to certainty on her part or TIGHAR's.
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Malcolm McKay on April 11, 2012, 10:58:45 PM

Quote
In archaeology and physical anthropology second guessing previous findings without having the original material present is very risky - probably is not certainly.

That's exactly what our forensic anthropologist said.  She indicated a probability, based on Hoodless's measurements and run through a modern forensic database.  She did not claim certitude.  ...

You criticize TIGHAR for saying something it has never said.  When I point this out, you then make exactly the same point I made.  Kar's argument is based on probabilities.  That means that it was not ever and is not now a claim to certainty on her part or TIGHAR's.

I have not criticised TIGHAR, I have however criticised the taking of that data by some to claim certainty - different thing. As I have said elsewhere I don't find any fault in the way TIGHAR has published any of the material it has found but unfortunately some people in the general discussion seem unable to separate probable from certain. But as an archaeologist I am pretty used to the layperson's inability to distinguish probability from certainty - it however does seem to earn the producers of archaeology related documentaries a living, while giving real archaeologists a good chuckle.
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Gary LaPook on April 12, 2012, 12:15:07 AM


3. The New Britain hypothesis where according to http://www.electranewbritain.com/ (http://www.electranewbritain.com/)   an Australian army patrol in 1945 found the wreck of a twin engined aircraft that was not a military type and was unknown to the US military to whom it was reported. Far fetched? possibly but as we don't know at what point Earhart and Noonan actually felt that they were lost then they may have flown a reciprocal course back. I am not convinced myself but the C/N on the metal tag on the engine mounts is quite compelling.

See POINT OF NO RETURN thread (https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,651.msg12321.html#msg12321).

gl
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Gary LaPook on April 12, 2012, 01:15:01 AM
Scenario: Plane lands on reef edge, landing is rough enough to injure but not incapacitate occupants. After recovering some strength the crew disembarks and pilot injures ankle negotiating reef flat. Walking in the surf is very difficult so life line is tied off from plane to trees along the shore. Radio calls begin and continue for several days. Crew explores vacinity of shore around airplane, find boats and debris from Norwich City. Tides continue to rise until plane is torn off the landing gear and is submerged in the surf. Crew forced to shore. Search Planes fly over. Crew unable to draw attension for whatever reason, asleep? exploring in bush? unable to walk quickly enough? In time castaways move to "Seven Site" where one or both perish under the ren tree....

I have attached two photos from the Purdue collection. The first photo show what the Electra must have looked like standing on its legs so that the engines were high enough to be run to provide the electrical  power so that Earhart could send out radio messages. The second picture is of the plane after it crashed on takeoff from Hawaii.

You believe that Noonan was injured during the landing on the reef at Gardner island, a landing that would have ended up with the plane in the position shown in the first photo. However, when the aircraft ended up looking like it does in the second photo, Earhart, Manning and Noonan all walked away without injury. This crash was sufficient to rip off both main landing gears and did substantial other damage to the airframe. I don't know, but it seems to me that if Noonan was not injured in the crash at Luke field then it is very unlikely that he was injured in the controlled landing on the reef. And, keep in mind, nobody had any warning of the impending crash in Hawaii so as to brace themselves to avoid injury but there was plenty of time to prepare for the landing on the reef, it did not come as a surprise, making it even more unlikely that Noonan sustained any injuries there.

Your only reason to believe that Noonan was injured is the message that Betty claimed to have heard. See Brandenberg's original analysis of the probability of Betty hearing Earhart. (https://tighar.org/smf/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=625.0;attach=1952) This shows only a one chance in 878 and that only existed for the first half hour. In the next hour the probability of Betty actually hearing Earhart dropped off to only 1 chance in 344,827!  For the last 15 minute period the probability increased to 1 chance in 50,000. The current listing for the Betty reception doesn't break it down into these three periods but it makes sense that the periods mentioned in the first Brandenberg table also hold true for the current listing, so after the first half hour the chance of Betty continuing to hear Earhart dropped off to Brandenberg's new estimate contained in the new listing  (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/ResearchPapers/Brandenburg/signalcatalog4.html#ID52130KK)of one chance in one-million-four-hundred-ninty-two- thousand-five-hundred and thirty seven (1/0.00000067 = 1,492,537) yet the claim is that Betty heard Earhart for an hour and 45 minutes. Or to put it another way, even Brandenberg, using all of his electronics acumen, ends up showing  that the odds against Betty being able to hear Earhart for the period that she claimed is 1,492,536 to 1. Wait a second, isn't Betty the same person who claimed to have won the Mega Millions Lottery last week?  Wait, no, that was somebody else. So do you really believe that Betty actually heard that Noonan was injured?


gl
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Malcolm McKay on April 12, 2012, 02:31:53 AM
I have attached two photos from the Purdue collection. The first photo show what the Electra must have looked like standing on its legs so that the engines were high enough to be run to provide the electrical  power so that Earhart could send out radio messages. The second picture is of the plane after it crashed on takeoff from Hawaii. ...


Your only reason to believe that Noonan was injured is the message that Betty claimed to have heard. See Brandenberg's original analysis of the probability of Betty hearing Earhart. (https://tighar.org/smf/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=625.0;attach=1952) This shows only a one chance in 878 and that only existed for the first half hour. In the next hour the probability of Betty actually hearing Earhart dropped off to only 1 chance in 344,827!  For the last 15 minute period the probability increased to 1 chance in 50,000. The current listing for the Betty reception doesn't break it down into these three periods but it makes sense that the periods mentioned in the first Brandenberg table also hold true for the current listing, so after the first half hour the chance of Betty continuing to hear Earhart dropped off to Brandenberg's new estimate contained in the new listing  (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/ResearchPapers/Brandenburg/signalcatalog4.html#ID52130KK)of one chance in one-million-four-hundred-ninty-two- thousand-five-hundred and thirty seven (1,492,537) yet the claim is that Betty heard Earhart for an hour and 45 minutes. Or to put it another way, even Brandenberg, using all of his electronics acumen, ends up showing  that the odds against Betty being able to hear Earhart for the period that she claimed is 1,492,536 to 1. Wait a second, isn't Betty the same person who claimed to have won the Mega Millions Lottery last week?  Wait, no, that was somebody else. So do you really believe that Betty actually heard that Noonan was injured?


gl

Thank you Gary  :) 

The thing that has disturbed me most about the theorising in the Gardner Island hypothesis is, apart from the bizarre identification of amorphous lumps of coral as aircraft parts, is this strange unbelievable series of events that have been built from that garbled message that Betty is supposed to have heard. That is why I refuse to speculate on who was injured, where they were injured and what they did. It is of no use at all in the investigation of the relevance of the few artifacts found on the island purportedly associated with Earhart and Noonan. Frankly the last time I remember unabashed fantasizing of this kind based on dubious interpretations of physical artifacts and unproven sources was when Erich von Daniken published that silly book Chariots of the Gods. It doesn't help anyone to take the TIGHAR hypothesis seriously.
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Brad Beeching on April 12, 2012, 05:29:45 AM
Mr.LaPook, you amaze me.. You seem to live by the rule if you cant dazzle em with brilliance, baffle em with B.S.
Quote
You believe that Noonan was injured during the landing on the reef at Gardner island, a landing that would have ended up with the plane in the position shown in the first photo. However, when the aircraft ended up looking like it does in the second photo, Earhart, Manning and Noonan all walked away without injury. This crash was sufficient to rip off both main landing gears and did substantial other damage to the airframe. I don't know, but it seems to me that if Noonan was not injured in the crash at Luke field then it is very unlikely that he was injured in the controlled landing on the reef. And, keep in mind, nobody had any warning of the impending crash in Hawaii so as to brace themselves to avoid injury but there was plenty of time to prepare for the landing on the reef, it did not come as a surprise, making it even more unlikely that Noonan sustained any injuries there.

Your only reason to believe that Noonan was injured is the message that Betty claimed to have heard.... So do you really believe that Betty actually heard that Noonan was injured?

Most of the Gardner theory makes sense to me. Tighars theory is logical and has some grounds in reality. As far as your numbers go, wow! But, in the real world Mr. LaPook, improbable things happen all the time, and the unexplainable strange incedents actually happen. Do I believe that people heard radio calls from the plane, I certainly do. Do I believe that IF they landed on Gardner, Noonan MAY have been injured? I certainly do. Mr. LaPook, Remember, nothing is improbable as a baby...

[Material removed by moderator. MXM, SJ]

Brad
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: JNev on April 12, 2012, 05:44:05 AM
...any responsible person who is spending someone else's money has the obligation to recognise that the answer may not be where they are looking. That's how the real world of funding for scientific activity works - do you have a reason why it shouldn't be the same for this matter, other than the somewhat nebulous reason of faith?

I can presume therefore that you are happily providing part of the funding and you are happy to continue to - if so that is your right and no one should deny it. But if there are people who have contributed to help solve the mystery because the TIGHAR hypothesis seemed to them to be a possible solution do they have the right to say enough is enough because no final solution has emerged which, unfortunately, is the current situation. In the end if cut off points are not declared then it develops into a sort of research Ponzi scheme.  :)

You're too funny, Malcolm -

Those are exactly the points - excepting that anyone who contributes is NOT entitled to guaranteed outcomes - we all take our chances williingly and TIGHAR makes that emphatically clear throughout it efforts and publications.

TIGHAR persists as long as those who support this search wish it to - either you aren't paying attention to how these expeditions are funded or you're intentionally trying to imply that TIGHAR is somehow abusing its trust.  Utter nonsense.

Your mention of a ponzi scheme reveals your thinking clearly enough - more to the point of your tone, as far as I'm concerned. 

Risk takers are the ones who find treasure, now and then - and they suffer the risks and losses as they must.  They determine for themselves what's worthwhile.  If TIGHAR's not that for you or if you can't handle 'no guarantees', no sweat.  Overly cautious people who always wait for the guaranteed outcome or worry that someone's out to 'ponzi' them are only guaranteed to get the scraps that are left over after the real finds.  With an outfit as sound as TIGHAR and an ocean as big as the Pacific, I'll gamble my dimes.  You can keep yours, no offense.  But I think 'ponzi' is a ridiculous term to bring to these pages.

Back to the thread at hand...
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Malcolm McKay on April 12, 2012, 06:09:10 AM

You're too funny, Malcolm - ....

But I think 'ponzi' is a ridiculous term to bring to these pages.


And that folks explains why Ponzi schemes always work,  :)

As I said it's your money to do with what you will and good luck to you. I was simply explaining, as you appeared to be unaware, how funding in the scientific research world works. Once you get the initial grant you get funds as long as you can demonstrate that the research is both producing data and is clearly working towards a finite objective. TIGHAR have attracted government interest which is good, however that does mean that at some stage they will either have to find definitive evidence to support the Nikumaroro hypothesis or admit they can't. That is inevitable and I doubt there is anyone who can seriously dispute that.
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Malcolm McKay on April 12, 2012, 06:22:47 AM


...and you're either missing the point of how TIGHAR really operates, or you are disingenuously injecting a nay-saying spirit here.

LTM -

Not a nay-sayer at all, just someone who is actually taking the TIGHAR search on and around Nikumaroro seriously, as I take the other hypotheses advanced concerning the fate of Earhart and Noonan (I do draw the line at spying for FDR and abduction by aliens though). All of them have points in their favour and points where they are weak or have to rely on a deus ex machina to make them work. That is the interesting part and certainly as interesting as finding the correct one.
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on April 12, 2012, 06:37:01 AM
I have not criticised TIGHAR, I have however criticised the taking of that data by some to claim certainty - different thing.

Here is a quotation from you which lacks the qualification that you are now claiming to have made:

In archaeology and physical anthropology second guessing previous findings without having the original material present is very risky - probably is not certainly.

There is no "some" in that sentence.

Kar Burns (http://tighar.org/wiki/Kar_Burns) second-guessed Hoodless.

She did so as a forensic anthropologist.

She wrote the Forensic Anthropology Training Manual (http://www.amazon.com/Forensic-Anthropology-Training-Manual-The/dp/0130105767).

She brought resources to bear on the question not available to Hoodless.

Here is the Pearson paper (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Pearson_Papers/Pearsonpaper.html) that provided the formulas used by Hoodless. 

Here is the explanation of how Burns et al. re-analyzed the data collected by Hoodless (http://tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/14_2/14-2Bones.html).

That paper concludes: "It is, of course, impossible to know whether the bones inspected by Dr. Hoodless in 1941 were in fact those of a white female, and if anything even less possible to be sure that they were those of Amelia Earhart. Only the rediscovery of the bones themselves, or the recovery of more bones from the same skeleton on the island, can bring certainty. What we can be certain of is that bones were found on the island in 1939-40, associated with what were observed to be women’s shoes and a navigator’s sextant box, and that the morphology of the recovered bones, insofar as we can tell by applying contemporary forensic methods to measurements taken at the time, appears consistent with a female of Earhart’s height and ethnic origin. Historical, ethnohistorical, archeological, and forensic research is continuing in an effort to achieve more definitive conclusions."

We know more today than Hoodless did in 1941.  It seems quite reasonable to "second-guess" his conclusions, even though the "guessing" done by contemporary anthropologists arrives only at probabilities, not certainties.
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Malcolm McKay on April 12, 2012, 07:10:44 AM

We know more today than Hoodless did in 1941.  It seems quite reasonable to "second-guess" his conclusions, even though the "guessing" done by contemporary anthropologists arrives only at probabilities, not certainties.

Thank you for the quote - it fits in with the sort of caution I would apply. One of the problems that archaeologists and other professionals face in this kind of work is making clear to their audience that so often all that can be offered is a probable, a concept that some people find difficult to understand and so the "some" I was referring to are of course people who may not quite understand the difference between probably and certainly, and I was not referring to Dr Burns. It goes without saying that if some more skeletal material including teeth were found at the location where the original material was found that would be very helpful. 
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Jeff Victor Hayden on April 12, 2012, 07:59:41 AM
Anyhow, back to the thread. I suggest that everything that is theorised to have happened after touchdown depends somewhat on the condition of the airplane after landing, and the occupants?
 Gary has compared the damage sustained on the Luke field crash and the occupants survival without serious injury which is a good benchmark to compare a reef landing to.
The theorised reef landing might have been a bit trickier than the Luke Field runway crash (how they got away without the fuel going up is a miracle of flying skills?) The reef surface isn't a runway, it is a reef, with all the associated reef like obstacles, water, grooves, gullies
... Not deep? But there waiting to snag the landing gear?(good job the fuel was almost on empty)

I believe that what happened after touchdown was dependent on this. IMHO
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Bill Mangus on April 12, 2012, 08:01:08 AM
You believe that Noonan was injured during the landing on the reef at Gardner island, a landing that would have ended up with the plane in the position shown in the first photo. However, when the aircraft ended up looking like it does in the second photo, Earhart, Manning and Noonan all walked away without injury. This crash was sufficient to rip off both main landing gears and did substantial other damage to the airframe. I don't know, but it seems to me that if Noonan was not injured in the crash at Luke field then it is very unlikely that he was injured in the controlled landing on the reef. And, keep in mind, nobody had any warning of the impending crash in Hawaii so as to brace themselves to avoid injury but there was plenty of time to prepare for the landing on the reef, it did not come as a surprise, making it even more unlikely that Noonan sustained any injuries there.
gl

True, but:

At Luke Field everyone was strapped-in and if not anticipating a mishap, at least prepared as well as they could be if something bad happened.  Also, as bad as the Luke Field crash was it still was not a sudden stop.

On the reef, as I understand the theory, the aircraft probably made a good landing and roll-out, with the left main gear falling in the hole identified by Nessie either at the end of the roll-out or maybe a little later as AE was attempting to taxi closer to the Norwich City wreck.  In either case, this would definitely be a sudden, unexpected stop and neither AE or FN would have had any time to brace themselves, etc.  In my view this is when the "injuries" occurred.  With the co-pilots wheel removed, FN would have likely smacked into the control panel, while AE would have, supposedly, had her hands on the control wheel during the taxi process.
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Tom Swearengen on April 12, 2012, 09:09:57 AM
GENTLEMEN:
We all have some conflicting theories---me included. But, the reason TIGHAR is going to Niku, to to test these theories. Right, wrong, or otherwise, they will find some answers. IF they find the Electra on the reef ledge where the supposed landing area is, that will PROVE the plane was there. Whether it landed, or was ditched could be debated---although I think its been stated about running engines for the radios.
Please let Ric & Co do their thing and investigate this to its conclusion. I may not agree with some on this forum about their theories, but I listen objectively, as I'm sure others do. Its not about who it right or wrong. Its a means to find out what happened 75 years ago. The result, whatever it turns out to be, will tell us if the theory was correct. If the wreckage is NOT the Electra, it doesnt disproove the theory. Like Bob Ballard said, its a small needle in a very big haystack.
We've waited 75 years---I think we can hang on for a while longer----its worth it.
Tom
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Jeff Victor Hayden on April 12, 2012, 11:07:41 AM
As has been mentioned before in this thread, this is all speculation and as such shouldn't be taken as Gospel truth.
Just for the record I'm certain they will find more aircraft wreckage on the reef. Whether it's AE's Electra is another matter. If it turns out to be hers, good work job done, if it's not hers it's not the end of the world. Just another chapter in a very long saga and, it opens up new possibilities like whose is it if not AE and, where could the Electra be now?
If they don't find aircraft wreckage...that's why they put erasers on the end of pencils and, delete keys on keyboards, not the end of the world.
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Tim Collins on April 12, 2012, 12:25:15 PM
As has been mentioned before in this thread, this is all speculation and as such shouldn't be taken as Gospel truth.
...

Thanks Jeff, sometimes people need to be reminded of that. And in the case of this thread I'll offer a quote from the first post (emphasis added) as a reminder:
...  It's just for fun so lets see your idea of what happened!

Question: On the assumption that Nessie is indeed what we all hope it is, at what point did it come to be? On landing? In which case the probability that one or both AE & FN had been severely injured as a result would seem exceedingly high (depending, of course, on how fast the Electra was going when it encountered the fissure). Or is it more likely that the gear became stuck as the Electra washed around in the surf?  I would tend to go with the latter
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Jeff Victor Hayden on April 12, 2012, 01:19:20 PM
Would it make sense to say that it must have been the left gear that went pot-holing? The right engine needed to be above water and the prop not in contact with the reef to run the battery charging circuit?
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Adam Marsland on April 12, 2012, 02:48:13 PM
I think it's totally subjective, and I told you why.  Your detailed response, which I think displayed a bit of confusion about some of the facts of the case, rather reinforced that impression.  But hey, man, that's great.  We're all here to kick around ideas and valid criticism is a part of that.  But you have to be able to take it as well as dish it out -- if someone takes the logical basis of your criticisms apart, that's just what you should expect.  If you're not used to having that done, I am sorry.  But it is a two-way street.
LTM, as they say... :)

Hello Adam

Nowhere have I seen where you have taken the logical basis of my comments apart. All you said was that I discounted some of the evidence without much comment. Some things are so vague in their material associations with the hypothesis or provide so little diagnostic evidence that comment is unnecessary. I commend TIGHAR for noting these limitations in its discussion of the items - it is a pity that some of their supporters appear unable to do the same.

Initially I was asked what my hypothesis was concerning the fate of Earhart and Noonan, which I answered by providing a brief synopsis of the four main hypotheses and which I qualified by saying honestly that I felt that there was insufficient evidence available for me to make a choice of any of them. To support my concerns I briefly mentioned the problem of the archaeology of the finds on Nikumaroro, as archaeology is the specific discipline in which I have some experience - Masters, Ph.D, fieldwork in various parts of the world etc.

My main fault it appears, is that I have not unequivocally accepted the Gardner Island hypothesis although as I recall I have never said that I don't accept it. All I have ever said is that it, like the others, remains unproven. If you find that hard to understand then there is no more I can say to make it clearer to you.

Um, no, Malcolm.  Again you confuse evidence with proof, equal consideration of evidence with blind acceptance...which is exactly the basis by which I did, indeed, question the scientific basis for your conclusions...as opposed to having an opinion or a theory you like, which everyone has a right to.

The issue is simply that you discard, or attach must less evidentiary weight to, compelling data points that support the TIGHAR hypothesis, for no objective reason.  You continue to talk about conclusive data, but evidence, as I continue to point out to you, need not be conclusive.  It's just information to be weighed.  I think it would be fair to say in the matter of the bones, that you elevate the first-hand examination of the bones to a very low standard of proof, despite questions about the doctor's qualifications, whereas you hold the information that TIGHAR has contributed to the question to a much higher standard of proof.  I've already stated, from the beginning, that there is conflicting data, so to suggest that I am advocating for accepting TIGHAR's theory blindly is intellectually dishonest to suggest.  I am merely pointing out that you are choosing to accept certain evidence as reliable and reject other evidence as questionable for totally arbitrary reasons.

That's fine; that's your right.  But it IS a bias in your thinking from my perspective.  And I've pointed it out repeatedly, and given you examples.  You just did it again, in the posts above, by affecting to make it about "unequivocally" accepting TIGHAR's  evidence as opposed to considering it fairly and equally with other data points at hand.

Perhaps if I restate the bones question in another way you will take my point:  the identification of the bones as a male native rests ONLY on Hoodless' evaluation.  Other than perhaps the physical location of the island, which also may have been suggestive to Hoodless, all of the evidence uncovered to my understanding points to a European female.  I am not suggesting that we throw out Hoodless' examination.  I agree that as the only first person examination of the bones, it carries considerable evidentiary weight.  I am saying that as one otherwise unsubstantiated data point, there is plenty of reason to call it into question.  The evidence is more than sufficient to ask whether Hoodless may have been wrong.  It is not the same as proving him wrong.  It doesn't need to be.  It's a question of weighing evidence equally and fairly.
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Adam Marsland on April 12, 2012, 02:57:51 PM
Jeff -- Just so we're clear, I was suggesting that Gary's little scenario was totally nonsensical on day one, when we believe they had a working radio and gas and a battery and a plane that was likely to go over the reef at any moment.  It makes absolutely no sense that Amelia would abandon the radio and an injured navigator on the off chance there might be someone around, particularly if she was moving slowly.  She'd also probably hope that if someone was on the island, they would hear the crash and come to investigate. 

Once the plane was over the edge and/or the radio no longer worked, though, yeah -- no problem with Gary's scenario.  My issue was with his repeated assertion that that was something they would plausibly do as soon as they landed.  No.  Way.  Plus, not supported by the evidence we have, but that's another issue.
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Adam Marsland on April 12, 2012, 03:19:02 PM
Very probably. I think there's a distinction here that maybe I'm not making clear enough.

Day one -- odds are there's no one on the island for the reasons you just said, and the radio is our best bet.  Stay put.

Day five -- no radio, no likely prospect of rescue, crappy location for survival, we don't know for absolute certainty no one else is here, or that there isn't some other human facility on the island (e.g. a bivouac).  Our best bet now is to go see what's here.

To me it's all about timing, and weighing the odds for survival of a particular course of action at a given point on the curve.
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Chris Johnson on April 12, 2012, 03:22:01 PM
Day one is all about staying put, you have shelter, food, water and a means of communication.

Day 5 and yes you cut loose and look for shelter, water and food.
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Adam Marsland on April 12, 2012, 03:23:20 PM
Day one is all about staying put, you have shelter, food, water and a means of communication.

Day 5 and yes you cut loose and look for shelter, water and food.

Exactly. 
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Oskar Erich Heinrich Haberlandt on April 12, 2012, 03:53:02 PM
Scenario: After the landing, A.E. has one thought in her mind: "I hope there will be a search and they will find us!" Therefore she stays NEAR the plane, because the plane would be seen first from above. But then the plane is covered with water, and A.E. knows: "They won't see the Electra, so I must show them I AM HERE!" So she makes a big sign at the beach that could be seen clearly from above. She knows, that is the only way to save her life. SHE MUST BE SEEN!
And what found Lambrecht? No Electra, no S.O.S on the beach, no sign that would show him that A.E. and F.N were there. Nothing at all. And so I ask: WHY?
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Chris Johnson on April 12, 2012, 03:57:36 PM
Because they were in tne forset looking for deadwood to make a sign when the planes flew other?

They wrote an SOS in the sand and no one saw it?

Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Chris Johnson on April 12, 2012, 05:02:02 PM
OK the bird lands and the left peg gets stuck somehow.  AE can still send radio etc for a few days.  Then at least one of them decamps to start a new survival thread????????
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Jeff Victor Hayden on April 12, 2012, 08:02:17 PM
Quote
Not so clear is when it might have sheared off the airplane, if that was the case.  The airplane could have been pinned to that spot in the early few days by the gear, and later separated - damaged trunnion mounts, etc. finally yielding to forces from the sea and wind. 

If the gear was wedged in pretty good Jeff and, I suspect it would have been as the Electra weighs quite a bit even on empty. Then it wouldn't take long for the wave, wind and tide action to tear the gear off because the whole plane, still bouyant at this stage, would be pivoting around the left gear trunnion mounts when the water was deep enough to float it, IMHO
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Jeff Victor Hayden on April 12, 2012, 08:12:00 PM
Quote
Day 5 and yes you cut loose and look for shelter, water and food.

Chris, did they have 5 days supply of water onboard the Electra or 24 hours supply? If 5 days then OK if 24 hours then 4 days without water not good IMHO

Quote
You fly to an island, possibly circle it and then put down.  If it was inhabitated wouldn't the islanders come and look for you? Especialy if you can walk around the island in less than a day?


Good thinking Chris, easily overlooked point well made.
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Malcolm McKay on April 12, 2012, 09:48:25 PM

Um, no, Malcolm.  Again you confuse evidence with proof, equal consideration of evidence with blind acceptance...which is exactly the basis by which I did, indeed, question the scientific basis for your conclusions...as opposed to having an opinion or a theory you like, which everyone has a right to.

The issue is simply that you discard, or attach must less evidentiary weight to, compelling data points that support the TIGHAR hypothesis, for no objective reason.  You continue to talk about conclusive data, but evidence, as I continue to point out to you, need not be conclusive.  It's just information to be weighed.

Hello Adam.

Tell me which compelling evidence it is that I have dismissed without proper discussion which in your opinion supports the TIGHAR hypothesis. As you will have read in my discussion of the skeletal data reexamination my main concern was the tendency for people to confuse the notion of probable with certainty so your comments regarding my concerns about it show an inability on your part to catch the subtle but vital distinction I was making.
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Malcolm McKay on April 13, 2012, 01:34:25 AM
Scenario: After the landing, A.E. has one thought in her mind: "I hope there will be a search and they will find us!" Therefore she stays NEAR the plane, because the plane would be seen first from above. But then the plane is covered with water, and A.E. knows: "They won't see the Electra, so I must show them I AM HERE!" So she makes a big sign at the beach that could be seen clearly from above. She knows, that is the only way to save her life. SHE MUST BE SEEN!
And what found Lambrecht? No Electra, no S.O.S on the beach, no sign that would show him that A.E. and F.N were there. Nothing at all. And so I ask: WHY?

A very good question. I have always thought that staying on the shore near the Norwich City wreck to be preferable to going elsewhere on the island in that short period before lack of food and more importantly water overtook them. The wreck was the most naturally visible feature on the island and anybody flying there would be drawn to it as a starting point for a search. So staying near it is logical.

The largest land mass of Nikumaroro is at the north west corner of the island, it has coconuts and would be a place one could reasonably expect to dig a well with some hope of success. I am not suggesting that they dug a well - it is a possibility they might have briefly considered but the reality is that it would be hard work given their deteriorating physical condition and lack of appropriate tools. Not like in movies where the explorers expiring from dehydration dig frantically with their hands in a nice dry sandy river bottom and are rewarded with a muddy trickle. It would also serve as a good base for exploratory treks around the island - if the bones are Earhart's, something that I remain to be convinced of, then perhaps they are there because she simply collapsed and could go no further while searching for food or water after a rain squall, on a walk, a few days or a week or so after the landing. Why her purported shoe is on the other side of the lagoon is strange - carried there by a crab attracted to the leather? dropped as she succumbed to delirium? Not hers at all? Who knows but I would suggest that walking in bare feet would be both painful and very debilitating so perhaps when that happened both she and Noonan were at the end of their rope.

Noonan could have been with her, after all we are only extrapolating from a garbled and badly recalled radio message that he was injured, and he moved on, preferring not to remain in the vicinity of a rapidly decomposing and hurriedly covered body that was becoming a crab magnet and died somewhere else. All very tragic and good stuff for a reenactment in a TV special but there isn't much real evidence to support it. Just like any other reconstruction of their last days if they made it to Nikumaroro.   
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Gary LaPook on April 13, 2012, 01:50:25 AM

Your only reason to believe that Noonan was injured is the message that Betty claimed to have heard. See Brandenberg's original analysis of the probability of Betty hearing Earhart. (https://tighar.org/smf/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=625.0;attach=1952) This shows only a one chance in 878 and that only existed for the first half hour. In the next hour the probability of Betty actually hearing Earhart dropped off to only 1 chance in 344,827!  For the last 15 minute period the probability increased to 1 chance in 50,000. The current listing for the Betty reception doesn't break it down into these three periods but it makes sense that the periods mentioned in the first Brandenberg table also hold true for the current listing, so after the first half hour the chance of Betty continuing to hear Earhart dropped off to Brandenberg's new estimate contained in the new listing  (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/ResearchPapers/Brandenburg/signalcatalog4.html#ID52130KK)of one chance in one-million-four-hundred-ninty-two- thousand-five-hundred and thirty seven (1/0.00000067 = 1,492,537) yet the claim is that Betty heard Earhart for an hour and 45 minutes. Or to put it another way, even Brandenberg, using all of his electronics acumen, ends up showing  that the odds against Betty being able to hear Earhart for the period that she claimed is 1,492,536 to 1.


gl
I just realized that I should not have said, based on Brandenberg's investigation, that there was only one chance in one-million-four-hundred-ninty-two- thousand-five-hundred and thirty seven that the signal would be received in Florida, where Betty lived, strong enough for her to hear it for the period of time she claimed. I calculated this by using Brandenberg's probability of reception, 0.00000067, and taking the inverse of it, 1/0.00000067 which produced the number I listed showing that there was only one chance in one-million-four-hundred-ninty-two- thousand-five-hundred and thirty seven that Betty could receive a signal from Gardner. The reason that I should not have said that there was only one chance in one-million-four-hundred-ninty-two- thousand-five-hundred and thirty seven (1,492,537) is because Brandenberg only gave his probability value, 0.00000067, to a precision of only two digits, two significant figures. Since he showed only two digits it is not correct to show the inverse of that number, one-million-four-hundred-ninty-two- thousand-five-hundred and thirty seven (1,492,537), to a precision of 7 digits even though taking the inverse of 0.00000067 produces exactly one-million-four-hundred-ninty-two- thousand-five-hundred and thirty seven (1,492,537.) So I want to correct my prior statement and instead of stating it to an unwarranted precision of 7 digits, only 1 chance in 1,492,537, I will state it instead to the warranted precision of two digits, 1,500,000 to one or 1.5 million to one. I hope I haven't confused anyone by my use of 1,492,537 to one instead of the more proper 1.5 million to one.

gl
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Gary LaPook on April 13, 2012, 03:03:06 AM
Jeff -- Just so we're clear, I was suggesting that Gary's little scenario was totally nonsensical on day one, when we believe they had a working radio and gas and a battery and a plane that was likely to go over the reef at any moment.  It makes absolutely no sense that Amelia would abandon the radio and an injured navigator on the off chance there might be someone around, particularly if she was moving slowly.  She'd also probably hope that if someone was on the island, they would hear the crash and come to investigate. 

Once the plane was over the edge and/or the radio no longer worked, though, yeah -- no problem with Gary's scenario.  My issue was with his repeated assertion that that was something they would plausibly do as soon as they landed.  No.  Way.  Plus, not supported by the evidence we have, but that's another issue.

I said she should look for help on the second day since she only had half a day left after her arrival on Gardner.

Just because you believe that they had a working transmitter based on the reports of later radio receptions, what makes you think that Earhart believed that her transmitter was working? She never got any responses to the messages she sent to Itasca. Just because the radio lights up doesn't mean that it is putting out any signal. Even if it did work, she would have no way to know that, she got no feedback to confirm that it was actually working. In fact, there is reason to believe that the transmitter die not work since no transmissions from the plane were heard by Itasca during the three hour flight down to Gardner and it is logical that she was attempting to send messages about her location and plans at that time. And there is certainly no reason that either Earhart or Noonan were "McGivers" with any knowledge of how to troubleshoot a radio problem or to fix one if they found it.

"Amelia, please go and see if you can find some medical help for me, I'm really busted up and I know I will die before help can arrive from Howland, I can't last more than one or two days. My only hope is that there is someone, somewhere on this island to help me or I am lost."

"There, there, Fred it'll be alright. I want to stay here for five more days and send out radio distress calls."

"Amelia, that radio ain't working, no one ever responded to us, it's busted, go get me some help."

"There, there Fred it will be alright."

"Tell you what Amelia, if I am going to die here because you won't try to get me some help, I am going to use my sextant box to bash in your head, and take you with me!"

gl


Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Heath Smith on April 13, 2012, 04:24:07 AM
Quote
And there is certainly no reason that either Earhart or Noonan were "McGivers" with any knowledge of how to troubleshoot a radio problem or to fix one if they found it.

If the belly antenna was ripped off at Lae it, and they did land on the reef as the theory goes, it is possible the could have rigged up an antenna using wiring in the Electra. This antenna was used for reception correct? Perhaps that is why Betty's notebook seems to indicate that AE was hearing others on whatever frequency she was using.

Quote
In fact, there is reason to believe that the transmitter die not work since no transmissions from the plane were heard by Itasca during the three hour flight down to Gardner and it is logical that she was attempting to send messages about her location and plans at that time.

Do we know if the Itasca or Howland had a functioning receiver for 6210Khz (her daytime frequency)? It seems that only the receivers at Lae and Nauru heard her on that frequency. One of the last transmissions indicated that she was going to repeat messages on 6210Khz. Perhaps she stayed with 6210Khz and was transmitting after the last message at 20:13GMT on 3105Khz but was not heard by the Itasca or Howland. If her receiving antenna was indeed broken, and she had no idea whether she was heard on 3105Khz, why not just stay with 6210Khz that she believed had a better daytime range?

It is also possible that there were other transmissions missed by both the Itasca and Howland as they talked with each other (passing on the dope), played with direction finder on Howland that was hopelessly broken, sending out Morse code to AE, or were flat out talking over the top of her instead of listening. It is interesting that in the lessons learned after the fact, there was never any mention about procedures within the CG to prevent missing critical messages due to their lack of internal coordination and methodology. That was an internal CG problem, not AE's problem.

I am fairly convinced that they completely missing the 17:47GMT message. If they could have heard just a few more words from AE, for example that they were in cloudy conditions, this could have changed the entire outcome of the search and rescue operations.
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Oskar Erich Heinrich Haberlandt on April 13, 2012, 04:45:16 AM
Scenario: After the landing, A.E. has one thought in her mind: "I hope there will be a search and they will find us!" Therefore she stays NEAR the plane, because the plane would be seen first from above. But then the plane is covered with water, and A.E. knows: "They won't see the Electra, so I must show them I AM HERE!" So she makes a big sign at the beach that could be seen clearly from above. She knows, that is the only way to save her life. SHE MUST BE SEEN!
And what found Lambrecht? No Electra, no S.O.S on the beach, no sign that would show him that A.E. and F.N were there. Nothing at all. And so I ask: WHY?



A very good question. I have always thought that staying on the shore near the Norwich City wreck to be preferable to going elsewhere on the island in that short period before lack of food and more importantly water overtook them. The wreck was the most naturally visible feature on the island and anybody flying there would be drawn to it as a starting point for a search. So staying near it is logical.

The largest land mass of Nikumaroro is at the north west corner of the island, it has coconuts and would be a place one could reasonably expect to dig a well with some hope of success. I am not suggesting that they dug a well - it is a possibility they might have briefly considered but the reality is that it would be hard work given their deteriorating physical condition and lack of appropriate tools. Not like in movies where the explorers expiring from dehydration dig frantically with their hands in a nice dry sandy river bottom and are rewarded with a muddy trickle. It would also serve as a good base for exploratory treks around the island - if the bones are Earhart's, something that I remain to be convinced of, then perhaps they are there because she simply collapsed and could go no further while searching for food or water after a rain squall, on a walk, a few days or a week or so after the landing. Why her purported shoe is on the other side of the lagoon is strange - carried there by a crab attracted to the leather? dropped as she succumbed to delirium? Not hers at all? Who knows but I would suggest that walking in bare feet would be both painful and very debilitating so perhaps when that happened both she and Noonan were at the end of their rope.

Noonan could have been with her, after all we are only extrapolating from a garbled and badly recalled radio message that he was injured, and he moved on, preferring not to remain in the vicinity of a rapidly decomposing and hurriedly covered body that was becoming a crab magnet and died somewhere else. All very tragic and good stuff for a reenactment in a TV special but there isn't much real evidence to support it. Just like any other reconstruction of their last days if they made it to Nikumaroro.

Back to Lambrecht: As far as I know (please correct me if I'm wrong) nobody ever asked him what he meant with "Signs of recent habitation". I think, it would be very, very interesting to know that. It would have great influence upon our discussion here!
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Malcolm McKay on April 13, 2012, 04:54:28 AM
Well the problem is that lots of people are assuming that because of the Betty radio message that on Nikumaroro, Amelia is OK and poor Fred is helpless. Now as there is nothing to support that hypothesis how about this one.

Earhart, not the greatest pilot on Earth as we are aware, bounces the Electra down on the reef, in the process breaking off one undercarriage leg, and finally wakes up to the fact that she has got both of them well and truly in the s**t. Noonan a man we all know of some experience in nautical and command matters finally tells her -

"Amelia, this your fault, the radio was working but you have stuffed it by not transmitting long enough at any time for anyone to get a fix and we get ourselves lost. I'm here because your husband was well aware you couldn't navigate to save your life and you would need an expert to get you across the ocean. Now stop fiddling with the radio - no one is listening. Let's get out of this tin can, its hot, a wreck and the next wave will probably drown us in it, and head for the shore."

Once ashore after a couple of acrimonious days Amelia well aware of her limitations, after being really made aware of them by Noonan, storms off to the south of the island and succumbs finally to thirst due to her usual inability to pay attention to detail.

Fred, thoroughly glad to see the end of her, stays near the shore of the north part of the island near the wreck and succumbs himself to thirst and hunger. Being near the shore his body is washed out to sea by a high tide or storm and then disappears.

Works for me.
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Tim Collins on April 13, 2012, 06:48:31 AM
Well the problem is that lots of people are assuming that because of the Betty radio message that on Nikumaroro, Amelia is OK and poor Fred is helpless. Now as there is nothing to support that hypothesis how about this one.

Earhart, not the greatest pilot on Earth as we are aware, bounces the Electra down on the reef, in the process breaking off one undercarriage leg, and finally wakes up to the fact that she has got both of them well and truly in the s**t. Noonan a man we all know of some experience in nautical and command matters finally tells her -

"Amelia, this your fault, the radio was working but you have stuffed it by not transmitting long enough at any time for anyone to get a fix and we get ourselves lost. I'm here because your husband was well aware you couldn't navigate to save your life and you would need an expert to get you across the ocean. Now stop fiddling with the radio - no one is listening. Let's get out of this tin can, its hot, a wreck and the next wave will probably drown us in it, and head for the shore."

Once ashore after a couple of acrimonious days Amelia well aware of her limitations, after being really made aware of them by Noonan, storms off to the south of the island and succumbs finally to thirst due to her usual inability to pay attention to detail.

Fred, thoroughly glad to see the end of her, stays near the shore of the north part of the island near the wreck and succumbs himself to thirst and hunger. Being near the shore his body is washed out to sea by a high tide or storm and then disappears.

Works for me.

Perfect! Write it up in sceenplay form and have it on my desk in the morning.
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Bruce Thomas on April 13, 2012, 06:53:31 AM
Back to Lambrecht: As far as I know (please correct me if I'm wrong) nobody ever asked him what he meant with "Signs of recent habitation". I think, it would be very, very interesting to know that. It would have great influence upon our discussion here!
You're wrong.  A simple search of the TIGHAR site using the keywords "lambrecht interview habitation" reveals he was asked what he meant (Ric gave a brief summary (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,517.msg6607.html#msg6607); also see an entry in the old Earhart forum (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Forum/Highlights101_120/highlights114.html#4)) by Fred Goerner back in the early 1970s.  Alas, Lambrecht's response was equally sparse -- he said he saw "markers," but with no further description of what that meant.
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Oskar Erich Heinrich Haberlandt on April 13, 2012, 07:43:24 AM
Back to Lambrecht: As far as I know (please correct me if I'm wrong) nobody ever asked him what he meant with "Signs of recent habitation". I think, it would be very, very interesting to know that. It would have great influence upon our discussion here!
You're wrong.  A simple search of the TIGHAR site using the keywords "lambrecht interview habitation" reveals he was asked what he meant (Ric gave a brief summary (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,517.msg6607.html#msg6607); also see an entry in the old Earhart forum (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Forum/Highlights101_120/highlights114.html#4)) by Fred Goerner back in the early 1970s.  Alas, Lambrecht's response was equally sparse -- he said he saw "markers," but with no further description of what that meant.

Ok, thanks for the link. But the result is the same: He WAS asked but he had to tell nothing...
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Malcolm McKay on April 13, 2012, 08:31:39 AM

Ok, thanks for the link. But the result is the same: He WAS asked but he had to tell nothing...

That really is the annoying thing isn't it - just like the lost skeletal material. The stuff of hypotheses but not of answers.

The other thing is what I alluded to in a tongue in cheek fashion in my post about Fred and Amelia going their separate ways on the island. The point is that all we have in the way of evidence to surmise that Noonan was injured is that Betty account. But is that a red herring? Let's look at it another way.

By the time of the world flight Earhart was both a celebrity and a source of income for George Putnam through sales of her books and a cut from the lecture circuit fees. But for all her fame we must face the fact that Earhart was not a great pilot and by 1937 trips like this were becoming a bit passe. In 1937 if you had the money you could fly around the world as a passenger - it was a slow and uncomfortable trip but international civil aviation was expanding rapidly. Earhart was not demonstrating anything new or undertaking some new exploit that would advance aviation in any way. She was simply doing it as a personal trip to earn money as a celebrity. In plain speak as far as aviation science was concerned the trip was unnecessary.

She was not a good navigator so she couldn't be allowed to undertake the flight solo so Noonan who was an accomplished navigator, seaman and a pilot himself was hired to be the navigator. He had already achieved a promising position in aviation circles - he didn't need the flight to advance his career, he was hired to navigate Earhart from point A to point B in the best and quickest fashion. A solid professional brief. Earhart is a celebrity but Noonan is a professional well respected navigator.

So by the time they leave for Howland he has had plenty of time to learn all about Earhart's piloting skills and her personality. Before the flight she is billed as in charge, the captain, the valiant aviatrix - all good stuff for the forthcoming book and her reputation, but is that what is happening on the flight away from the public gaze? I suspect that someone like Noonan who is much more used to command than Earhart is capable of sometimes making sure that Earhart doesn't get too big for those brown oxfords. Long intimate lonely hours of flight when each are judging the other's capacity and abilities would mean some conflict of wills - some of which I suspect Noonan would win.

Now when the Electra bumps down on the reef as is supposed (still open to question) what happens. Betty's intercept suggests that Earhart is in charge and Noonan is having a panic attack. I don't see it frankly - Noonan is not a panicky type, he's a mariner with captain's rank. In fact I suspect that Noonan quickly notes the failure of the distress calls and gets them out of the Electra and on to the island because being an experienced seaman he knows that if they are in it when a big wave hits they will be drowned. So if he takes charge which he is quite capable of doing what then happens. In all this discussion the focus is on Earhart - even after death she is in charge, she is the aviatrix in the history books while Noonan is relegated to almost a footnote. We forget that he was the person responsible for all their safe arrivals - Earhart is just the driver, without Noonan's navigation she couldn't have made the trip or got as far as she did.

There is much discussion about the skeleton found by Gallagher  - is it Earhart or is it a castaway Polynesian, but the important thing that is missing is Noonan's skeleton. Why isn't it near the one found in south east - where are his remains and do we really have the usual movie script fate for them of Noonan succumbing as a weak sickly figure cared for by Earhart? or is the script darker and there are real tensions because Noonan blames Earhart for the predicament they are in? I do not see Noonan as the weak victim in this story - is the fact that there is only one skeleton evidence that they had simply split up unable to put up with each other any longer.
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Jeff Victor Hayden on April 13, 2012, 09:58:08 AM
He might have gone down with the ship like a good captain does in Hollywood films Malcolm ;D
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Chris Johnson on April 13, 2012, 10:04:09 AM
Malcolm,

not sure if you've seen this thread Was Fred Noonan Injured during the landing (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,352.0.html)

I argue that radio evidence suggests an un injured Fred until Betty's note book.  I like your idea that he is trying to take control to save the day.

Alternativly he could have been injured after the crash.

As to his remains they could be anywhere, even near the seven site under some Vola that hasn't been cleared.
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: John Ousterhout on April 13, 2012, 01:01:21 PM
Why would they stay in the aircraft when the tide began coming in?   They couldn't run the engine once the water got deep enough, and the plane was hot in the afternoon sun.  They would reasonably head towards shade and dry land.  How long would it be until they could return to the aircraft and try transmitting?  6 to 10 hours?  That's enough time to slip on the reef and get injured, and to get awfully thirsty if/when no water was found.  The best hope for signalling rescue would be the radio.  There's no point in making a sign on the beach while the big shiny airplane is sitting there.  A week later, without water, they probably wouldn't be capable of much of any activity.
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Malcolm McKay on April 13, 2012, 07:36:01 PM
For Chris and Jeff.

Thanks for those comments on my speculation - which of course is all it is.

Concerning possibly injury to Noonan, it occurs to me that if he was injured in a putative landing on the outer reef then it must have been a far more damaging landing than just a normal but bumpy 3 pointer. Perhaps so damaging as to result in one u/c leg being torn off which then would result in what we see in the "Nessie" pic (that is hypothesis, but not impossible). But wouldn't he be aware that a reef landing was coming up and made the effort to properly brace himself? I simply can't imagine Earhart just putting the plane down there, if she did, without giving him plenty of warning. So was he actually injured?

Concerning Betty's notebook. The problem with recollections of events so long after, even with the notes as an aide memoire is that these become embellished in our minds. Perhaps the panic Betty hears isn't panic but simply Noonan telling Earhart to stop fiddling with the radio and get out of the aircraft because if you stay here any longer you will be drowned. Noonan is not panicking but exercising his authority in the manner of a seasoned skipper. He knows that one good wave or a rising tide can float the aircraft off the reef.

Also Earhart is no doubt a golden girl in 1937 to many people. One need only look at our current cult of celebrity to see the phenomenon at work. Any accounts of events like the Betty notes by ordinary people are going relegate Noonan to a secondary role because the press campaign has pushed Earhart to the front. So even Betty's account, accurate or not, is going to have that bias.

There are many extraneous influences at work in the narrative of the final days and they also have to be recognised.

Quick addition  Regarding the skeletal material I am neither accepting it or rejecting it as being Earhart's, simply I like many others would like to see more found which would then lead to a better opportunity for DNA or MitDNA sampling. Noonan's remains location is a vital part of the puzzle, but finding them would be a very difficult task. I suspect somewhere on the NW foreshore area but that is easy for me to say  :D   
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Brad Beeching on April 13, 2012, 07:59:41 PM
If any of the theory is true, one of the reasons I believe Mr. Noonan was injured is that there are at least two post loss reports in which the listener said Amelia had said he was. I think on page two of the Mabel Duncklee Letters (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Letters/Duncklee.pdf) She mentions his being injured. I thought I saw where her account has been more or less discounted as low on the probability chart, but isn't it odd that she used the same language as Betty? Could she have been somewhere else when she heard it and just misremembered it? There are others who heard Amelia (http://tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/2000Vol_16/otherears.pdf) calling for help and also saying he was injured. So now (if any reports are true) we have several people saying the same thing, that they were both injured, Fred being the worse off. There has been some discussion about Fred being delirious and he wouldn't do this or that. When I read the notes that Betty wrote, I get a picture like Ric described: a 911 call.  But my point of all this is best described in an anecdote: When I was in the Army, I once had the misfortune to see a man GROUND into three distinct and very seperate pieces between the treads of two M-60A1 tanks. He remained alert and continually tried to pull himself erect. He also continued to fight with the very people who were doing everything possible to save his life. Now I do NOT believe Fred was as seriously injured as that, but just that what Betty described sounded to me to be the same kind of reaction. I myself fought with my wife when I had a heartattack last year, I was batting her away and tried to get up several times, so I guess I can imagine what they were going through.

But to add to what Mr. LaPook and Mr. McKay wrote, Maybe Ole Fred did tell her to carry her butt to the other end of the dang island! Or how about a murder scene, Fred has gone bonkers and lures her to the 7 site, gives her a delectable little fish with spines all over it, and gets even for having dumped his *ss on a deserted island, no water, no food, no rum... :o

Brad

"why is the rum always gone?"
"Hide the rum!"
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Malcolm McKay on April 13, 2012, 09:19:42 PM

Agree - very possible, and Gary LaPook pointed that out as well I believe: if no one was hurt in the Luke Field crash, then why would a lesser impact injure Fred? ...


LTM -

Thanks Jeff, it is a conundrum.

Yes a later rapid infection is possible - these things can come on very quickly. About 4 years ago I was hospitalized with an infected lower left leg. I went from fit and healthy one day to, in the space of two days, be flat on my back in hospital with a leg that looked like it had been deep fried. For the first three days the doctors were debating whether amputation was the only answer as the infection was so bad that it was life threatening. Luckily I suffered neither amputation nor death because the massive cocktail of antibiotics finally beat whatever bug it was - that took five days and I can tell you I was hallucinating like crazy. Hippies would have paid good money for the trip I was off on  ;D  I was utterly immobilised and despite the drugs, the pain in the leg, if any pressure was applied, was indescribable.

But despite close examination of the leg and questioning me no one could work out how I contracted it. In fact I couldn't recall any cut, minor injury or insect bite in the week before it - it just came out of nowhere so I can understand a scenario that sees Noonan succumb to an infection from a cut very quickly. In 1937 there were no antibiotics and certainly nothing available to Earhart and Noonan to treat an infection.

Still I remain sceptical about the Betty diary - not that I am accusing her or others of fraud but that memories play tricks, especially with recollections of an unexpected and garbled radio message. The gist of the messages may be there but the interpretation could be amiss.   
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Malcolm McKay on April 13, 2012, 10:01:27 PM
I think on page two of the Mabel Duncklee Letters (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Letters/Duncklee.pdf) She mentions his being injured. I thought I saw where her account has been more or less discounted as low on the probability chart, but isn't it odd that she used the same language as Betty?

I must admit I have a low probability rating for the Mabel Duncklee account as well, not only for the reasons given. It is the second part of that which is not quoted in the TIGHAR bulletin but appears in the PDF of the letter itself on the TIGHAR files that concerns me. That is the account she gives of her son's experience with which she agrees - he says that Earhart and Noonan are buried by friendly natives on an inhabited island. That to me sounds like it has the Saipan or Gilberts hypothesis rolled in. No identity for the island is given - sounds like scuttlebutt rather than a verified account to me.
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Chris Johnson on April 14, 2012, 01:38:57 AM
Was watching the Helecopter Flight over NIKU last night and it struck me how much of the island didn't get cultivated (windward side) and thus how much of the island could be hideing Fred remains. 

Say they both travelled south to the 7 site, scavenging food and water as they go.  AE expires and the crabs move in.  FN moves on up the windward side with its large Buka forest before himself expiring.
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Gary LaPook on April 14, 2012, 02:24:42 AM
But my point of all this is best described in an anecdote: When I was in the Army, I once had the misfortune to see a man GROUND into three distinct and very seperate pieces between the treads of two M-60A1 tanks. He remained alert and continually tried to pull himself erect. He also continued to fight with the very people who were doing everything possible to save his life.
As we told our students at Ft. Knox, "A tank is designed to kill people and it doesn't care who." I remember one gristly accident that occurred, I wasn't there when it happened (had I been there it wouldn't have happened!), I arrived just a few minutes later. One M60A1 tank wouldn't start so they were slave starting it with another M60A1. The driver had pulled his tank into position nose-to-nose with the dead tank and had passed the slave cables from his hatch to the driver in the other tank by the guy standing between the tanks holding the cables up (you probably see what's coming.) The operating tank driver revved up his engine to make more juice and the brakes didn't hold and the guy in the middle got pinched in half by the sharp leading edges of the hulls, kinda like a big pair of scissors. He was still screaming when I got there but not for very long. How many times can your tell people that when slave starting a tank you pull the operating tank in at right angles to the dead tank so the guy passing the cable can't get caught in the middle.

gl
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Adam Marsland on April 14, 2012, 02:46:42 AM

Um, no, Malcolm.  Again you confuse evidence with proof, equal consideration of evidence with blind acceptance...which is exactly the basis by which I did, indeed, question the scientific basis for your conclusions...as opposed to having an opinion or a theory you like, which everyone has a right to.

The issue is simply that you discard, or attach must less evidentiary weight to, compelling data points that support the TIGHAR hypothesis, for no objective reason.  You continue to talk about conclusive data, but evidence, as I continue to point out to you, need not be conclusive.  It's just information to be weighed.

Hello Adam.

Tell me which compelling evidence it is that I have dismissed without proper discussion which in your opinion supports the TIGHAR hypothesis. As you will have read in my discussion of the skeletal data reexamination my main concern was the tendency for people to confuse the notion of probable with certainty so your comments regarding my concerns about it show an inability on your part to catch the subtle but vital distinction I was making.

Did that in my very first post, my friend.  And as for the vital distinction you think I'm missing, that is the exact distinction I keep pointing out you yourself seem to be missing.  And round and round we go.  So shall we move on? 
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Adam Marsland on April 14, 2012, 02:54:52 AM
Jeff -- Just so we're clear, I was suggesting that Gary's little scenario was totally nonsensical on day one, when we believe they had a working radio and gas and a battery and a plane that was likely to go over the reef at any moment.  It makes absolutely no sense that Amelia would abandon the radio and an injured navigator on the off chance there might be someone around, particularly if she was moving slowly.  She'd also probably hope that if someone was on the island, they would hear the crash and come to investigate. 

Once the plane was over the edge and/or the radio no longer worked, though, yeah -- no problem with Gary's scenario.  My issue was with his repeated assertion that that was something they would plausibly do as soon as they landed.  No.  Way.  Plus, not supported by the evidence we have, but that's another issue.

I said she should look for help on the second day since she only had half a day left after her arrival on Gardner.

Just because you believe that they had a working transmitter based on the reports of later radio receptions, what makes you think that Earhart believed that her transmitter was working? She never got any responses to the messages she sent to Itasca. Just because the radio lights up doesn't mean that it is putting out any signal. Even if it did work, she would have no way to know that, she got no feedback to confirm that it was actually working. In fact, there is reason to believe that the transmitter die not work since no transmissions from the plane were heard by Itasca during the three hour flight down to Gardner and it is logical that she was attempting to send messages about her location and plans at that time. And there is certainly no reason that either Earhart or Noonan were "McGivers" with any knowledge of how to troubleshoot a radio problem or to fix one if they found it.

"Amelia, please go and see if you can find some medical help for me, I'm really busted up and I know I will die before help can arrive from Howland, I can't last more than one or two days. My only hope is that there is someone, somewhere on this island to help me or I am lost."

"There, there, Fred it'll be alright. I want to stay here for five more days and send out radio distress calls."

"Amelia, that radio ain't working, no one ever responded to us, it's busted, go get me some help."

"There, there Fred it will be alright."

"Tell you what Amelia, if I am going to die here because you won't try to get me some help, I am going to use my sextant box to bash in your head, and take you with me!"

gl

You said day one, actually, Gary (read your own post), and I would say day two is still pretty early to go striking off.  But I have to say, I think you make a pretty good point about them not knowing whether or not the radio was working (this is just the kind of "putting yourself in their place" kind of speculation that I personally think can be useful in terms of thinking of new places to find answers).  My answer to that would be the radio would still be far and away their best shot.  But I think you are right that they could not be sure that it was working, though if the belly antenna theory was right and they fixed the problem, then they at least would know they had probably fixed the problem that had hampered them before and it should work.  But it's a fair question and I'm glad you brought it up.  Though living in Los Angeles as I do, I'd suggest not embarking on a screenwriting career.  Though the sextant bash is kind of a nice touch.

Now it is possible that they knew something of the situation of the search.  There's evidence that they heard the KGMB broadcast.  So they may have had some idea of what was going on from news reports.  And if so, it's possible that they knew that people were picking up their broadcasts but weren't making them out.

And I'll go a bit further and offer one hang up in the whole reef landing post-loss scenario that's never quite fit to me.  A number of the credible post-loss messages people heard a male voice.  Certainly, it could be Fred, but if we are to reconcile that with Betty's notebook and Betty's own statement of her impression that Fred was "out of his head" then why is he on the radio at all?

What's interesting about that is that IF Fred was injured and possibly non compos mentis and IF he was on the radio at some point, that does imply that Amelia took off, either to explore and/or to sleep.  Because otherwise, it wouldn't really make sense to have him on the radio.
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Adam Marsland on April 14, 2012, 03:00:02 AM
Well the problem is that lots of people are assuming that because of the Betty radio message that on Nikumaroro, Amelia is OK and poor Fred is helpless. Now as there is nothing to support that hypothesis how about this one.

A couple of people have made this same point, but the notion that Fred was severely injured comes from, IIRC, three separate credible (though of course unverified) post-loss messages.  So it's not just from Betty.  EDIT:  Sorry.  Someone else covered this.  Read first, then post, Adam!
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Adam Marsland on April 14, 2012, 03:17:29 AM
Malcolm's and others' question about Amelia and Fred separating is an interesting one.  We all agree we're working from very thin evidence, but if we are to accept provisionally most of the hypothesis, what happened to Fred is a big question.  We have very small indicators one way or the other.  Correct me if I have this right or wrong:

Evidence Fred Made It To the Seven Site:

Fecal matter (was it positively identified as such) with two different sets of DNA found at site.
Man's and woman's shoe found by natives/Gallagher.

Evidence Fred Didn't Make It To the Seven Site, Possibly Stayed/Died at Norwich City:

One set of skeletal remains found
Anecdotal reports that were retellings of the bones story mentioning two sets of bones found, one being at the 7 Site and the other near the wreck.  Further stories that natives dumped the 7 Site bones in the ocean, which cannot be true (at least not all of them), possibly explained by confusing the two sets of bones.
Fred may have been more severely injured based on various post-loss radio messages.

Anything else?  Of all of the above, one data point looms above all the others:  one set of skeletal remains.  Every other data point I can think of several other plausible explanations for.  The theory posted elsewhere that the natives found two sets of bones in '39-'40 and ditched the set that was found near the Norwich City in the ocean, thus explaining the discrepancies in various stories about the bones, makes sense to me...which would support the hypotesis of a dead Fred at the wreck site and Amelia expiring separately at 7.  But as has been pointed out, if they did exist, the Norwich City bones could easily have been from...the Norwich City.  If they get more information on what we might call the 7 Site Poop, that could be a game-changer in revealing what happened to Fred.  But if he got there, where did his bones wind up?  Truly a mystery.
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Gary LaPook on April 14, 2012, 05:05:43 AM
My answer to that would be the radio would still be far and away their best shot.  But I think you are right that they could not be sure that it was working, though if the belly antenna theory was right and they fixed the problem, then they at least would know they had probably fixed the problem that had hampered them before and it should work. But it's a fair question and I'm glad you brought it up.  Though living in Los Angeles as I do, I'd suggest not embarking on a screenwriting career.  Though the sextant bash is kind of a nice touch.

There's evidence that they heard the KGMB broadcast.

If they discovered the belly antenna missing after the landing on the reef, splashing through the water, etc, how would they know that I was missing prior to the landing? Which brings up another thing, what antenna did they use for hearing KGMB?
You're in L.A., too bad, I met Jeff Neville at the Proud Bird restaurant for dinner a couple of weeks ago,

gl

gl
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Oskar Erich Heinrich Haberlandt on April 14, 2012, 06:39:58 AM
I think on page two of the Mabel Duncklee Letters (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Letters/Duncklee.pdf) She mentions his being injured. I thought I saw where her account has been more or less discounted as low on the probability chart, but isn't it odd that she used the same language as Betty?

I must admit I have a low probability rating for the Mabel Duncklee account as well, not only for the reasons given. It is the second part of that which is not quoted in the TIGHAR bulletin but appears in the PDF of the letter itself on the TIGHAR files that concerns me. That is the account she gives of her son's experience with which she agrees - he says that Earhart and Noonan are buried by friendly natives on an inhabited island. That to me sounds like it has the Saipan or Gilberts hypothesis rolled in. No identity for the island is given - sounds like scuttlebutt rather than a verified account to me.
But it's very interesing that also in the Saipan or Gilberts hypothesis Fred Noonan is described as being injured after the landing/crash.
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on April 14, 2012, 07:34:07 AM
Fecal matter (was it positively identified as such) with two different sets of DNA found at site.

I'm not sure that a final judgment has been made on the mystery material.

The last research bulletin on DNA (March 2011) (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/59_DNAResearch/59_DNAResearch.htm) indicated it was still an open question.

Attendees could ask for an update at the Symposium (http://www.earhartsearch75.com/), I suppose.
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Malcolm McKay on April 14, 2012, 07:39:09 AM


Did that in my very first post, my friend.  And as for the vital distinction you think I'm missing, that is the exact distinction I keep pointing out you yourself seem to be missing.  And round and round we go.  So shall we move on?

Moving around in circles are we? Well I suggest that the quickest way out of a circle is straight cut - don't play games and tell me what vital piece of evidence I have dismissed, as distinct from the ones I have actually discussed.

So far, I don't know about you, but I haven't actually seen any demonstrably vital pieces of material evidence that I haven't discussed. The skeletal material is missing so we have no clear indicator that it is relevant except for the re-identification that says it is possibly, but not certainly, a caucasian female instead of a Polynesian male. Interesting as I have said but given that material is missing then it can hardly be conclusive. The answer to that is to find more bones at the site and test them, which I have already accepted as has everyone. Prove the identity and I'll accept that.

There is the female shoe fragments, at best circumstantial and very tantalising, but not conclusive. An old sextant box - now missing and what is guessed to be part of the eyepiece also missing which are claimed to be Noonan's. As they are missing then they are scarcely even circumstantial let alone be conclusively proven to be Noonan's. One piece of aluminium sheet that is of a type that could be from the Electra but again not proven as are some pieces of perspex and the purported fragment of the dado - tempting but not proven. Fragments of an ointment bottle - I wouldn't take that to court and a number of other small artifacts, zipper handles, knife blade, another shoe part, buttons etc. whose main interest lies in that they are of western origin. The latter very possibly from the one period when there was a quite a large and lasting presence of Europeans on the island - the Loran station. The cartridge cases can with safety be dismissed.

The fecal evidence is inconclusive - there is anecdotal evidence that that part of the island seems to have been a bit of a lovers lane so maybe someone needed to go real urgently. Speaking of anecdotal evidence we have the claim that when the PISS settlement was first established there was some aircraft wreckage on the reef - still only anecdotal I am afraid. The origin of the single small bone fragment was not identified The evidence of campfires and faunal remains is just that and tells nothing more than someone or a number of people had at times lit fires there and may have had something to eat - perhaps again part of the lovers lane activities then perhaps the castaways, however no firm connection either way. TIGHAR have done a very professional job in making certain that we understand the uncertainty of all that material and if we read things into it to suit our interpretation that's our fault not theirs.

Now if something major like the wreckage of the Electra is found or failing that some skeletal material is located which can yield either DNA or Mitochondrial DNA to positively identify that it is from the aviators then the small finds might be fitted into the site narrative. The post-loss radio messages cannot be precisely traced to the island and are both garbled and not confirmed even though we wish them to be. Lastly we have the recently "identified" Nessie which might or might not be related to that enhanced image which purports to show a part of the u/c of an aircraft embedded in the reef but, as we know, that has yet to be found, or even identified as such, so I would be a little silly in even discussing it or dismissing it.

Now that about covers it - tell me have you ever had to take a material assemblage from a site and attempt to tease out anything it might tell you - especially a site where there are several layers of similar cultural material from different times with an admixture of things which could be from normal continuing local use or from the single event that you are investigating. It is very easy to draw all sorts of conclusions - the hard bit, I can assure you, is finding the right one. Had to do it once.   
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Malcolm McKay on April 14, 2012, 08:05:59 AM
Fecal matter (was it positively identified as such) with two different sets of DNA found at site.

I'm not sure that a final judgment has been made on the mystery material.

The last research bulletin on DNA (March 2011) (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/59_DNAResearch/59_DNAResearch.htm) indicated it was still an open question.

Attendees could ask for an update at the Symposium (http://www.earhartsearch75.com/), I suppose.

Yes I read that as the bone material was tested and initially produced some mitochondrial DNA but that could not be replicated. If Earhart's is known was it then provisionally compared and what was the result? Or was it sufficient only to establish the existence of mitochondrial DNA which itself was not sufficient to provide a usable sample for comparison? I suspect that if a match had been found then we would have been told. The fecal material contains two samples of human DNA, but these were insufficient for a comparison, which unless we have a cannibal then the feces are from two individuals. Not conclusive yet tantalising - such is archaeology  :) 
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on April 14, 2012, 12:20:19 PM
Yes I read that as the bone material was tested and initially produced some mitochondrial DNA but that could not be replicated. If Earhart's is known was it then provisionally compared and what was the result? Or was it sufficient only to establish the existence of mitochondrial DNA which itself was not sufficient to provide a usable sample for comparison?

So far as I know (working from a demonstrably fallible memory), the DNA tests have not established that the bone was human, let alone whether it could be shown not to be from Earhart's maternal line.  Establishing a negative is what DNA tests are good at; in providing evidence for a positive identification, all the tests arrive at is a probability against the null hypothesis: "Our tests show that it is highly unlikely that this sample was not from someone in the Earhart maternal line."

The strange case of the disappearance of Edward Ruess (http://www.squidoo.com/everettruess) shows how dangerous it is to reason inclusively rather than exclusively from DNA evidence.  It also shows how circumstantial evidence can be highly persuasive but (as things stand now, at any rate) demonstrably misleading.

Quote
I suspect that if a match had been found then we would have been told.

Agreed. 
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: richie conroy on April 14, 2012, 01:45:47 PM
so could be from fred noonan then ?

there is no women reported to have died before, or while the island was habitated, is there ?

an Gallagher would surely know if someone had passed away while he was there ?
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Malcolm McKay on April 14, 2012, 07:26:50 PM
so could be from fred noonan then ?

there is no women reported to have died before, or while the island was habitated, is there ?

an Gallagher would surely know if someone had passed away while he was there ?

Hello Richie - too many possibles in the discussion already.

As Martin has explained the tests couldn't even confirm that the bone was human, let alone find enough DNA to identify its owner. DNA testing and mitochondrial DNA testing using very degraded samples is still, despite what the TV cop shows claim, a very very inexact area. Add to that the nature of mitochondrial DNA which is that it cannot provide an exact identification as does DNA, only an approximate (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_DNA ), however given the ethnic circumstances of the human populations on Nikumaroro over the time of human habitation then in this case it could be telling.

As with the feces the examining scientists have simply said that the data available is insufficient for any more definite conclusion. If TIGHAR finds more skeletal material or more feces then perhaps, only perhaps, some solid evidence might emerge.
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Adam Marsland on April 14, 2012, 08:13:11 PM


Did that in my very first post, my friend.  And as for the vital distinction you think I'm missing, that is the exact distinction I keep pointing out you yourself seem to be missing.  And round and round we go.  So shall we move on?

Well I suggest that the quickest way out of a circle is straight cut - don't play games and tell me what vital piece of evidence I have dismissed, as distinct from the ones I have actually discussed.

So far, I don't know about you, but I haven't actually seen any demonstrably vital pieces of material evidence that I haven't discussed.

Ugh.  Dude.  You keep playing this game where evidence need be "demonstrably vital" or "conclusive".  I keep pointing out to you that it doesn'tEvidence is not proof.  It's merely a factoid or that is indicative of this or that theory being correct.  When the truth cannot be proved or known, weighing the factoids at hand as objectively as possible is the best way to form a hypothesis that may lead to a provable truth -- which is exactly what TIGHAR does and why I like their approach so much.  Then you do a nice job of running down a bunch of evidence that you simply don't think proves anything.  No one's saying it does.  The point is, though, that it IS evidence, and whether or not it is "demonstrably vital" is totally in the eye of the beholder, and evidence need not be "conclusive."  Evidence that is "conclusive" has another name:  proof.

As for what is "demonstrably vital"...to me, for example, five DF bearings from separate operators on different post-loss messages all intersecting at Gardner on a frequency no one but the Itasca and Amelia Earhart should have been using is extremely hard to explain away other than *huff* blowing it off.  Your reasons for dismissing it didn't in the earlier post make sense to me, but it doesn't really matter...in my view, that data point alone is extremely convincing, because there just aren't many other explanations that are really believable.  Occam's Razor applies here.  The simplest and most logical explanation is the signals came from the Earhart plane, and at least one operator who knew her voice was certain both of that and of the bearing.  To me, that is extremely compelling evidence.  To you, it isn't.  Fine.  But your logical basis for dismissing that data point (to use one example) made no sense to me, and still doesn't. 

So once again -- fourth time now, right?  It's about demanding evidence be conclusive or demonstrably vital to you -- which is both a subjective bar to clear AND misunderstanding what the function of "evidence" is.  I don't think the point I've been making, or my effort to make it clear, has really changed since the first time I've posted, and you haven't really struck me is grasping the distinction for whatever reason.  So anyhows, I'm tired of talking about it, cool?  Or more accurately, I'm tired with taking up thread space with it.  These tit for tats get boring for those not titting or tatting.
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Adam Marsland on April 14, 2012, 08:27:20 PM
My answer to that would be the radio would still be far and away their best shot.  But I think you are right that they could not be sure that it was working, though if the belly antenna theory was right and they fixed the problem, then they at least would know they had probably fixed the problem that had hampered them before and it should work. But it's a fair question and I'm glad you brought it up.  Though living in Los Angeles as I do, I'd suggest not embarking on a screenwriting career.  Though the sextant bash is kind of a nice touch.

There's evidence that they heard the KGMB broadcast.

If they discovered the belly antenna missing after the landing on the reef, splashing through the water, etc, how would they know that I was missing prior to the landing? Which brings up another thing, what antenna did they use for hearing KGMB?
You're in L.A., too bad, I met Jeff Neville at the Proud Bird restaurant for dinner a couple of weeks ago,


My understanding is they had a functioning second antenna (it was called a loop antenna, right, Marty?) that they were using for DF finding, and on which they heard the Itasca transmitting at 7500 kcs, and which, had they thought of it, they could possibly have used for receiving the Itasca's transmissions when things went critical and communication was not established.

As far as the belly antenna being gone...well, they wouldn't know, but since they hadn't picked up any messages from anybody, and there was a proximate cause for that discovered at landing, I don't think it would have been that big of a deductive stretch, do you? 

Anybody in L.A. can meet me over at Brennan's in Marina Del Rey tomorrow or any Sunday this month...I do a darn good Elton John tribute.  :)
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Malcolm McKay on April 14, 2012, 10:02:20 PM

So once again -- fourth time now, right?  It's about demanding evidence be conclusive or demonstrably vital to you -- which is both a subjective bar to clear AND misunderstanding what the function of "evidence" is.  I don't think the point I've been making, or my effort to make it clear, has really changed since the first time I've posted, and you haven't really struck me is grasping the distinction for whatever reason.  So anyhows, I'm tired of talking about it, cool?  Or more accurately, I'm tired with taking up thread space with it.  These tit for tats get boring for those not titting or tatting.

Adam clearly you have never worked in the sciences - "probability" is good enough in law courts if a jury will accept it. In science, which is where the Nikumaroro hypothesis is being tested, it is certainty (through replication) which seals the deal.

I could go on but I think you would rather be told what you want to know rather than what you need to know. I agree one can build a hypothesis on probability but in the end it will stand or fall on how the evidence pans out in the scientific analysis. So far I see an interesting hypothesis with a lot of work still needing to be done before it can be taken any further. I think that is how TIGHAR sees it also - why else are they still going back to Nikumaroro.
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Adam Marsland on April 15, 2012, 03:54:19 AM
GAAAAHHHH....and round we go again.

Malcolm, "probability" is more than enough for a hypothesis.  Once again:  No one is saying the hypothesis is proven.  You originally said TIGHAR has uncovered "scant" evidence.  Bunk.  They've uncovered a ton of evidence.  Some of it is more compelling than others.  You may choose to accept it or not.  But it exists.  The evidentiary standard in law is also irrelevant.  We're talking about what evidence is by definition.  Any piece of information that bears on a hypothesis is evidence.  They are facts to be considered and weighed.  My background is in music and journalism but I do know enough about science to know that the bedrock of scientific inquiry is having an objective means of evaluating the evidence.  It doesn't mean rejecting any piece of evidence that isn't conclusive.  It means having a standard of weighting and evaluating the evidence other than "I like this fact and I choose to ignore this other fact."  TIGHAR has played by these rules.  It's the reason I respect their work so much.

"I think you would rather be told what you want to know rather than what you need to know."  Bunk.  I simply ask that people with strong opinions be able to defend them without resorting to circular logic and subjective assumptions.  I welcome being proven wrong when people can play by the rules and defend their opinions.  I don't mind being shown my logic is faulty.  I like it.  I learn something.  When people just make up their own rules, reach their own conclusions, and then imply intellectual superiority, it grates on me just a bit.  Particularly since I've now had to explain this same, to me fairly simple, concept five times.

I think we agree that it is an interesting hypothesis and more work needs to be done.  I never said, nor implied, that it is a proven hypothesis -- simply that you seem to ignore or discard a large part of the supporting evidence without much basis or other explanation, and that your skepticism is selective (e.g. Hoodless).  You keep responding to my posts as if I am insisting that TIGHAR is right and that I'm beating you up for not being a "true believer".  That's a convenient moving of the goalposts, because that's never what I said, and I ain't that guy.  I said your comments about the progress of the investigation betrayed to me a subjective, and thus unscientific, reading and measuring of the available facts.  And I told you why.  Specifically and repeatedly.  Put another way:  the logical basis for your skepticism of TIGHAR's hypothesis is much less convincing to me than that for the hypothesis itself.  TIGHAR's means of sorting through this stuff makes objective sense to me; there's no inconsistency in terms of their methodology; it's totally transparent to me why they weight this fact heavily and this one not so much, and why certain sources are trusted and others less so.  With yours, not so much.  That's all I'm sayin'.

If you choose to continue to pretend that I'm berating you for not accepting the hypothesis hook, line and sinker, and that I've been asserting that TIGHAR has proven their case, I have to conclude you're being wilfully intellectually dishonest, since I never said anything of the kind.  And was, I think, quite clear in that regard.

So we can perhaps move on:  how about you just say "I now understand that you feel that my evaluation of the evidence is purely subjective, and I disagree."  Simple, and refreshingly on point. 
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Malcolm McKay on April 15, 2012, 07:19:09 AM
GAAAAHHHH....and round we go again.


So we can perhaps move on:  how about you just say "I now understand that you feel that my evaluation of the evidence is purely subjective, and I disagree."  Simple, and refreshingly on point.

Adam, how about I simply say that sometimes I forget that I, a trained archaeologist (Masters, Ph.D) now long retired, approaches the analysis of artifacts at a site from a very different perspective to people who aren't. I can accept that you find some of the evidence compelling whereas I don't so I am happy to leave it at that. Anyway that is moot anyway because in the end it will be whether TIGHAR finds the confirmation that Nikumaroro is where Earhart and Noonan landed that will decide the matter - not you or I arguing.  :)
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Greg Daspit on May 12, 2012, 10:50:07 PM
Assuming Betty's radio signal, nessie photo, etc are true. 1st thing is they check the outside of the plane, see belly antenna is gone. Is it possible at some point she would taxi back to the shipwreck and try to run an antenna wire up the mast of the shipwreck if the plane could even taxi?(Im not sure if this is possible). At least get closer to the big visual point that is the shipwreck. Or at least taxi as far away from the reef if possible. Anyway they run into Nessie's pot hole and get stuck. They stay with plane while the radio can still send.
Fred sees to it that Amelia gets most of the available water and eventually his gets headaches from dehydration, eventuyally he dies first from heat exhaustion and dehydration.(another explanation of "complains of his head" from Betty)
After plane gets swept off the reef or destroyed. Amelia searches for water, food and shelter.
 Amelia finds a good spot but returns to the shipwreck to leave a marker or maybe try to write a message on the big billboard that is the ships hull before returning to her shady camp to wait for rescue. Unfortunately the writing she wrote on the hull gets covered or obscured by high tide waves when the planes flew over. If the image of the hull in the NZ survey picture was better quality it might be interesting to see if the white marks on near the bottom of the hull were once words.
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Irvine John Donald on May 12, 2012, 11:16:14 PM
Interesting Greg

What are you assuming she would use to mark the side of the ship with?  How would she get up the side of the ship to make the markings?  The ships side would be a big billboard but would AE be able to make large enough letters to be seen by plane or ship?
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Greg Daspit on May 12, 2012, 11:36:28 PM
She would have to leave a marker, flag or banner close to what she could write on the hull to draw attention to the writing. It would not likely be readable from the air but the flag with something that was close that looked like writing could cause someone in a plane to take a closer look. She could probably wade out and only scrape off paint or rust with a rock, or chalky white rock. Maybe only 3 foot letters above the rising tide by then. The main thing is to leave a message for someone investigating the flag or marker. Like "AMELIA HERE - camped SE" next to a flag or banner.
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Irvine John Donald on May 12, 2012, 11:53:19 PM
You may very well be right. There is still a lot of the island that has not been examined as thoroughly as TIGHAR would like.  Wouldn't it have been really helpful of AE to leave a survivors diary? 
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Tom Swearengen on May 13, 2012, 07:19:33 AM
Greg---the radio antenna is an interesting thought. If Fred were able, he might have seen the significance of trying to repair it. I'm not sure if Amelia would have.
The Norwich City billboard is also interesting.
But from Lambrechets overflight, I dont recall that he noted anything on the shipwreck indicating 'recent' activity, like a banner, a 'SOS' written on the side, or anything else. But at 400 feet , probably would not have. Gee---if there was, and he had seen it, the search would have been over 75 years ago.
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Greg Daspit on May 13, 2012, 11:11:41 AM
Look at the white marks just left and below the anchor in the picture from the NZ survey from the Norwich City page.
I don't want to be one who sees what he wants but does it sort of of look like "SOS"?
I was thinking bird droppings might be a good pigment for paint
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Brad Beeching on May 13, 2012, 11:26:46 AM
I agree with Tom, the antenna gig is an interesting thought, but I don't think the plane was moveable after she put it down. I say this because the earliest reported radio receptions mentions Fred being seriously injured (Mrs. Larrimore) (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/ResearchPapers/Brandenburg/signalcatalog2.html#ID30800LE)and one report (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/ResearchPapers/Brandenburg/signalcatalog5.html#ID90800FS) (deemed not credible) even mentions that a wing was broken. There are also reports that said she was injured as well. Now I realize that all of this is just supposition, but think about it a minute, if it's possible, however slim though it may be, that maybe the report may have a basis in fact and the report may be true? If we accept that, I believe neither Amelia nor Fred would have been capable of doing that much activity on the beach at Niku. From what I've read here and elsewhere, the beach and reef during daylight is not a pleasant place to be, especially in a bare aluminum, poorly ventilated fuselage. I just don't know, we all fall into the trap of what would we do if, instead of what they may have done...

sorry if I ramble..

Brad   
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on May 13, 2012, 01:33:32 PM
I don't want to be one who sees what he wants but does it sort of of look like "SOS"?

Well, sort of, I suppose.

Quote
I was thinking bird droppings might be a good pigment for paint

That's a lot of bird droppings.

It's high up on the ship's bow.

You'd need ropes to hand down to where the putative "SOS" has been "painted."

The first good rain would wash it away, mostly.

I don't find it very likely myself.  YMMV.
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Irvine John Donald on May 13, 2012, 08:28:49 PM
Brad.....  Your point about everyone thinking what we would do versus what THEY would do is right on the money for me. For example, Malcolm and Gary have imposed the content rule for radio messages. "If there is no position indicated then it must be a hoax".  Why?  Because that's what they would do. It's what most people would do but why does the military have a training manual that tells you what to say in situations like this?  Why do we need nifty acronyms for reporting position?  To train you to remember!!  Because sometimes, not all the time, people forget the obvious. AND in this case you also assume they know where they are.

Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Malcolm McKay on May 15, 2012, 04:41:14 AM
Brad.....  Your point about everyone thinking what we would do versus what THEY would do is right on the money for me. For example, Malcolm and Gary have imposed the content rule for radio messages. "If there is no position indicated then it must be a hoax".  Why?  Because that's what they would do. It's what most people would do but why does the military have a training manual that tells you what to say in situations like this?  Why do we need nifty acronyms for reporting position?  To train you to remember!!  Because sometimes, not all the time, people forget the obvious. AND in this case you also assume they know where they are.

My experience is that the military has training manuals because they want everyone to do the same thing, not necessarily the best thing  ;) , but that aside. However you must admit that if indeed those messages came from Amelia and Fred then they appear to come from a pair of idiots. Now while Earhart's flight is a bit of a publicity stunt rather than a serious attempt at furthering aeronautical science I doubt that either she or Noonan are idiots. In fact Noonan is recognised as a very competent navigator and I doubt very much if he would have needed a manual to tell him what to say in an important radio broadcast if one's life depended on it. In those days radio messages tended to be short and succinct and stick to agreed terminology and detail - Earhart may have been a bit ditzy on the technical side but all her messages tend to be workmanlike. That is why I find the intercepted messages that are claimed to come from the pair to be so out of character, the stuff of hoaxes rather than fact.
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Brad Beeching on May 15, 2012, 05:22:01 AM
Having been in the US military, I was not aware of any manuals that quite cover the situation that our intrepid duo found themselves in. There are survival manuals to be sure, but none that I have seen were available in 1937. What people seem to ignore when discussing the content of the radio messages is that NONE seem to start from the begining of the messages. All the reported conversation seems to be fragments picked up in mid-broadcast, we don't know, and can't know what she had been saying before or after the signal faded in or faded out. I suspect that after the excitement of the initial landing on the reef and realizing the extent of damage/injuries she may have been less than the cool, calm and collected pilot we have all come to know. Who knows? I'll put my money on a bruised, scratched up, scared young woman who is trying to deal with a situation she has no experience with. That she may not have formatted her cries for help in a manner that meets our expectations 75 years later, I can give her the benifit of the doubt.

Brad
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on May 15, 2012, 05:24:12 AM
Earhart may have been a bit ditzy on the technical side but all her messages tend to be workmanlike.

Evidence?

How many of her transmissions on the fatal flight gave a fix for her position?
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Tom Swearengen on May 15, 2012, 07:41:41 AM
best of my recollection, fixes, only approximations
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on May 15, 2012, 09:27:35 AM
best of my recollection, fixes, only approximations

Here is a transcript of all messages received from AE's aircraft (http://tighar.org/wiki/Transmission_timeline) during the fatal flight.

It shows that people heard transmissions from her aircraft at times she was supposed to be transmitting, but could not make out what was transmitted (0418, 1410, 1415), which is related to the question of whether presumably legitimate transmissions from the plane might be unintelligible.

I suggest that this page represents the data that could and should be used to evaluate the claim that AE handled her radio transmissions in a professional fashion.  I will leave it to the professionals to make that assessment.
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Malcolm McKay on May 15, 2012, 07:10:19 PM
And not a mention of suitcases in closets.  ;)
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on May 15, 2012, 07:48:05 PM
And not a mention of suitcases in closets.  ;)

How many of her messages give a reliable indication of her position?
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: John Ousterhout on May 15, 2012, 08:58:16 PM
"...How many of her messages give a reliable indication of her position?"
I'd say ZERO, but only if we include the Atlantic portion of her flight ???.  I'm not willing to rule out the unintelligible post-loss signals received  as not containing "reliable indication of her position", since there appears to be no "recording" of what those transmissions contained.  That is not to say those transmissions contained no information - the method of recording those transmissions includes a triangulated location for the transmission location, and a specific frequency.  I'm not an expert in the dynamics of sunspot activity as it relates to voice transmission frequencies and interpretation, but the idea that sunspot activity could somehow mimic a specific frequency (3105) transmission from a single apparent location that happens to coincide with an island group in the middle of the Pacific boggles my mind.  Perhaps I'm just easily boggled?
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Malcolm McKay on May 15, 2012, 09:48:55 PM
And not a mention of suitcases in closets.  ;)

How many of her messages give a reliable indication of her position?

So in effect you arguing that the post-loss messages are genuine because they don't give a reliable indication of her position. Well that's one way of looking at it I'll grant you.  :)

For now I will stay with what I said in post #136 above which is a far more reasonable assessment of the place of the radio traffic in the hypothesis. 
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on May 15, 2012, 10:14:33 PM
So in effect you arguing that the post-loss messages are genuine because they don't give a reliable indication of her position. Well that's one way of looking at it I'll grant you.  :)

You were the one who claimed that her messages were "workmanlike."

You did so in this post (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,646.msg13347.html#msg13347), which is #120 in this thread if you prefer to find it by hand.

Since you like to argue from evidence, I asked you to provide the evidence for your opinion.

Whatever AE was doing, it did not conform to the kind of pattern others proposed as the standard for professional pilots.

Quote
For now I will stay with what I said in post #136 above which is a far more reasonable assessment of the place of the radio traffic in the hypothesis.

OK, so I take it you're abandoning your defense of AE's radio work as "workmanlike."

The post to which I am replying is #128.  Where is #136?
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Malcolm McKay on May 15, 2012, 10:55:17 PM
So in effect you arguing that the post-loss messages are genuine because they don't give a reliable indication of her position. Well that's one way of looking at it I'll grant you.  :)

The post to which I am replying is #128.  Where is #136?

Whoops I was jumping to another thread entirely, #136 is here

http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,674.135.html

in the 3 Problems with Nikumaroro hypothesis

 
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: john a delsing on May 16, 2012, 09:36:44 PM
One mistake I believe that most of you are making is that AE, and/or FN spent time at the 7 site. I believe that if AE did land at Gardner, both she and FN were dead by the time of the Lambrecht flight. Neither AE or FN ever visited the 7 site, let alone ever settled it. The 7 site was 'settled' by A) the Norwich city crew, B) the coast guard, C) the settlers, D) some other group, E) some or all the above. The 7 site has been a terribile distraction in finding AE; in terms of time, money resoures, and the uncountable false leads that it has generated. Many of you are a lot more knowledgeable than I am and I hope someone will pick up on this idea. If this line of reasoning is correct, it answers many of our questions.
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on May 16, 2012, 10:12:19 PM
One mistake I believe that most of you are making is that AE, and/or FN spent time at the 7 site. I believe that if AE did land at Gardner, both she and FN were dead by the time of the Lambrecht flight. Neither AE or FN ever visited the 7 site, let alone ever settled it. The 7 site was 'settled' by A) the Norwich city crew, B) the coast guard, C) the settlers, D) some other group, E) some or all the above. The 7 site has been a terribile distraction in finding AE; in terms of time, money resoures, and the uncountable false leads that it has generated. Many of you are a lot more knowledgeable than I am and I hope someone will pick up on this idea. If this line of reasoning is correct, it answers many of our questions.

What made--and makes--the Seven Site attractive is the thought that it might have been where Gallagher found the bones, sextant box, parts of a man's shoe, parts of a woman's shoe, corks on brass chains, and a Benedictine bottle half-filled with water, near "remains of a fire" with bird bones, clams, and a turtle shell near by.

Of course, we can get all of that material somewhere on the island by imagining cross-dressing navigators from the Norwich City who survived but didn't get rescued with the other men.  Or any number of other scenarios involving love triangles and stormy weather.

I doubt very much whether TIGHAR would have built up a reputation for doing good work if the Seven Site hadn't been studied so carefully.  I am sure that the Angel of Doubt will show up shortly to remind me that nothing from the Seven Site is the Any Idiot Artifact that we all desire.  The question of whether TIGHAR's work there has been or will be fruitful is something about which reasonable people may reasonably disagree.  I've placed my money on TIGHAR, and TIGHAR judged that the Seven Site was worth exploring.  The site has not been completely mapped yet; if it happens to be where the bones of the castaway were found, there may still be the odd tooth lying around somewhere.
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Malcolm McKay on May 16, 2012, 10:20:15 PM
One mistake I believe that most of you are making is that AE, and/or FN spent time at the 7 site. I believe that if AE did land at Gardner, both she and FN were dead by the time of the Lambrecht flight. Neither AE or FN ever visited the 7 site, let alone ever settled it. The 7 site was 'settled' by A) the Norwich city crew, B) the coast guard, C) the settlers, D) some other group, E) some or all the above. The 7 site has been a terribile distraction in finding AE; in terms of time, money resoures, and the uncountable false leads that it has generated. Many of you are a lot more knowledgeable than I am and I hope someone will pick up on this idea. If this line of reasoning is correct, it answers many of our questions.

I think that you have a strong case regarding the 7 site.

The other problem it has, is that from an archaeological viewpoint it has too much background clutter created by artifacts from other equally possible sources deposited around the same approximate time period. There is no significant change in European material culture during the period 1937 through to the arrival of the Coast Guard personnel that allows any differentiation from what could be left by the aviators or the PISS surveyors and colonists. Any specific Coast Guard items can be differentiated but then the occupation debris reverts to its previous nature. This is something that as an archaeologist, I have remarked on before when I said in the thread on the Norwich City survivors and the 7 site that between 1937 and 1965 you have the presence of a meager but pretty continuous stream of general European detritus. -

"A. The short lived Arundel occupation in 1892.

B. The wreck of the Norwich City and the camp sites of the survivors, and

C. The PISS settlement from its initial reconnaissance in 1937 through to its evacuation in 1965 and which contains a short lived phase (C1) limited to the southern end of the island - the wartime US Coast Guard LORAN base.

All of these occupation phases are distinguished by the dominance of European artifacts so it is not surprising that a very brief (if it occurred) occupation by Earhart and Noonan is yet to be distinguished from the other three phases."


The fireplaces and faunal deposits really don't have much diagnostic value other than they could be from any time right through from 1929 to the abandonment of the island in 1965 (possibly even from the Arundel period). Basically the archaeology of Nikumaroro is a single cultural phase in which Earhart and Noonan's presence, if they were there, is ephemeral.
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Heath Smith on May 17, 2012, 04:23:13 AM

As mentioned on the other thread (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,677.msg13392.html#msg13392) it is very odd that if the Seven Site is the Bones Site, Gallagher did not find other camp fires in the vicinity that would have suggested a larger group was in the area otherwise he surely would have reported it. I believe at least 7 fire features were discovered by TIGHAR at the Seven Site.
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on May 17, 2012, 06:22:27 AM

As mentioned on the other thread (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,677.msg13392.html#msg13392) it is very odd that if the Seven Site is the Bones Site, Gallagher did not find other camp fires in the vicinity that would have suggested a larger group was in the area otherwise he surely would have reported it. I believe at least 7 fire features were discovered by TIGHAR at the Seven Site.

Yes, the count of fire features has gone up with every visit.

The phrase used by Gallagher (http://tighar.org/wiki/Bones_found_on_Nikumaroro) is "remains of fire, turtle, and birds."

Complete skeleton not found only skull, lower jaw, one thoracic vertebra, half pelvis, part scapula, humerus, radius, two femurs, tibia and fibula. Skull discovered by working party six months ago — report reached me early September. Working party buried skull but made no further search.

Bones were found on South East corner of island about 100 feet above ordinary high water springs. Body had obviously been lying under a "ren" tree and remains of fire, turtle and dead birds appear to indicate life. All small bones have been removed by giant coconut crabs which have also damaged larger ones. Difficult to estimate age bones owing to activities of crabs but am quite certain they are not less than four years old and probably much older.

Only experienced man could state sex from available bones; my conclusion based on sole of shoe which is almost certainly a woman's.

Dental condition appears to have been good but only five teeth now remain. Evidence dental work on jaw not apparent.

We have searched carefully for rings, money and keys with no result. No clothing was found. Organized search of area for remaining bones would take several weeks as crabs move considerable distances and this part of island is not yet cleared.

Regret it is not possible to measure length of skeleton. No hair found.

Bones at present in locked chest in office pending construction coffin.

Gallagher   

If Gallagher had wanted to specify that there was only one fire, he could have said, "remains of a fire."

If he had wanted to specify a plurality, he could have used words to do so: "remains of seven fires" or "remains of fires" (as he did with "birds").

It is possible that he (or the radio man) left out "a" because that is common practice in telegraphy.

I don't think it is a knockdown argument to say that because TIGHAR has found seven or more fire features, none of them were the same as what Gallagher saw.  Nor do I think that I am obliged by the language of the telegram to imagine that there was one and only one fire site visible when Gallagher searched the area.  For me, it's an open question.  I understand that you take a different approach to language and will use your own principles of interpretation (known in my trade as "hermeneutics") to come to a different conclusion.
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Tom Swearengen on May 17, 2012, 08:37:20 AM
Perhaps DR. Malcolm should have a visit to Nikumaroro.
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Jeff Victor Hayden on May 17, 2012, 08:51:31 AM
Do we know if, from all the hoardes of female European visitors to Nikumaroro, any of them had freckles?
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Heath Smith on May 17, 2012, 03:26:09 PM
Quote
If Gallagher had wanted to specify that there was only one fire, he could have said, "remains of a fire."

If he had wanted to specify a plurality, he could have used words to do so: "remains of seven fires" or "remains of fires" (as he did with "birds").

It is possible that he (or the radio man) left out "a" because that is common practice in telegraphy.

I don't think it is a knockdown argument to say that because TIGHAR has found seven or more fire features, none of them were the same as what Gallagher saw.  Nor do I think that I am obliged by the language of the telegram to imagine that there was one and only one fire site visible when Gallagher searched the area.  For me, it's an open question.  I understand that you take a different approach to language and will use your own principles of interpretation (known in my trade as "hermeneutics") to come to a different conclusion.

It would seem to be common sense, despite the various possible linguistic interpretations of a telegram are concerned, that multiple fires (TIGHAR has found what now, over 7?) would be interpreted as belonging to a potential group of survivors / explorers / vacationers. It is hard to imagine that if he found all of those camp fires located within steps of a skeleton that he would have kept that to himself and not forwarded these details. As Christopher pointed out, Gallagher went so far as to say this castaway (and therefore all the the surrounding evidence of life) were not part of the Norwich survivor group. This does suggest that this poor sod was found alone with left overs from a meal over a fire and the sexton box, sole, and corks on chains.

While there is no slam dunk there is the good ole occam's razor.

The simplest explanation would be that he found nothing in addition to what he telegraphed.
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Lisa Anne Hill on May 17, 2012, 05:19:47 PM
Redirect from the 7 site conversation -

If you were in a hot, tropical environment with limited water to drink, sweating inside an aluminum container (i.e. plane) for even a short amount of time, would you not become dehydrated rather quickly? Along with dehydration would come electrolyte depletion, which I believe can cause effects like confusion, delirium, etc. Perhaps even turn a person who is normally competent, intelligent and capable into something less than that - someone who repeats themselves or appears to "babble on" about things not entirely relevant to the situation.
Just a thought -

LTM,

Lisa
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Gary LaPook on May 17, 2012, 06:06:29 PM
Redirect from the 7 site conversation -

If you were in a hot, tropical environment with limited water to drink, sweating inside an aluminum container (i.e. plane) for even a short amount of time, would you not become dehydrated rather quickly? Along with dehydration would come electrolyte depletion, which I believe can cause effects like confusion, delirium, etc. Perhaps even turn a person who is normally competent, intelligent and capable into something less than that - someone who repeats themselves or appears to "babble on" about things not entirely relevant to the situation.
Just a thought -

LTM,

Lisa
Yep and they are so delirious that they keep forgetting that they had already constructed a fire pit so continued to build more and more of them.
Did Gallagher report multiple fire pits or were they made by the coasties later? I have a theory. Perhaps the 7 site was really the "lover's lane" of Gardner where the coasties snuck off to have assignations with the local women. And to encourage such activities the coasties may have provided presents, trinkets, such as mirrors, and makeup etc., to the women. (Watch the old movie Mutiny on the Bounty and see how the natives went nuts for mirrors.)

gl
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Tom Swearengen on May 17, 2012, 09:25:07 PM
Gary--I dont disagree with your theory on the seven site. I have always wondered about AE hiking several miles to a spot on the northeast side to get a better look for any rescue attempts. By Theory only I guess.
We've been told by those that have been to Niku in the summer months of pretty hot days. I just have a tough time believing that Amelia would spend her time hiking around Niku in those kinds of conditions. I guess the timeline is what I have a problem with. WE are thinking that she did this in the days just after the disappearance? Maybe, after July 9, after the failed overflight by Lambrecht and his team. But, with tempertures the way they are, and her lack of provisions (i assume), I would think that she might not hav ebeen able to make it to the seven site. If so, then who does the artifacts belong to?

Guess I can check on that as well as other things in DC. Perhaps Marty can help-
Tom
 
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Malcolm McKay on May 17, 2012, 10:16:29 PM
... I would think that she might not hav ebeen able to make it to the seven site. If so, then who does the artifacts belong to?


But why must they belong to Earhart and not anyone else? If we try to force their provenance by guessing then we trap ourselves in an error. All the archaeology says is that from 1940 to 1965 there are 25 years of occupation by people whose material assemblage is predominantly European.
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on May 17, 2012, 10:24:18 PM
The simplest explanation would be that he found nothing in addition to what he telegraphed.

Yes.  But "what he telegraphed" is precisely what is in question in this case.

He could have been more precise.

He wasn't--for whatever reason.
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Heath Smith on May 18, 2012, 04:21:29 AM
Quote
Yes.  But "what he telegraphed" is precisely what is in question in this case.

Since he ruled out the Norwich City survivors this would suggest that there was no evidence of that group (or another unknown group) in the area.

Granted he had also already made the assumption in his mind that this was a woman based upon the sole of the shoe he had found. Since he knew there were no women aboard the NC that would make sense that he made this deduction.

While there have been interesting artifacts at the Seven Site there has been nothing to tie it to the Bones Site. The "ren tree" would seem to be the key to finding the Bone Site.

Is the "ren tree" slang for Tournefortia argentea (http://www.agroforestry.net/tti/Tournefortia-treeheliotr.pdf)? If so, that document suggest that the life span is unknown, expected to be decades. Is it even remotely possible that a ren tree could have survived 75 years? If so, could a mathematical model be created to estimate the age of a ren tree by measuring its diameter? This would probably require coring or cutting down a few of them. If this were possible it would seem logical to measure all ren trees about 100ft from high tide along the South-Eastern corner and search under them perhaps with metal detectors.

Perhaps that area was cleared of all trees as was apparently originally planned so this is irrelevant but it is a thought.
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Chris Johnson on May 18, 2012, 05:27:42 AM
Quote
If Gallagher had wanted to specify that there was only one fire, he could have said, "remains of a fire."

If he had wanted to specify a plurality, he could have used words to do so: "remains of seven fires" or "remains of fires" (as he did with "birds").

It is possible that he (or the radio man) left out "a" because that is common practice in telegraphy.

I don't think it is a knockdown argument to say that because TIGHAR has found seven or more fire features, none of them were the same as what Gallagher saw.  Nor do I think that I am obliged by the language of the telegram to imagine that there was one and only one fire site visible when Gallagher searched the area.  For me, it's an open question.  I understand that you take a different approach to language and will use your own principles of interpretation (known in my trade as "hermeneutics") to come to a different conclusion.

It would seem to be common sense, despite the various possible linguistic interpretations of a telegram are concerned, that multiple fires (TIGHAR has found what now, over 7?) would be interpreted as belonging to a potential group of survivors / explorers / vacationers. It is hard to imagine that if he found all of those camp fires located within steps of a skeleton that he would have kept that to himself and not forwarded these details. As Christopher pointed out, Gallagher went so far as to say this castaway (and therefore all the the surrounding evidence of life) were not part of the Norwich survivor group. This does suggest that this poor sod was found alone with left overs from a meal over a fire and the sexton box, sole, and corks on chains.

While there is no slam dunk there is the good ole occam's razor.

The simplest explanation would be that he found nothing in addition to what he telegraphed.

Heath! Please only my mother and wife (when i've been bad) call me that.  Chris is just fine  ;D
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Chris Johnson on May 18, 2012, 05:41:04 AM
Heath,

7site and Ren Tree

Quote
Gallagher, in his October 17, 1940 telegram to the Secretary of the Western Pacific High Commission, says, “Body had obviously been lying under a “ren” tree and remains of fire, turtle and dead birds appear to indicate life.” Ren trees (Tournefortia argentia) are quite common on Nikumaroro, so that is not much help, but for what it’s worth there is
now a rather large ren tree right in the middle of the Seven Site. Near the base of that tree, and at several other dis-creet locations nearby, we excavated numer-ous bird, turtle and fish bones some of which showed clear signs of having been in a fire

I beleive that there has been discussion of dendro dating the tree but as there arn't seasons so to speak on the island this would be difficult.

Chris  :)
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on May 18, 2012, 06:34:40 AM
Quote
Yes.  But "what he telegraphed" is precisely what is in question in this case.

Since he ruled out the Norwich City survivors this would suggest that there was no evidence of that group (or another unknown group) in the area.

I can't follow you, Heath.

On the basis of the wording of the telegram, it seems that you are now abandoning the idea that any of the fires came from Norwich City survivors.  You seem to be saying that Gallagher saw the remains of only one fire, and that therefore there was only one fire on that site prior to 1940.  All of the other fire features are now to be attributed to post-1940 activities.

Is that your view?

Quote
Granted he had also already made the assumption in his mind that this was a woman based upon the sole of the shoe he had found. Since he knew there were no women aboard the NC that would make sense that he made this deduction.

He also found "parts of a man's shoe."

He did not decide that the skeleton was that of a woman.  He considered it a possibility and deferred to the judgment of those capable of making such a judgment.

Quote
While there have been interesting artifacts at the Seven Site there has been nothing to tie it to the Bones Site. The "ren tree" would seem to be the key to finding the Bone Site.

Except that Gallagher talked about clearing that part of the island to plant coconuts.

Quote
Perhaps that area was cleared of all trees as was apparently originally planned so this is irrelevant but it is a thought.

Yes, it is a thought.
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Heath Smith on May 18, 2012, 06:45:24 AM
Quote
I can't follow you, Heath.

On the basis of the wording of the telegram, it seems that you are now abandoning the idea that any of the fires came from Norwich City survivors.  You seem to be saying that Gallagher saw the remains of only one fire, and that therefore there was only one fire on that site prior to 1940.  All of the other fire features are now to be attributed to post-1940 activities.

Is that your view?

If there were many remnants of camp fires this would suggest a group was present and not a sole castaway. It seems that he was convinced that this was a sole castaway therefore he ruled out the NC survivors.

Personally I believe that the NC survivors may be tied to the Seven Site and that the Bones Site possibly remains undiscovered.

Quote
Except that Gallagher talked about clearing that part of the island to plant coconuts.

Was he alive long enough to have seen that through? Did the development planning cease after he died?

I read over what Chris had posted. It mentions a large ren tree near the center of the site. Have any attempts been made to determine its approximate age? Is it just a stump or is it alive?

Thanks.
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Chris Johnson on May 18, 2012, 06:54:39 AM
It was alive during that expedition as someone was standing in it.

If you look on the main site I think you will find a kite photography image that shows it clearly still standing.
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Heath Smith on May 18, 2012, 06:56:05 AM
It was alive during that expedition as someone was standing in it.

If you look on the main site I think you will find a kite photography image that shows it clearly still standing.

Thanks for the info.

That is interesting. Perhaps a core could reveal its age after all.
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Chris Johnson on May 18, 2012, 07:02:28 AM
As I said my understanding is that the tree's on Niku do not have dating rings as there are no seasons as such.  Can't remember exactly where I got this info from.  Think that the only indication would be number of sever droughts the island had has.

Could be wrong though  ;)
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Andrew M McKenna on May 18, 2012, 09:02:47 AM
Malcolm Says:


 All the archaeology says is that from 1940 to 1965 there are 25 years of occupation by people whose material assemblage is predominantly European.
[/quote]

Isn't that interesting, since the folks who were living on Nikumaroro between 1940 and 1965 were Gilbertese Islanders.

Actually, Malcolm, the stuff we're particularly interested in seems to be pre-war American made female related articles that really don't a good reason to be there since the island was predominantly supplied through British channels. 

So you are saying that those Gilbertese were all carrying around US pre war stuff like compacts with rouge that got to Niku through unlikely sources such as the British Colonial system, or undocumented sources such as the Coasties.

Certainly possible, but it that really a stronger argument than having the US stuff arrive in the company of a US female that is known to be missing in the area?

No, not a definitive proof.  Never said it was, we're just trying to figure out if there is enough reason to keep looking. 

Andrew
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Tom Swearengen on May 18, 2012, 09:59:39 AM
good point Andrew.
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: john a delsing on May 18, 2012, 12:00:23 PM
Requarding the idea of a 'lovers lane' at the seven site proposed by Gary; I think it is the moderator's job to keep all postings to; "within the relm of possibilities". When Marty misses something, which is very rare, it is up to us Tighar members to step in and police the site. My grandfather was in the navy ( which the coast gruard is part of ) during WWII and I remember him telling many people, many times, and usually in front of my grandmother how when he enlisted the navy they not only required him to take a oath of loyalty, but also a vow of casitity. Gary could have, and should have checked that out, it can be easly done by asking any sailor, one preferably with their wife or girl friend, if this vow is still required.
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Malcolm McKay on May 18, 2012, 07:44:18 PM
Malcolm Says:

Isn't that interesting, since the folks who were living on Nikumaroro between 1940 and 1965 were Gilbertese Islanders.

Actually, Malcolm, the stuff we're particularly interested in seems to be pre-war American made female related articles that really don't a good reason to be there since the island was predominantly supplied through British channels. 

So you are saying that those Gilbertese were all carrying around US pre war stuff like compacts with rouge that got to Niku through unlikely sources such as the British Colonial system, or undocumented sources such as the Coasties.

Certainly possible, but it that really a stronger argument than having the US stuff arrive in the company of a US female that is known to be missing in the area?

No, not a definitive proof.  Never said it was, we're just trying to figure out if there is enough reason to keep looking. 

Andrew

Sorry but your statement shows that you are agreeing with my statement about the origins of the material assemblage. From an archaeological perspective you would have to go back to before the European influence began in the Gilbert and Phoenix Islands to find a material assemblage that is pure Polynesian and there is no hint of that on Nikumaroro that I am aware of. You have then confirmed my statement by saying that the basic material is supplied through British channels well there would not be much difference in that material whether it was of British or American origin as its closest source for practical purposes would be from New Zealand.

Now apparently there are artifacts in the assemblage which can be traced to the US Coast Guard presence in 1944 - 46, which is to be expected but my understanding is that it is mainly military like cartridge cases and a zip fastener tab IIRC. Nevertheless all of that is as I have pointed out exists as a sub-phase within the European material resulting from the occupation in the period 1940 - 65.

And yes I am aware of the rouge and the compact part found on the island - but I would say that as far as I know those items were not tied precisely to the period prior to the PISS arrival. So equally we can say that until further evidence is found that ties them to the period 1937 - 40 then they are tantalising like the size 9 shoe remains but inconclusive because who knows what items were supplied to the Nikumaroroans during the period 1940 - 65.

For instance has anyone traced cargo manifests to show precisely what items were supplied in that period, or for that matter is it possible that individual items could have come to the island in private mail. There are many possible explanations. What is needed to tie them to Earhart is not more such items because that only multiplies what we cannot confirm, but instead clear positive evidence that Earhart was on Nikumaroro in 1937 and that, I think you will agree, will depend upon much tighter evidence such as something that clearly belonged to either Earhart or Noonan, or bone for DNA identification or a plane wreck or wreckage that is traceable to the Electra.   
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: richie conroy on May 18, 2012, 08:25:25 PM
Tighar through there relentless search of archives, documents, witness statements, and ground work, with the help of forum members have come up with

evidence although not smoking gun,  which indicates Amelia Earhart and Fred Noonan died on Gardner Island

what happened when they landed till they died we prob never know

theory wise no other hypothesis comes close evidence wise to Tighar's

 

Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Gary LaPook on May 18, 2012, 09:37:56 PM
Requarding the idea of a 'lovers lane' at the seven site proposed by Gary; I think it is the moderator's job to keep all postings to; "within the relm of possibilities". When Marty misses something, which is very rare, it is up to us Tighar members to step in and police the site. My grandfather was in the navy ( which the coast gruard is part of ) during WWII and I remember him telling many people, many times, and usually in front of my grandmother how when he enlisted the navy they not only required him to take a oath of loyalty, but also a vow of casitity. Gary could have, and should have checked that out, it can be easly done by asking any sailor, one preferably with their wife or girl friend, if this vow is still required.
I expect that you were being "tongue in cheek." I saw a show on the History Channel awhile ago about the red light district in Honolulu during WW2 and there were photos and movies of thousands of those navy guys lined up on the street to violate their vows.

gl
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Gary LaPook on May 18, 2012, 09:45:40 PM

For instance has anyone traced cargo manifests to show precisely what items were supplied in that period, or for that matter is it possible that individual items could have come to the island in private mail. There are many possible explanations. What is needed to tie them to Earhart is not more such items because that only multiplies what we cannot confirm, but instead clear positive evidence that Earhart was on Nikumaroro in 1937 and that, I think you will agree, will depend upon much tighter evidence such as something that clearly belonged to either Earhart or Noonan, or bone for DNA identification or a plane wreck or wreckage that is traceable to the Electra.
And don't forget crewmen on the copra schooners "trading on their own account"  bringing stuff from one island to another for sale. This would not show up on any manifest. Such crewmen could also be responding to a request from a nikumororian to pick up something special for him on the next voyage, again unrecorded.

gl
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Malcolm McKay on May 18, 2012, 10:42:15 PM
Tighar through there relentless search of archives, documents, witness statements, and ground work, with the help of forum members have come up with

evidence although not smoking gun,  which indicates Amelia Earhart and Fred Noonan died on Gardner Island

what happened when they landed till they died we prob never know

theory wise no other hypothesis comes close evidence wise to Tighar's

Indeed Richie? I don't believe that even TIGHAR are that confident about what the material assemblage reveals, otherwise they would not be still searching. However if you have found clear evidence of Earhart and Noonan being on Nikumaroro in your examination of the material data and witness statements then I suggest you tell us what this is.
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Malcolm McKay on May 18, 2012, 10:49:46 PM

For instance has anyone traced cargo manifests to show precisely what items were supplied in that period, or for that matter is it possible that individual items could have come to the island in private mail. There are many possible explanations. What is needed to tie them to Earhart is not more such items because that only multiplies what we cannot confirm, but instead clear positive evidence that Earhart was on Nikumaroro in 1937 and that, I think you will agree, will depend upon much tighter evidence such as something that clearly belonged to either Earhart or Noonan, or bone for DNA identification or a plane wreck or wreckage that is traceable to the Electra.
And don't forget crewmen on the copra schooners "trading on their own account"  bringing stuff from one island to another for sale. This would not show up on any manifest. Such crewmen could also be responding to a request from a nikumororian to pick up something special for him on the next voyage, again unrecorded.

gl

Perfectly correct Gary - there are many ways artifacts of Western cultural origin can have found their way to the island, and a lot of that is either undocumented or lies in unexamined cargo manifests (although one would suspect that much of that paperwork is long lost). Just adding more items to a set that might hypothetically be ascribed to Earhart and Noonan doesn't provide answers it only increases the uncertainty. 
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Malcolm McKay on May 18, 2012, 11:22:18 PM
My grandfather was in the navy ( which the coast gruard is part of ) during WWII and I remember him telling many people, many times, and usually in front of my grandmother how when he enlisted the navy they not only required him to take a oath of loyalty, but also a vow of casitity.

As Mandy Rice-Davies famously remarked "Well, he would, wouldn't he?"  ;D
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Chris Johnson on May 19, 2012, 03:12:48 AM
Here are some statements and questions for the islander fraternisation hypothesis.

It’s Micronesian not Polynesian.

Trade was with the British Empire via Fiji as that is what empires are all about, trade between the host nation and colonies and the exclusion of other nations where possible.

A compact is a high status item, a simple mirror not so.  “Hey Mack, those island girls sure like shiny mirrors, lets fashion some from our shaving kit? If we don’t get lucky we might get some of those nice wooden boxes with aluminium bits on!”

Same applies for islander to trader, “I want shiny thing! OK sounds like a mirror to me.

Now my college education was in Marketing and Malcolm trumps me with a PHd but my masters is still good going.  Trade is all about profit, you’ve seen the cowboy movies where the white guys buy the local stuff for beads and fire water.  Same scenario, trade low for high, ladies compact could buy the island when you think a couple of bottles of suds would get you a nice Kanawa Box.

Questions for Malcolm and Gary

Can you tell me what the leave rota was for the LORAN guys as this would help show that one may have gone to a US controlled zone where a US compact was available?

Maybe you guys could speak to some ex islanders to gather evidence to prove your theory?
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Heath Smith on May 19, 2012, 10:54:53 AM

The bartering theory is interesting however if they just traded a box for a nice shiny thing (ladies compact), why would they leave their new prized possession at the Seven Site? If it were found in the Northern area occupied by the natives that would make sense.
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Chris Johnson on May 19, 2012, 01:10:51 PM
As i've said before the compact is a high status item, not cheap and not throw away.  OK a lady islander could have thrown it away in rage if a coastie led them along but it smacks more of an item taken by someone to where they ultimatly finished their days (in abag) and then it just became part of the limited archeology.
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Malcolm McKay on May 19, 2012, 06:28:36 PM
Here are some statements and questions for the islander fraternisation hypothesis.

Questions for Malcolm and Gary

Can you tell me what the leave rota was for the LORAN guys as this would help show that one may have gone to a US controlled zone where a US compact was available?

Maybe you guys could speak to some ex islanders to gather evidence to prove your theory?

See my reply in the Fraternization thread.  :)
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Malcolm McKay on May 19, 2012, 06:30:18 PM

The bartering theory is interesting however if they just traded a box for a nice shiny thing (ladies compact), why would they leave their new prized possession at the Seven Site? If it were found in the Northern area occupied by the natives that would make sense.

Perhaps it got dropped in the heat of the moment as her dad appeared waving a machete?  ;D
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Brad Beeching on May 20, 2012, 08:10:25 AM
Thank you Malcom for at least attempting to stem the thread drift!

I started this thread in order to have a little fun with putting all the pieces together and postulating what might have happened after the airspeed dropped and the wheels touched the reef. I didn't expect it to degenerate into hotly debated arguements over whether or not a "Coastie" with overactive gonads "just happened" to have a ladies compact in his seabag. It was not meant as a stump for all those who don't agree with the theory to climb upon and try to outscream those who do. It was meant as a vehicle to let imagination take a little room and speculate on what might have happened inside that plane and after. I see that I have made an error that I won't repeat anytime soon. If you want to discuss each piece of the puzzle in detail, fine, but at least have the courtesy to start another thread.

Brad

Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Chris Johnson on May 20, 2012, 08:50:24 AM
Brad,

appologies for my thread drift but I wanted to point others to my new thread on over active coast guards  ;D
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on May 20, 2012, 09:40:33 AM
... a large ren tree near the center of the site.

Shown on the map on this page (http://tighar.org/wiki/Seven_Site).

This is the "map" I mean:

(http://tighar.org/aw/mediawiki/images/c/c0/All_units_features_corrugated_plus_e.jpg)

Quote
Have any attempts been made to determine its approximate age?

Plans for Niku V (2007) were detailed in the old Forum (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Forum/Forum_Archives/200705.txt):

Meanwhile, one of the robotic total station teams will be re-mapping 
the site, and Josh will be locating, describing, and coring trees,
living and dead.


I've never seen the results of Josh's work.

Quote
Is it just a stump or is it alive?

It's alive.
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Chris Johnson on May 20, 2012, 09:54:43 AM
This was the phot that i was talking about KAP (http://tighar.org/wiki/File:Ksevensitekap4.jpg) I may be wrong but the big Ren in the photo is the one that is talked about.

Shame nothings been posted on the tree samples  :(
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Andrew M McKenna on May 20, 2012, 12:23:43 PM
How many of you looked at the photo of the 7 site Chris posted and realized that there are people in that photo?  Not many is my guess.

Here is an experiment for everyone, especially Gary.

Take a look at the 7 site photo, http://tighar.org/wiki/File:Ksevensitekap4.jpg (http://tighar.org/wiki/File:Ksevensitekap4.jpg), but pretend you are in an aircraft so only look at it for about 2-5 seconds, no more.

No fair studying the photo for more than 2-5 seconds about as much time as an aircrew would have to view it as they passed overhead.

Now tell me how many people you can see.

This photo was taken from about 120 ft, so by Gary's methodology the probability of detection should be close to 100%. 

There were probably 8-12 people at the 7 sight on the day this was taken.  3 or 4 were on the beach running the kite rig, so we're looking for 4-9 folks at the site, where are they?  I'm pretty sure I'm standing on the ground in this photo.  Can you see me?

Just another example how hard it is to see people on the ground, and why Gary's estimate of a 85% probability of detection for the overflight of the Navy's aircraft is unrealistically high.

Andrew


Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Jeff Victor Hayden on May 20, 2012, 12:50:42 PM
That's an excellent point Andrew. I didn't see any people the first time I looked at the photo and then struggled to spot them the second time round even when I knew they were supposed to be there.
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Andrew M McKenna on May 20, 2012, 12:52:30 PM
How many did you find?
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Jeff Victor Hayden on May 20, 2012, 01:01:56 PM
How many did you find?

2  :-\
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Chris Johnson on May 20, 2012, 01:05:04 PM
I got none with my first pass but 'flying' over again I think I see 3 people but its difficult.

Sure someone will express a view of the human eye vs digital lens?
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Jeff Victor Hayden on May 20, 2012, 01:12:02 PM
Yes, it's not the same for many reasons Chris, both for and against spotting people. I think the point Andrew made was a valid one, first pass = diddly squat, second pass knowing there were people = success (sort of)
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: john a delsing on May 20, 2012, 01:47:09 PM
Andrew, usually I agree with most of your posts as I consider you very logical. This one I can't as I don't think this is a fair portial of the Lambrecht flight, a trained pilot and a trained observer making many, at least three passes and supposely one or two people on the ground that what to be found, running to some open area, taking their shirts off and waving them. The Navy must have thought that their crews stood of very good chance of finding people ( proviided they were still alive ) or the Navy would not have spent the time and money training crews for missions similiar to this. As a pilot, I have not had any problems finding people, or friends, that wanted to be found and often this was without an observer. To me the facts seem to imply that there is a very good chance AE and FN landed at Gardner, near the Norwich City, that they did transmit for four days, but by the fifth day the harse Gardner climent, lack of water, lack of servivel training ( and possibly injuries ) took there toll. If this is correct I am know longer concerned with; why she moved o the 7 site, if healthy enough to hunt and fish and build fires why not pile some rocks togather saying 'AE 7-5-37" or use the knife blade found to crave similar in a ren tree. I think TIGHAR a a group has thousands of hours invested in the 7 site and honestely not much to show. If I sound like I am down, your right I am,,,, but not at you, or Ric, or Marty, and others, you guys are my heroes,  clues like the 7 site must be investigated, and you guys did. Altho you didn't find the smoking gun, I am sure it was not because you guys didn/t give 110%.  But at some point you reasess your long held beliefs and rethink with the new infromation at hand, or the lack of any new infor whether some other serario might be warrented.
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Heath Smith on May 20, 2012, 01:56:53 PM
Quote
Sure someone will express a view of the human eye vs digital lens?

Ok, I will do it. The human eye has the resolution of a 130 mega-pixel camera.
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Gary LaPook on May 20, 2012, 02:15:01 PM
How many of you looked at the photo of the 7 site Chris posted and realized that there are people in that photo?  Not many is my guess.

Here is an experiment for everyone, especially Gary.

Take a look at the 7 site photo, http://tighar.org/wiki/File:Ksevensitekap4.jpg (http://tighar.org/wiki/File:Ksevensitekap4.jpg), but pretend you are in an aircraft so only look at it for about 2-5 seconds, no more.

No fair studying the photo for more than 2-5 seconds about as much time as an aircrew would have to view it as they passed overhead.

Now tell me how many people you can see.

This photo was taken from about 120 ft, so by Gary's methodology the probability of detection should be close to 100%. 

There were probably 8-12 people at the 7 sight on the day this was taken.  3 or 4 were on the beach running the kite rig, so we're looking for 4-9 folks at the site, where are they?  I'm pretty sure I'm standing on the ground in this photo.  Can you see me?

Just another example how hard it is to see people on the ground, and why Gary's estimate of a 85% probability of detection for the overflight of the Navy's aircraft is unrealistically high.

Andrew
I'm pretty sure I saw three. But this is not a good example of spotting something from the air as the movement of the plane makes tall objects move against the background of the ground. If you really want a better test you need a stereo pair that show relief which is the  most important element (except maybe shine) in spotting things from the air. And the high probability of detection is not mine but comes from the Search and Rescue manual's cumulative probability of detection table so requires several passes, not just one glance straight down. And what about shine, why wasn't Earhart flashing those pieces of aluminum at the planes? And don't forget movement, their moving around would also catch the eye. So this one photo test is very unrepresentative of actual aerial searches.

A better depiction comes from the video of the helicopter tour of the island. I note that from 10:02 to 10:19 it wasn't difficult at all to see the three people in the open wading out to the skiff due to the movement of the helicopter. And then again at 11:57 you can still see the three waders on the east side of the lagoon from a position offshore from the north-eastern shore of the island, a distance of 3,000 feet, a half NM.

gl
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Greg Daspit on May 20, 2012, 03:08:48 PM
How many did you find?
I couldn't see any even after looking for a long time.
If they were moving and were at an angle where they made a bigger profile it would be easier. The color of clothing is a factor too. Fred always had black on in his pictures which would be hard to see. Not sure about Amelia's wardrobe.

However Amelia may have tried to use the mirror in her compact to attempt a signal instead of moving or waving.  If she missed or couldn't get out of the trees in time to use it then she would be very hard to see.

I also saw the YouTube video of the helo tour of the island and there were people below I could not see them, and I was looking for them. In looking at that video it seemed like the closer you are to the ground the less time you have to see something go by and the Higher you are, the harder it is to see someone. 


Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Gary LaPook on May 20, 2012, 03:21:23 PM

A better depiction comes from the video of the helicopter tour of the island. I note that from 10:02 to 10:19 it wasn't difficult at all to see the three people in the open wading out to the skiff due to the movement of the helicopter. And then again at 11:57 you can still see the three waders on the east side of the lagoon from a position offshore from the north-eastern shore of the island, a distance of 3,000 feet, a half NM.

gl
Here is a link to the helicopter video. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DL9FGsvB3E8)
gl
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on May 20, 2012, 04:11:34 PM
... The Navy must have thought that their crews stood of very good chance of finding people ( proviided they were still alive ) or the Navy would not have spent the time and money training crews for missions similiar to this.

The crews were spotters for naval bombardment.

They were trained in finding targets, watching the splash of misses, and suggesting corrections to gun crews.

They were not search-and-rescue professionals because S.A.R., as we know it, did not exist in the 1930s.

This was discussed at some length in a previous thread: FAQ: Colorado / Lambrecht Search, 9 July 1937 (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,253.msg92.html#msg92).

If you wish to add evidence of naval training in S.A.R. prior to July, 1937, and demonstrate that the Colorado aircrew had such training, you may provide it in that thread.
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: john a delsing on May 20, 2012, 09:01:48 PM
I stand corrected, thank you.
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Tom Bryant on June 10, 2012, 03:39:13 PM
To try to get back to the OP on this thread I would consider that even lacking survival training human nature being what it is would lead to certain decisions and actions.
We see this in SAR that even though people are not all the same they tend to do similar things under similar circumstances. Thus history tends to repeat itself.
With a plane down and able to send and receive signals - if the post landing transmissions are accepted - staying close to the plane and trying to stay on a regular contact schedule would be considered. You have a shiny plane and a great big landmark ship nearby. Even if you had landed on some other strip of beach on the island that ship would have been evident as you came in so you know its there and in relative terms everything is nearby on that island.
You may or may not be injured but you don't have extensive resources so you start by living out of the plane - maybe not living on the plane but spending time there with little need to start hauling stuff out that you might need to survive because hope is high that the cavalry will arrive. You might be taking some stuff to shore as needed perhaps and between signal periods have some time to try to figure out where the heck you are and how to tell the world where you are. Maybe do some exploring. Fred takes a sighting and can tell you the latitude but longitude is iffy. Staying in the plane when the sun beats down on it would be torture so some R and R on shore in the shade would be a consideration. Trying to preserve fuel for transmission power would also dictate some actions especially if wondering if the engine will start again.
You are counting on rescue to show up so stick close to the plane. Maybe build a bit of an SOS out on the sand but why bother when you have this great big plane right there like a Winnebego with its hood up waiting for AMA.
If there was any help to be had on that island they would have shown up by now - its a small neighborhood and the local Welcome Wagon would be eager to present you with a fruit basket or two.
It would not take long to establish you were alone - a walk around the area and a check on the interior lagoon would pretty well solve that as the lagoons were often the shortcut between areas on the island. I mean the natives were no fools and as evidenced by other similar but inhabited islands they would use light transit (canoe) across the lagoon rather than walk all the way around. Plus people are messy things and tend to scatter stuff all over the place. Some scouting would tell you pretty quick that the ship wreck was not very recent so no help there.
You are hot and tired and stressed out and thirsty. Might have found the survival stores left from the shipwreck but no telling what condition it is in. I know I would be looking in askance at any canned goods that had not turned into a biology experiment and exploded from being left in that heat and humidity for that long.
The weather starts to turn and the water starts to rise and what was a shallow wade out to the plane starts to become a trial. It gets to the point that you realize that the plane is in peril. Shifting as it gets hit by surf and water creeping high enough to start flooding the rear of the plane (historic tide data suggesting 4 to 4.5 foot tide plus surf). Now its a mad scramble and you are broadcasting an open mike transmission where those that hear you (Betty) can hear a panicked effort to salvage what you can and get your last chance message out. No more calm cool and collected - its do or die time.
I have yet to see anything that would lead me to believe that Fred is terribly injured so the conjecture that he somehow dies while Amelia - the plucky thing that she is - soldiers on alone is not in my story. Maybe she did maybe she didn't - its my conjecture so I get to say LOL.
Winds, surf and tides are making that side of the island less fun (a squall coming onshore with rising tide and surf can be downright brutal) and the plane with your ability to signal is gone - now its time for some serious survival decisions - perhaps too little too late if you had not started serious survival actions earlier.
This is assuming they both didn't just get dragged over the edge right then. I will go with the potential for castaways - I like that scenario better anyway.
By the time planes circle for a brief period the Electra is gone - any SOS coconut sculptures you made earlier on the beach may have been reduced by tide and surf to "signs of habitation ie markings" as noticed by the aerial searchers.
You might be sick or injured - suffering from exhaustion, dehydration and hungry as heck and having a generally less than stellar attention span. You might be inland and under tree cover to get out of the sun. By the time you realize that it really is a plane and get your act together they are gone. Well....crap.
Its all fun to consider and imagine and no harm in doing so and I expect that the conjecture will serve to amuse and motivate until the first hard evidence can be linked to it all and then we can start reverse engineering the whole thing. Until then it will be hard work and eyes on the ground and we can all have fun with the storyline in the meantime.
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Gary LaPook on June 10, 2012, 08:31:16 PM
To try to get back to the OP on this thread I would consider that even lacking survival training human nature being what it is would lead to certain decisions and actions.
We see this in SAR that even though people are not all the same they tend to do similar things under similar circumstances. Thus history tends to repeat itself.
With a plane down and able to send and receive signals - if the post landing transmissions are accepted - staying close to the plane and trying to stay on a regular contact schedule would be considered. You have a shiny plane and a great big landmark ship nearby. Even if you had landed on some other strip of beach on the island that ship would have been evident as you came in so you know its there and in relative terms everything is nearby on that island.
You may or may not be injured but you don't have extensive resources so you start by living out of the plane - maybe not living on the plane but spending time there with little need to start hauling stuff out that you might need to survive because hope is high that the cavalry will arrive. You might be taking some stuff to shore as needed perhaps and between signal periods have some time to try to figure out where the heck you are and how to tell the world where you are. Maybe do some exploring. Fred takes a sighting and can tell you the latitude but longitude is iffy. Staying in the plane when the sun beats down on it would be torture so some R and R on shore in the shade would be a consideration. Trying to preserve fuel for transmission power would also dictate some actions especially if wondering if the engine will start again.
You are counting on rescue to show up so stick close to the plane. Maybe build a bit of an SOS out on the sand but why bother when you have this great big plane right there like a Winnebego with its hood up waiting for AMA.
If there was any help to be had on that island they would have shown up by now - its a small neighborhood and the local Welcome Wagon would be eager to present you with a fruit basket or two.
It would not take long to establish you were alone - a walk around the area and a check on the interior lagoon would pretty well solve that as the lagoons were often the shortcut between areas on the island. I mean the natives were no fools and as evidenced by other similar but inhabited islands they would use light transit (canoe) across the lagoon rather than walk all the way around. Plus people are messy things and tend to scatter stuff all over the place. Some scouting would tell you pretty quick that the ship wreck was not very recent so no help there.
You are hot and tired and stressed out and thirsty. Might have found the survival stores left from the shipwreck but no telling what condition it is in. I know I would be looking in askance at any canned goods that had not turned into a biology experiment and exploded from being left in that heat and humidity for that long.
The weather starts to turn and the water starts to rise and what was a shallow wade out to the plane starts to become a trial. It gets to the point that you realize that the plane is in peril. Shifting as it gets hit by surf and water creeping high enough to start flooding the rear of the plane (historic tide data suggesting 4 to 4.5 foot tide plus surf). Now its a mad scramble and you are broadcasting an open mike transmission where those that hear you (Betty) can hear a panicked effort to salvage what you can and get your last chance message out. No more calm cool and collected - its do or die time.
I have yet to see anything that would lead me to believe that Fred is terribly injured so the conjecture that he somehow dies while Amelia - the plucky thing that she is - soldiers on alone is not in my story. Maybe she did maybe she didn't - its my conjecture so I get to say LOL.
Winds, surf and tides are making that side of the island less fun (a squall coming onshore with rising tide and surf can be downright brutal) and the plane with your ability to signal is gone - now its time for some serious survival decisions - perhaps too little too late if you had not started serious survival actions earlier.
This is assuming they both didn't just get dragged over the edge right then. I will go with the potential for castaways - I like that scenario better anyway.
By the time planes circle for a brief period the Electra is gone - any SOS coconut sculptures you made earlier on the beach may have been reduced by tide and surf to "signs of habitation ie markings" as noticed by the aerial searchers.
You might be sick or injured - suffering from exhaustion, dehydration and hungry as heck and having a generally less than stellar attention span. You might be inland and under tree cover to get out of the sun. By the time you realize that it really is a plane and get your act together they are gone. Well....crap.
Its all fun to consider and imagine and no harm in doing so and I expect that the conjecture will serve to amuse and motivate until the first hard evidence can be linked to it all and then we can start reverse engineering the whole thing. Until then it will be hard work and eyes on the ground and we can all have fun with the storyline in the meantime.


...or...

They could have survived at least for the ten days that the crew of the Lady Be Good (http://www.qmfound.com/lady_be_good_b-24_bomber_recovery.htm) did, and that crew did it in 130 degree desert temperatures with only half a canteen of water for the eight of them and five of them walked 85 miles, one went 26 miles further and one other made it a total 132 miles through the desert.

These things can be done so there is no reason to believe that if Earhart landed on Gardner that they would not have survived quite a long time.

gl
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Gary LaPook on June 10, 2012, 08:38:29 PM
To try to get back to the OP on this thread I would consider that even lacking survival training human nature being what it is would lead to certain decisions and actions.
 Fred takes a sighting and can tell you the latitude but longitude is iffy.
Why would the longitude determined by Noonan be "iffy"?

gl
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Tom Bryant on June 10, 2012, 09:54:53 PM
Gary I am not sure where you got that they didnt survive from my post. The oh crap comment implies they are now in for the long haul.
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Tom Bryant on June 10, 2012, 10:28:47 PM
As to longitude I am no nav whiz but it was my impression that to get an accurate longitude a navigator needed an accurate time. There is no guarantee that Fred had an exact time so I was leaving some room for error in my hypothetical narrative. Your experience may indicate otherwise and if required I can easily adjust my conjecture.
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Gary LaPook on June 10, 2012, 11:29:46 PM
As to longitude I am no nav whiz but it was my impression that to get an accurate longitude a navigator needed an accurate time. There is no guarantee that Fred had an exact time so I was leaving some room for error in my hypothetical narrative. Your experience may indicate otherwise and if required I can easily adjust my conjecture.
Yes you do need accurate time which is why they waited an extra day in Lae so that Noonan could get a radio time check on his chronometer. At that point it was off by three seconds so it had not changed very much since his prior check of it. If an additional three second change had occurred in the short time since Lae then this would produce only a 3/4ths NM error in longitude, nothing to worry about.
gl
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Malcolm McKay on June 10, 2012, 11:37:43 PM


...or...

They could have survived at least for the ten days that the crew of the Lady Be Good (http://www.qmfound.com/lady_be_good_b-24_bomber_recovery.htm) did, and that crew did it in 130 degree desert temperatures with only half a canteen of water for the eight of them and five of them walked 85 miles, one went 26 miles further and one other made it a total 132 miles through the desert.

These things can be done so there is no reason to believe that if Earhart landed on Gardner that they would not have survived quite a long time.

gl

That is a good point Gary. One of the deeper problems I have with the Nikumaroro hypothesis, and one that is hard to exactly define is that the search aircraft overflight spots nothing other than the vague reference to signs of recent habitation which could be anything including seeing the remains of the Arundel settlement, the traces that the Norwich City survivors left, or even, hypothetically, traces of Earhart and Noonan. However given that the first two instances saw fairly large scale activity while Earhart and Noonan would have needed professional landscape gardeners to create signs of habitation visible as described in the few days that intervened between the disappearance and the overflight then I suspect that it is to the first two that the Navy fliers refer.

So we then we left with no choice but to posit a rapid deterioration and death scenario for the pair to explain their apparent invisibility. The weak point with that however is that the island is not exactly completely bereft of food supplies or water. These may require some effort to obtain, but no more effort than other similarly placed people have overcome. Even without a fire there would always be coconuts (which do contain liquid) and raw fish - unpalatable if you don't like sushi but if it is a choice between starvation and uncooked fish then I can't see them refusing it. So what kills them off or renders them comatose in such a short time?

People have survived for far far longer periods in worse places. They are two relatively well-nourished people without any prior medical conditions that would have rendered them too weak to last more than a couple of days. Sure Earhart picked-up the usual Asiatic curse of the squitters but that had been fixed - from experience of these complaints I can't see her undertaking the flight knowing that every hour or so she would have to crawl over the fuel tanks in the cabin to get to the dunny. Experience tells me you have to move fast.  :-[  She was fit enough to pilot the aircraft and I am pretty positive that Noonan would have refused to undertake the flight if he saw that Earhart was too weak or enfeebled while at Lae to carry out her job.

Every time the failure of the naval aviators to spot them is raised we are offered the convenient but utterly unsupported claim that the Navy fliers basically couldn't see anything because they were trained for observing shell splashes rather than people. But that to me is not a reason, just a convenient excuse to support a wonky "fact" used to create a hypothesis. We must remember that on the one hand people claim that the Navy fliers couldn't spot an elephant in an empty barn while on the other hand we accept that they saw signs of recent habitation.

We have the Betty's notebook induced intellectual coma that is the plucky Amelia and the injured Fred scenario, and we have the big wave washing the Electra off the reef just in time to be missed by the blind as bats Navy observers. Am I alone in not quite buying this - it seems more French farce than reality.

Personally I find this rapid deterioration and death scenario just a tad too convenient a scenario to explain why the Navy didn't spot them. Which still leaves the fundamental question - where they ever there?       
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Chris Johnson on June 11, 2012, 02:49:29 AM
Quote
Personally I find this rapid deterioration and death scenario just a tad too convenient a scenario to explain why the Navy didn't spot them. Which still leaves the fundamental question - where they ever there?   

Malcolm,

is that TIGHARS official line? I'm sure that if you read around the main site Ric is of the beleif that they or one of them survived for some time.

Lady be good = trained professionals with disciplain, better chances of collective survival
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Gary LaPook on June 11, 2012, 04:29:25 AM
Quote
Personally I find this rapid deterioration and death scenario just a tad too convenient a scenario to explain why the Navy didn't spot them. Which still leaves the fundamental question - where they ever there?   

Malcolm,

is that TIGHARS official line? I'm sure that if you read around the main site Ric is of the beleif that they or one of them survived for some time.

Lady be good = trained professionals with disciplain, better chances of collective survival
But no water, no food, and 130 degree temperature. How do you train for that?

gl
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Chris Johnson on June 11, 2012, 05:56:45 AM
I was alluding to the practical’s of military training, not specific training for desert marches. 

Military training that is based on team work, following orders, resilience, fitness and a chain of command.  These things would have helped the crew of the ‘Lady’ to deal with their circumstances.

AE/FN didn’t.
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Tom Swearengen on June 11, 2012, 07:18:42 AM
If I can but in here for a second--------it really doesnt matter what we would have done, or what others did in a similiar situation. Its what AE and FN did that we are trying to find the answers to, and frankly its all theories because we werent there. Yes there are coconuts, fish, sea water, crabs, and maybe other things on the island to sustain them. (I'll digress to thoses that have BEEN to the island to tell us what is actually there.) Yes, other people in survival mode have done ok, some havent. What survival skills AE & FN had are a matter which we could debate, but having the skills and what they actually did is my point.
Ever known anyone that was 'book smart". Reading a book onsurvival, and actually applying that inofrmation to the location where you are, is an entirely different deal. Survival in the mountains, is different than a Pacific atoll.
So----we keep searching for clues to possible answers to her survival on Niku.
Ideas?
 
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Chris Johnson on June 11, 2012, 09:14:47 AM
Well Tom,

i agree because there are no witnesses (just silent). AE/FN may have done a stirling job on the survival stakes, the 7 site suggests this.

I was in a way agreeing with Gary that in my eyes they survived for a while.
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Tom Bryant on June 11, 2012, 11:18:10 AM
Surviving can mean a lot of things from staying alive (barely) to thriving. I have no idea what actual survival training or experience the two had but without some real knowledge and experience about survival on a desert island you would want a fair amount of support infrastructure and supplies. Without them life would be possible but could be really miserable. One badly cooked clam and you can be down for the count unable to continue to care for yourself because of illness. A cut can turn septic in short order etc etc. Let alone just getting the basics of food and water.
A team of people comes in handy - thus the tribal approach to indigenous survival.
It is amazing what people can do if faced with a survival situation but if our castaways had not started the job of surviving, including active salvage and supply from the plane and setup of the survival infrastructure they would require, life on that island would have been really really tough. I have pretty extensive experience with survival training and living under primitive conditions and I understand the challenges and if somebody was actually trying to use a broken bottle to cut open clams or boiling water in a glass container in the fire as has been proposed then they were living but not thriving.
Site 7 for instance demonstrates that somebody cooked food there. That may turn out to be an interim camp and a full blown Gilligan's Island/ Swiss Family Robinson resort might be hidden in the undergrowth. I am not thinking so.
We know they weren't around to offer mai tais to the next visitors anyway.
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Tom Swearengen on June 11, 2012, 12:40:37 PM
Brad & Tom---all good points. We dont know what survival training they had. Fred may have, but with the theory that he may have been injured in the landing, who knows what kind of help he would have been. Also something else to consider wa the fact that they intended on landing on Howland, and may not have been prepare to land anywhere else. Think of it as a flight to LA and having to put your plane down where in the Mojave. Most likely not something they were expecting, but I think should have prepared for.
Tom---all of our survival training, camping, hiking, experiences are awesome, but we have to put ourselves in her shoes and see what SHE was capable of. I wonder if any of our great researchers can find where she did any of that. If I had to bet, I'd say no. Hard for me to see a socialite like AE going hiking and camping in the woods for a week at a time. Girl Scout--maybe, but did they camp like they do know, or stay in cottages? We're talking about a whole different world here. Gilligan's Island for sure, except no professor,or Mary Ann. More like Hanks in 'Castaway', except the film crew and wilson. Remember, we're talking about 1937, not 2012. might be interesting to know if she did participate in camoing, hiking, and such. Might make a BIG difference in how we think .
Tom
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Andrew M McKenna on June 11, 2012, 03:15:31 PM
Malcolm says:

"Every time the failure of the naval aviators to spot them is raised we are offered the convenient but utterly unsupported claim that the Navy fliers basically couldn't see anything because they were trained for observing shell splashes rather than people. But that to me is not a reason, just a convenient excuse to support a wonky "fact" used to create a hypothesis. We must remember that on the one hand people claim that the Navy fliers couldn't spot an elephant in an empty barn while on the other hand we accept that they saw signs of recent habitation."

You say that the idea that the Navy fliers "couldn't see anything" is unsupported.  I don't think anyone has said the Navy fliers "couldn't see anything", just that the odds of being seeing a person are pretty small and that in the limited time they were overhead they did not spot anyone on the ground.  They did, as you point out spot "signs of recent habitation", so your use of "couldn't see anything" is wildly exaggerated in an apparent effort to make the TIGHAR scenario of missing persons on the ground seem absurd.

The difficulty of spotting folks on the ground is supported by the aerial tour which was flown at lower altitude than the Navy flight, and despite the fact that we know were some of the people on the ground should be, they are not visible in the video.  Some folks are relatively easy to spot, especially when the camera knows where they are and zooms in, but there are others there who are not visible.  Have you seen the aerial tour?  How many people can you spot?

In addition, as a trained airborne SAR Incident Commander, I can tell you that the probability of detection that I would assign to such a search - i.e. spotting a person on the ground during a couple of passes over the dense vegetation of Nikumaroro by non SAR trained personnel flying in open cockpit biplanes - would be extremely small.

So when you say that the notion that the Navy overflight was unsuccessful is "utterly unsupported" you are both discounting the available support for such a notion, some of which is visually available to yourself, and exposing your own bias towards not considering the possible reasons why such an overflight might not be successful at spotting persons on the ground. 

Furthermore, you've completely discounted the possibility that the signs of recent habitation might actually be related to Earhart and Noonan.  I find it unusual that you, as a scientist, so easily dismiss the possibility that signs of recent habitation on an uninhabited island could be related to two persons known to be missing in the area.  Yes, there are other possible explanations, but you have to admit that one possible scenario is that such signs were made by Earhart and/ or Noonan.  Isn't that scenario worth investigating?  Why are you so resistant to consider or explore that possibility?

You've reduced the discussion to binary absurdities - Navy fliers would have seen anything that was there - vs - Navy fliers "couldn't see anything".  Neither one is realistic, but the fact that you choose one over the other would indicate that you are not the objective third party you proclaim to be.  You've chosen one of the binary ends that itself has no actual supporting evidence, only your personal unsupported opinion.

This is a hypotheses we're working on here, something that is not yet proven, but a scenario that has to accommodate all the known facts, "wonky" or not.  If all the facts were as binary as you prefer to make them, it would be a lot easier.  The signs of recent habitation and the fact that no persons were seen by the Navy overflight are two facts that are easily dealt with in the area of messy reality between your sanitized binary ends.

Andrew

Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: C.W. Herndon on June 11, 2012, 03:28:49 PM
BRAVO!!!
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Greg Daspit on June 11, 2012, 05:55:04 PM
I saw the helo tour and could not see the people until the camera zoomed in. But has there been a reverse test?
Is it possible that with the sound of surf they may not have even heard the planes?  I live at the end of an airport and planes flying low are often not heard until they are right over.

 I think it is also possible they were so deep in the trees seeking water, food or shade, that they got out in the open for only one last pass of the planes before the planes went to search the other islands.
Maybe the planes searched the beach the first pass and the openings in the trees the second pass but by the 2nd pass, the castaways were then on the beach and were missed. I can certainly see problems for searchers, even ones trained to find people instead of spotting shell splashes.

Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Tom Bryant on June 11, 2012, 06:26:24 PM
Agreed and thus the scenario I presented earlier. Since there is no warning that planes will show up it sometimes takes a bit for it to sink in that you might actually have just heard a plane. I have had them buzz my camp and among the four or five of us sitting in the common tent there is often that moment of "what was that?"
I have had planes buzz my general location with the intention of locating me to pick me up and by the time I could get out onto a gravel bar they were long gone. Thankfully we both knew about where I would be so the pilot just turned around and came around again but there was not this advantage for the pilots or the castaways.
People who want to be seen are usually pretty obvious so long as you give them a chance. I would credit the fliers with some skill in seeing somebody but that somebody would have to be out in the open and in a place that was about to be flown over rather than just buzzed.  Not sure how many laps of the island the boys made but hate to think that AE and FN were there but either not able to get out quick enough or did get out but in the wrong place. A plane at the far northern end looking over the ship wreckage etc would be looking there and even if they looked southerly the trees would probably mask somebody down at Site 7.
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: john a delsing on June 11, 2012, 10:57:07 PM
Andrew, I did view the 'aerial tour", some differences I noted were that the "tour" had only one aircraft, not 3 with loud radial engines, the "tour" aircraft made one circle of the island not three  ( with zooming and six people looking ), and no one on the ground was running around waving shirts over their heads like they wanted to be seen. I know that mine is not the popular belief, but I believe if AE / FN were still alive they could have made it to an opening or to the beach and been spoted. My belief is AE planed for having to survive on a island ( carring extra water, food, ect. ) the same way she planed out her radio communications. It is also quite possible that Betty was correct, that there were serious injuries.
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Gary LaPook on June 12, 2012, 01:14:10 AM


In addition, as a trained airborne SAR Incident Commander, I can tell you that the probability of detection that I would assign to such a search - i.e. spotting a person on the ground during a couple of passes over the dense vegetation of Nikumaroro by non SAR trained personnel flying in open cockpit biplanes - would be extremely small.


Andrew
Well, since you brought this up and because Tom Bryant (and others) just recently tuned into this forum, I suggest that they review our previous discussion of the probability of detection IF Earhart and Noonan had been on Gardner. We discussed this extensively and I posted the actual manual that is used to compute the cumulative probability of detection so anyone interested can do the computations for themselves.

 In short, there is a disagreement about the probability of detection. Ric and Andrew place it at a very low value but my computation, using the official manual, shows a probability of 90% if they were in the bush and 95% if they were in the open, on the beach, the  reef or large clearings.
For those interested in this, please review the first 36 messages on this topic. (https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,517.msg6459.html#msg6459) (just click the blue link). And please review the official manual and do the computations for yourselves, don't just take my word for it or Andrew's word for it.

(BTW, Andrew, can you explain how you got the extremely low PODs in reply #6 (https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,517.msg6494.html#msg6494). Do you have other POD tables than the ones I posted that cover these extremely low PODs? If so, please post them. Since you claimed that it takes 4 passes to raise the cumulative probability of detection to just 0.95%, if searching for a person in dense cover, how many passes would it take to raise the cumulative POD to the 80% necessary to end the search? Let's say you had to search for a missing person in heavy cover in a quadrangle five miles on a side. Using your numbers, it would take flying 200 miles just to get to the 0.95% cumulative POD. (0.5 mile spacing means 10 tracks each 5 miles long = 50 miles, times 4 passes = 200 miles.) A Cessna 172 flying at 90 mph would take two hours and 15 minutes and there would be additional hours for flying to and from the search area and for making the turns at the ends of each track. A Cessna 172 costs about $120 per hour so this search would cost at least $300 and would produce less than a one percent probability of finding the missing person so it must cost about a zillion dollars to raise the POD to the 80% necessary to end the search. In your experience, Andrew, what track spacing was used for searching for persons in the woods of Colorado and how many passes were made prior to ending the search? Do you have any of your work sheets that you used for planning such searches that you could scan in and share with us?)

gl
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Malcolm McKay on June 12, 2012, 02:14:37 AM

This is a hypotheses we're working on here, something that is not yet proven, but a scenario that has to accommodate all the known facts, "wonky" or not.  If all the facts were as binary as you prefer to make them, it would be a lot easier.  The signs of recent habitation and the fact that no persons were seen by the Navy overflight are two facts that are easily dealt with in the area of messy reality between your sanitized binary ends.

Andrew

I won't bother quoting the whole reply, but take the last paragraph as a summation of the whole.

When the matter of the Navy search flyover was discussed on a previous occasions it was Martin who was most adamant that the fliers were not trained to find people, only big shell splashes - so I have not manufactured that assessment.

I also have viewed the video of the flight around the island and I think the claim that people are hard to see in it is a little exaggerated, in fact I could see them - that is because I also have some first hand experience from my own work as an archaeologist of using helicopters for spotting and I know from my relatively untrained experience (compared to the naval aviators) that while it is difficult it is not as hard as is claimed. Therefore speaking as someone with experience of this I can say that it most certainly doesn't support the conclusion that the naval personnel wouldn't have seen anything if some one was there - that is just a hyped up assessment meant to convince us all that the people are hard to see, I assure you that they aren't. So kindly don't confuse me with some amateur willing to believe that nonsense.

Those naval aviators were trained observers not just people grabbed out of the crew for the task so I would allow them some professional expertise and I expect that you should do so also. Now as for that ridiculous remark that I am making some sanitized binary observation, or binary absurdity (whatever that is) as you claim - I do actually have some real experience of the process. You are simply accusing me of an empty claim based on an armchair assessment and I find that silly.

One would have to be insensible to logic to deny that there is a very real probability that Earhart and Noonan were not on the island and never had been. Now I think anyone with any sense accepts that and those who can't should actually take a deep breath and stop using that helicopter fly-over which is simply aimed at a mass audience the vast majority of which will have have no experience of spotting things from the air so that they will nod their heads sagely and agree with the narrator. Then that induced reaction is translated into an assumption that the naval aviators also would have missed anyone on the island.

I pointed out that the naval aviators saw signs of recent habitation - I also suggested what that might have been. I used that fact to suggest that they were capable enough therefore of seeing Earhart or Noonan or a camp they might have made. If they didn't then that does also support the probability that the pair weren't there to be seen - so please don't misread what I said.

I am not sorry if my scepticism about some of the "evidence" put forward to support the Nikumaroro hypothesis upsets some people because in truth some of it does seem very contrived and flimsy to me. I suspect it appears the same to others as well. If people cannot handle the fact that not all agree about the evidence and wish to behave like a cheer squad then that is their option but I would seriously suggest that they are not looking closely enough at what is offered as evidence. Simply agreeing with the hypothesis won't prove it. That is precisely why I raised the point that Earhart and Noonan's disappearance on the island in so short a time needs to be very carefully considered not only for the reasons, but for its role in the structure of the Nikumaroro hypothesis. Simply put are we assuming that they died or weakened quickly simply to explain why the naval aviators didn't see them so that the hypothesis will stay alive, rather than answering the question about what happened to them.
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Tom Bryant on June 12, 2012, 09:20:16 AM
Thanks for reference Gary. A spirited debate to be sure. I enjoy dueling statistics as much as anybody but after reading that I decided to consult my PET (Personal Experience Tables) for some insight. Now these may not be published in a manual but they are the accumulation of decades of looking for people on the ground in various terrain. Mostly the far north so spruce trees or tundra compared to palm trees and sand. SAR and looking for geological personnel - they get into the darndest places and I keep misplacing them.
My overall assessment after careful consultation and slide rule computations is that ...it depends.
If our castaways were out in the open chances go way up. All the factors mentioned in your referenced debate notwithstanding the pilots were purposely looking for people - they were trying to see people and people trying to be seen are generally easy to spot if they can get into the open.
Add some tree cover over people who cannot be on watch 24/7 and who might not be in the best of shape and chances go down. ( as an aside has anyone here ever been standing next to someone trying to be seen as they wave their arms and shout "HEY DOWN HERE!!!" like the pilot will suddenly turn to somebody next to him and ask "did you just hear something?")
Bottom line - they were not seen. Does that mean they were not there? Maybe ...maybe not. No argument clincher for me either way just another data point.
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on June 12, 2012, 10:43:29 AM
Those naval aviators were trained observers not just people grabbed out of the crew for the task so I would allow them some professional expertise and I expect that you should do so also.

I'm looking for a little objectivity here.

Could you dig up the training manuals used to train these particular pilots in search-and-rescue techniques prior to the overflights in 1937?

If you don't have that data, all you have is a fact-free opinion--a religious belief, if you will, that is no better and no worse than other folk's beliefs.  The fact that you have immense respect for your own opinions does not make them objectively anything other than an opinion.

Until you provide the objective evidence to think otherwise, I will stick with my opinion that the training the pilots and spotters received was related to their mission on a battleship: spotting the fall of naval artillery fire.  While it is training in observation, and while I respect these men as having met the standards required in their training, I see no reason to suppose that it equipped them for recognizing wrecks and survivors, which is a different kettle of fish.  I will, of course, modify this opinion if you provide the objective data on this particular point.

I do not have a definitive history of the development of SAR techniques.  From this article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air-sea_rescue#Seenotdienst), it appears that the Germans began preparations for search-and-rescue in 1935; the U.S. efforts along the same lines appear to have been a few years later.
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: john a delsing on June 12, 2012, 11:55:06 AM
Martin,  I do not have any Navy training manuals to refer to, but I would be very surprised if both the pilots and the observers were not selected by the navy in part because of their excellent eye sight. Probably much, much better than the aveage TIGHAR member that was challaged to " find the people from heli tour ". I would like to think it logical to believe that these air crews where also trained to spot many things, things such as people on ships, or land waving them "off" or giving them other signals.
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Tom Swearengen on June 12, 2012, 12:15:04 PM
hey Johhny D----was good to see you in DC!
Tom
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: C.W. Herndon on June 12, 2012, 12:39:30 PM
John, I say this from the perspective of an Army pilot from the Viet Nam era. We were required to have 20/20 vision to get into flight school. After completion of flight school and over the years, many of the pilots, myself included, had to start wearing glasses (I actually got my first pair before flight school was completed). It was ok to be far sighted but different for near sightedness although it was also ok to a point. I don't think many people maintain 20/20 vision forever.

I have seen both Navy and Air Force pilots who had to wear "corrective lenses' and were still able to fly.

As far as training for locating people on the ground, we got none. All of that type training was OJT (on the job training) and specific to the unit you were in. I was in units that closely supported ground units and we flew many hours at 50-100 feet above the troops. We had 4 man crews and frequently had trouble keeping the ground troops in sight even though we knew where they were. Vegetation and shadows can really play tricks on you especially when you are looking down on something and moving fairly fast (90 -100 knots) and yes that was fast for us. We also had the advantage of 4 pairs of eyes, compared to 2 pairs in the Navy searches for AE and FN. We also had much better visability, no 54" diameter radial engine up front and no wings on the sides. Seeing people on the ground is much more difficult than it sounds.
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on June 12, 2012, 12:43:34 PM
Martin,  I do not have any Navy training manuals to refer to, but I would be very surprised if both the pilots and the observers were not selected by the navy in part because of their excellent eye sight. Probably much, much better than the aveage TIGHAR member that was challaged to " find the people from heli tour ". I would like to think it logical to believe that these air crews where also trained to spot many things, things such as people on ships, or land waving them "off" or giving them other signals.

I have the greatest respect for the military's ability to find folks with good eyesight.

In the last 75 years, we have learned a great deal about how eyesight works from the air when searching for survivors on land or water.  It is a trickier proposition that one might imagine at first.  We have a capacity nowadays to train people how to use their eyesight wisely that is different from the interests of the military in training gun observers in the 1930s.

I understand that you "think it logical to believe that these air crews were also trained to spot many things."  You share that religious belief with Malcolm.  Neither one of you are backing it up with objective evidence

All I'm trying to do is to establish the right category for the act of faith that you and Malcolm share.  Logic works on premises; it does not decide which premises are true.  If the Navy trained the observers to "spot many things," then that increases the force of the argument that their failure to spot AE and FN is evidence that AE and FN were not on the island.  If their training was focused on spotting the effect of gunnery with respect to a target on land or water, then that does not (in my belief system, at any rate) increase my confidence in their ability to spot one or two survivors on Niku (if there were survivors on Niku to be spotted).

Logic is all about if-then relations.  Logic can be applied to false premises as well as true premises.  An argument from false premises is just as logical as one from true premises.  In other words, an argument may be both logical and false.  Only if the premises are true and if the logic is sound will a conclusion be true as a consequence of using logic to draw conclusions from the premises.
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Jeff Victor Hayden on June 12, 2012, 01:17:51 PM
Our drop zones were marked by coloured smoke. We jumped at 800 feet, the crew of the plane needed smoke because at 800 feet even above flat open areas you were hard pressed to see anyone, waving or not. You get a fairly good view through the acres of glass out of the front of a C-130 as well.
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: C.W. Herndon on June 12, 2012, 01:26:09 PM
We also used a lot of colored smoke (notice that our smoke was different from yours) to mark pickup and landing zones. The only way to quickly find them. The ground troops also carried brightly colored (there's that word again) panels to help mark their location.
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Malcolm McKay on June 12, 2012, 11:37:42 PM

All I'm trying to do is to establish the right category for the act of faith that you and Malcolm share. 

No act of faith, in fact I haven't indulged in an act of faith for as long as I can remember. I am simply suggesting that because we are told in a video flyover of the island that people are hard to see then that will condition those not used to it to accept the idea. I didn't have that problem - however I am used to using my sight to find objects in unusual places. It is a matter of experience, not magic or even any real distinctive ability. Just something you learn. I might add that much of my aerial observation was done from leaning out a helicopter's open door in temperatures that would match Nikumaroro's at the height of summer so I can appreciate what one of those navy observers was facing. Damn good fun though  ;D

It is a matter of getting the eye in tune. On my very first excursion to a site as a baby archaeologist I couldn't for the life of me spot a single stone flake amongst the bits of rock and stone - not one, while all around me people were finding them everywhere. I finally gave up on the pride, admitted my utter incapacity to see anything and asked one of my fellow students to point one out to me - then it was like a light bulb moment, all the theoretical stuff I knew from class about the bulbs of percussion, the striking platform, the small flake marks on the surface etc. just sought of sprang into 3D. After that I never a problem - in fact on surveys for mining companies our geologists would often come along with me on a bit of the survey just to see what the archaeology business was all about. They all had the same problems I had on my first excursion as a student, which was all bits of broken stone look the same, and then after I showed them what to look for suddenly we had all these budding archaeologists. It is simply a trick of the trade - nothing especially brilliant.
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: john a delsing on June 13, 2012, 12:03:30 AM
Jeff,  at Fort Campbell, Ky. home of the 101st Airborne division, we jumped at 1250 ft. and used smoke to judge wind drift. Aircraft usually were; C119, C123, C124, or C130's. Heli's were H34's or Huey's. and yes, we could easly see people on the ground. I don't think I am the only TIGHAR member to belive if AE /FN were still alive, that 6 people, in 3 airplanes, each airplane viewing the ground below at different angles, would have spotted her ( or them ). Of course there is the possibility that she was never on this island.
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Gary LaPook on June 13, 2012, 03:09:42 AM


(BTW, Andrew, can you explain how you got the extremely low PODs in reply #6 (https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,517.msg6494.html#msg6494). Do you have other POD tables than the ones I posted that cover these extremely low PODs? If so, please post them. Since you claimed that it takes 4 passes to raise the cumulative probability of detection to just 0.95%, if searching for a person in dense cover, how many passes would it take to raise the cumulative POD to the 80% necessary to end the search? Let's say you had to search for a missing person in heavy cover in a quadrangle five miles on a side. Using your numbers, it would take flying 200 miles just to get to the 0.95% cumulative POD. (0.5 mile spacing means 10 tracks each 5 miles long = 50 miles, times 4 passes = 200 miles.) A Cessna 172 flying at 90 mph would take two hours and 15 minutes and there would be additional hours for flying to and from the search area and for making the turns at the ends of each track. A Cessna 172 costs about $120 per hour so this search would cost at least $300 and would produce less than a one percent probability of finding the missing person so it must cost about a zillion dollars to raise the POD to the 80% necessary to end the search. In your experience, Andrew, what track spacing was used for searching for persons in the woods of Colorado and how many passes were made prior to ending the search? Do you have any of your work sheets that you used for planning such searches that you could scan in and share with us?)

gl
I reviewed some older posts made my Andrew before I got involved on this forum and found that Andrew had used the POD table in a more reasonable manner here, (https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,253.msg2331.html#msg2331) the exact same way I used it in my prior posts on this subject. He assumed a one mile search visibility (I had used a four mile search visibility, which I still think is correct) and half mile track spacing (as had I) and came up with a 10% POD for spotting a person in the thick brush for one pass using the same method with the POD tables that I had used, (my calculation resulted in 30%.) He then correctly used the cumulative POD table to show that the POD would rise to 20% after three passes. Let's use Andrew's numbers. The track spacing would actually have been less than 0.5 NM because the strip of land is much narrower than that so the POD per pass would actually have been greater than 10%. (See diagram of search tracks here. (https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,253.msg12707.html#msg12707))Continuing the cumulative POD calculation, the three planes had enough time, 18 to 28 minutes according to Ric, for each of them to complete 3 to 5 complete circuits of the island. Each pass by each of the planes is an additional search for cumulative POD purposes so there were actually 9 to 15 passes, not the three that Andrew stopped his calculation at. Even using the low 10% per pass assumed by Andrew, the cumulative POD increases to 85% after 9 passes, and this is using Andrew's numbers, not mine, it should actually be higher. So even if they were not able to get to the beach when they heard the planes the POD is still quite high, much higher than Ric and Andrew estimated.

Looking at spotting Earhart and Noonan in the open, on the beach or reef, and using Andrew's one mile search visibility and 0.5 mile track spacing, the POD table shows a 35% POD for one pass. (I had computed 75% using the four mile search visibility.) This increases to 60% after the second pass,(using Andrew's numbers) 70% after the third pass (one circuit of the island by the three planes), 80% after the fourth pass, 85% after the fifth pass and 90% after the sixth pass (two circuits by the three planes). Since the track spacing was actually less than 0.5 NM the POD would actually be higher for each pass and with possibly 15 passes the cumulative POD would be above 90%.

Ric speculates that they were deep in the bush and did not have time to get out into the open before the search planes departed, but does this make any sense? Ric has described the great difficulty in hacking through the scavola so why would Earhart attempt to do that unless they saw a McDonald's sign beckoning from the interior. And they did not have the machetes that Ric's party had. Ric speculated that they would do this to obtain some shade from tall trees in the interior but the helicopter overflight shows tall trees right on the beach. The Bevington photo also shows tall trees on the beach so there is then  no reason for the Earhart to struggle through the scavola since they could set up camp in the shade of the trees along the beach.


The search and rescue manual, including the probability of detection tables, was developed by serious, professional people dedicated to the saving lives. Since these tables would be used to plan searches and to decide when to terminate a search it is quite likely that the PODs were conservative and pessimistic and not optimistic and they they actually understate the POD. If they overestimated the POD then searches would be terminated prematurely, leading to the death for the lost person. Based on this it is also likely that well trained search personnel actually achieve higher POD than the table predicts. So even if the Navy searchers were not as proficient and as well trained as modern personnel they probably were able to obtain the stated PODs or very close to them, well above the 10 to 20% claimed by Ric.

So IF Eahart was on Gardner there was a high probability that they would have been spotted even if they were in the bush and a very high probability if they were in the open which supports my contention that they were never there.

gl

gl
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: C.W. Herndon on June 13, 2012, 03:23:33 AM
John, I have spent most of my life living less than 40 miles from Fort Campbell and its drop zones. I have seen them and flown over the surrounding area for years as a professional pilot. I also spent a tour at Fort Bragg as a paratrooper. I will agree that the paratroopers used the smoke to estimate wind speed and direction. So did the pilots, however the pilots also used to smoke to help plan their approach to the drop zone to compensate for that wind so that the paratroopers could land on the drop zone and not in the trees. They had to start their approach from miles out in order to arrive at a point to start the drop that would allow the paratroopers to drift to the DZ. T-10 parachutes did not allow for much last minute correction of where you were going to land, especially from 1250 feet of altitude.

We usually had "path finders" on the ground who talked to the pilots to help with wind speed and direction but that included only the last mile or so of the flight. They sometimes also used a radio beacon to help guide the aircraft to the DZ but the smoke allowed the pilots a final fix to the drop zone to home in on.

I will agree that you can see hundreds of paratroopers with parachutes and equipment on the relatively flat and "cleared" area of a drop zone but things are a lot different with only a few people in an area with fairly "lush" vegetation.

I don't know if AE and FN were on Niku or not but I do believe, based on my experiences, that it would have been very hard to have spotted them from those old aircraft, on that atoll, and at the altitude that they flew unless AE and FN had been using some type of highly visable markers.
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on June 13, 2012, 07:37:45 AM
No act of faith, in fact I haven't indulged in an act of faith for as long as I can remember.

You've told us that you believe in doubting.  It's part of your creed.

Here is the act of faith I was questioning:

Those naval aviators were trained observers not just people grabbed out of the crew for the task so I would allow them some professional expertise and I expect that you should do so also.

You believe without evidence--at least, without any evidence you have brought into this discussion--that the kind of training given the observers equipped them with "professional expertise."  I've asked to see the evidence upon which this assertion is based; without evidence, it is merely an opinion--a belief held without objective evidence in its favor.

My belief about the value of their training differs from yours.  I'd be happy to modify my belief if you provide the evidence.  Until then, it is merely a contest of beliefs.  I've provided what evidence I can that S.A.R. is a WWII development.  What evidence do you have that training in directing naval gunnery included training in doing aerial searches for survivors?

Quote
... I am used to using my sight to find objects in unusual places. It is a matter of experience, not magic or even any real distinctive ability. Just something you learn.

We agree that people can learn how to use their sense of sight better.

We disagree whether the training given the naval observers provided them with the kind of experience necessary to learn how to improve the odds of spotting survivors.  That was your thesis.  As far as I can determine, it is a fact-free assertion.

Quote
It is simply a trick of the trade - nothing especially brilliant.

Yes, the S.A.R. folks also have accumulated tricks of the trade.  The relevant question is whether such a body of knowledge existed in 1937 and whether it was transmitted to the six men who flew the Niku mission in their training.  Anecdotes about what you learned to do on the ground are not evidence about the kind of training given to those men.
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Greg Daspit on June 13, 2012, 10:23:36 AM
The search report said “Here signs of recent habitation were clearly visible but repeated circling and zooming failed to elicit any answering wave from possible inhabitants and it was finally taken for granted that none were there”

1.   If they repeatedly zoomed and circled the same spot they saw signs, then they spent less time searching elsewhere on the island.

2.   If flying in formation, some sets of eyes could be busy staying in formation, as well as navigating, working radios, signaling each other etc.

3.   They may not have even heard the planes to come out of cover.

4.   They may have heard the planes, came out of cover, only by then the planes were repeatedly zooming and circling the area where they saw signs, someplace they were not at that time.

5.   The time the search took place was after radio signals stopped, and when AE and FN may have started to search the island and left the area near the plane where they left 6 days worth of signs of recent habitation.
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Malcolm McKay on June 13, 2012, 07:00:22 PM

You've told us that you believe in doubting.  It's part of your creed.

Here is the act of faith I was questioning:

Those naval aviators were trained observers not just people grabbed out of the crew for the task so I would allow them some professional expertise and I expect that you should do so also.

You believe without evidence--at least, without any evidence you have brought into this discussion--that the kind of training given the observers equipped them with "professional expertise."  I've asked to see the evidence upon which this assertion is based; without evidence, it is merely an opinion--a belief held without objective evidence in its favor.


What is it about the job description "observer" that you cannot grasp?
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on June 13, 2012, 07:37:42 PM
What is it about the job description "observer" that you cannot grasp?

If there is an objective job description (something that exists outside of your imagination--what an archeologist might call an "artifact" or a historian a "primary source") that we could look at, I would be happy to see what it says.

If the job description exists only inside your head and is not available for empirical observation by people other than yourself, I'm afraid it has to be categorized as a figment of your imagination.
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: John Ousterhout on June 13, 2012, 09:14:44 PM
"Observer" is not much of a job description, being only one word.  It's more of a title than a job description.  What we lack is the detailed job description that the "observers" might have been expected to comply with.  We don't know what their training consisted of.  We completely lack documentation, either in the form of training manuals and course outlines, nor in the form of personal recollections or even anecdotes.  The primary requirements for a Naval Artillary Observer might have been the ability to fly an airplane while working a radio.  Search and Rescue training, as we think of it now-days, appears to have been completely absent in the 1930's Aerial Navy Training lexicon.  The obvious need for formalized training appeared in the early days of WWII, and resulted in the training manuals that Gary frequently references.  It could be argued that losses like that of AE/FN created the formalization of SAR training, but without documentation we can only make assumptions based on guesses and faith.
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Malcolm McKay on June 13, 2012, 10:25:22 PM

If the job description exists only inside your head and is not available for empirical observation by people other than yourself, I'm afraid it has to be categorized as a figment of your imagination.

Sorry Marty I am not going into one of those non sequitur discussions of yours. I suggest that you do a little reading on the role of lookouts and observers in the pre-radar and other electronic location device days prior to 1939. Now while you may have strong doubts about the sharp eyes of naval observers whether on board a ship or in the air they were there to serve a very express purpose. Naval observation aircraft were the eyes of the fleet beyond the visual limit imposed by the horizon and part of that work which did include monitoring the fall of shells was looking out for all sorts of things that might pose a threat to the fleet e.g. small vessels, submarine periscopes etc. Now while I happily accept that you adamantly disagree with me concerning the observational skills of the aviators searching for Earhart (it is a discussion forum after all) I, after considering the issue, do not so there we must leave it.

But the fact that the navy fliers did not see Earhart or Noonan has in a perverse way come to be used as evidence that they were on the island but were either too weak or incapable of signalling the aircraft. That is because the people who are convinced they were there have to find a reason why the navy pilots didn't see them and therefore have to provide an explanation for this.

So far I see three basic explanations offered (there may be more so feel free to add to them  :) ), all of which include the "accepted fact" that by then the Electra had been washed off the reef, 

1. The navy pilots and observers were only trained to see very very large shell splashes so anything less than 70 or 80 feet in height, white and wet was outside their skill set which clearly excludes Earhart and Noonan on height grounds alone as well as quite possibly the wet part (I'm leaving out the white bit because by then both would have had a healthy sun tan), or

2. Earhart and Noonan were collapsed in the shade somewhere lamenting the bad clam they had for lunch and missed the fly over, or

3. Earhart and Noonan were like the Monty Python parrot - dead, deceased, shuffled off the mortal coil etc. for any number of reasons, all of which are purely conjectural.

Therefore those reasons despite being pure guesswork, and all based on the assumption that the US Navy observers were utterly unskilled, are used to advance the argument that Earhart and Noonan were there. Call me difficult (go ahead, I don't mind, I have a broad back) but I find it amusing that it can be argued that the undeniable fact that Earhart and Noonan were not seen is undeniable proof that they were there to be seen. It has chutzpah I admit.  :)
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Greg Daspit on June 13, 2012, 10:27:19 PM
Ric G. said in another thread "There were three airplanes, each with a pilot and an observer.  Lambrecht's observer was Seaman First Class J.L. Marks. He had flown just once before on this cruise, with Lambrecht on the morning flight the day before.  The other observers on the McKean/Gardner/Carondelet Reef flight were Radioman 3rd Class Williamson who rode in the rear cockpit of Fox's airplane, and Lt. C. F. Chillingworth, the ship's Ass't 1st Lt. and Damage Control Officer, who rode behind Bill Short.  More often than not during the Earhart search, the observers seem to have been whoever could cadge a ride - one of the three "AVCADs" (Aviation Cadets) or one of the ship's officers"
http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,517.15.html
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on June 14, 2012, 07:52:57 AM

If the job description exists only inside your head and is not available for empirical observation by people other than yourself, I'm afraid it has to be categorized as a figment of your imagination.

Sorry Marty I am not going into one of those non sequitur discussions of yours.

Just trying to objective, Malcolm.

If you have something outside your head that other interested parties may observe with their senses, then you have some data to back up your opinion.

If you don't have anything outside your head that others can examine empirically, then you have a belief.

With empirical evidence, others can check your results.

Without empirical evidence, all that your peers can do is to read your mind instead of observing the artifact or reading the primary source.

Quote
I suggest that you do a little reading on the role of lookouts and observers in the pre-radar and other electronic location device days prior to 1939.

I'm not the man who made the unsupported act of faith about how the six men from the Colorado were educated.  The person who makes the claim has the burden of proof.  All I have to do, following your lead, is ask questions about whether you've met the burden of proof that you have taken on.

I've shown you the links to the reading I've done on the history of S.A.R., which is the relevant educational tradition in question.

Quote
Now while you may have strong doubts about the sharp eyes of naval observers ...

No, I have no doubts about the quality of their eyesight.

But you yourself provided an anecdote which, for the sake of argument, I will assume to be true, about how you were trained to use your eyesight in the field and subsequently taught others the same skill.  Both before and after acquiring the skill of recognizing what was sought, your eyesight was the same.  What changed was not the quality of your eyesight but your ability to use it properly in the search you were doing.

That shows that education can improve the use of one's natural talents.  So the specific issue is about what kind of training was given to the six men who searched Niku.

Quote
whether on board a ship or in the air they were there to serve a very express purpose.

So far as I know, the express purpose of the spotter planes on a destroyer was to find targets and direct gun fire.  Looking for a ship or plotting the fall of rounds is on a different scale than searching for people on the ground or in the water.

Quote
Naval observation aircraft were the eyes of the fleet beyond the visual limit imposed by the horizon and part of that work which did include monitoring the fall of shells was looking out for all sorts of things that might pose a threat to the fleet e.g. small vessels, submarine periscopes etc. Now while I happily accept that you adamantly disagree with me concerning the observational skills of the aviators searching for Earhart (it is a discussion forum after all) I, after considering the issue, do not so there we must leave it.

No, I do not disagree with you about the "observational skills of the aviators."  I disagree with you about your objectivity in making the claim that the kind of education they were given equipped them for the kind of search that was needed over Niku.  I'm will to change my mind if and when you provide something that comes from outside your own mind--something objective--that shows that the training they received was the kind of training needed to find AE and FN. 

Quote
But the fact that the navy fliers did not see Earhart or Noonan has in a perverse way come to be used as evidence that they were on the island but were either too weak or incapable of signalling the aircraft.

Some may use it that way.  I don't, and I don't think you will find that proposition in TIGHAR's own publications.  In the absence of evidence either way, we cannot be sure what their physical was (assuming, of course, for the sake of argument, that they were on the island in the first place).

If they were on the island, and if they were incapacitated, that might explain why the searchers did not see them.  This is pure logic.  It is unassailable.  It is not an assertion that they were on the the island nor that they were injured; it is a connection between two ideas (present, but hurt) and another idea (not able to get the attention of the searchers). 

Quote
That is because the people who are convinced they were there have to find a reason why the navy pilots didn't see them and therefore have to provide an explanation for this.

True.  If AE and FN were on the island, then there must be some reason why they were not found by the Navy.  That, too, is a logical argument, and is unassailable.

Quote
1. The navy pilots and observers were only trained to see very very large shell splashes so anything less than 70 or 80 feet in height, white and wet was outside their skill set which clearly excludes Earhart and Noonan ...

Yes.  Your claim is that anyone trained in any form of observation becomes omnicompetent in all kinds of observation; your anecdote about being trained to see things differently contradicts your first claim.  The kind of education given can affect the kind of observations that are made.

Quote
Therefore those reasons despite being pure guesswork ...

When I question your guesswork, you accuse me of non sequitur arguments.  I guess you value your guesswork more highly than I do.

Quote
, and all based on the assumption that the US Navy observers were utterly unskilled

Straw man.  I haven't said that they were "utterly unskilled."  The position I've taken is more nuanced than than.

Quote
, are used to advance the argument that Earhart and Noonan were there.

False.  I do not reason that the failure of the search to see them is evidence of their presence on the island.  What I claim is that the failure of the search to find them is not evidence that they were not on the island.  That is a different position from the one that you are rejecting.

Quote
Call me difficult (go ahead, I don't mind, I have a broad back) but I find it amusing that it can be argued that the undeniable fact that Earhart and Noonan were not seen is undeniable proof that they were there to be seen. It has chutzpah I admit.  :)

If anyone were making that argument, it would be absurd.

What is peculiar is your perception that someone has made that argument.  Now in addition to your fact-free speculation about the nature of the airmen's education, you've started seeing things that aren't there in this thread.
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on June 14, 2012, 07:55:56 AM
Ric G. said in another thread "... the observers seem to have been whoever could cadge a ride - one of the three "AVCADs" (Aviation Cadets) or one of the ship's officers"
http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,517.15.html (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,517.15.html)

Nice piece of reading, Gregory!  I had been assuming that the "observers" all were "trained naval gunnery observers."  That assumption may have been unwarranted.   :o
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Tom Swearengen on June 14, 2012, 09:28:50 AM
Ok---the observers task was to observe. I assume they were briefed on the search they were a part of--looking for a plane, possibly people either on the water, or on one of the islands they were searching.  (ever told your child to look for a road sign while you were busy driving? Not a 'trained' observer, but is capable of the task, as I'm sure our navy observers were).

The reality is they did NOT find AE & fred, not the electra, for whatever reasons. Another reality is that maybe AE & fred werent in a position to be found.
But to say the navy observers werent capable is not a fair statement, whern they are not here to defend what they did. Granted, perhaps the Navy found 'bodies' to put in the back seats. But I would think that they were briefed on looking for anything resembling a crash site, people stranded, or in the case of islands, anything that looks out of place. Yes, at altitude that is tough. But I'm confident that if they saw something out of place, they would have reported it to the pilot, for further investigation. The reports say nothing was found. The navy said the same thing about PT109 too-----
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Tom Bryant on June 14, 2012, 11:02:12 AM
This, like a few of the other ideas exchanged in discussions is, for me, a null as evidence. It will be one of those bits of the story that will become part of the colour commentary after the actual proof is made. As in  -Tighar finds the wreck it will become the Navy searched and didn't see it OR the wreck is found somewhere else so the Navy searched the island but the wreck was not there OR the wreck is never found and we get to debate the mystery. We can argue till the rapture that they were eagle eyed or blind as bats but it proves nothing towards the final determination. It is merely something that happened.
In my opinion, it serves as part of the conjecture that motivates to seek the evidence that leads to proof and that's a good thing but, for me, it does not offer any defendable argument for on the island or not.
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: John M Kirk on June 14, 2012, 11:37:34 AM
My two cents - 

If Amelia and Fred were near the Norwich ie... standing by the tree line, because of high tide, they would have been "MISSED".  I say this because the "Look Out" will have trained his eyes and focused in on the Norwich.  How many passes did they fly?  One, Two ..............

I tried going to Google Earth, typed in "Jones Beach NY" - A very populated place here on the Island.  I zoomed to an "Eye Alt" of 1000 ft.  Try it....  Then try and spot a person on the beach.  They are there, you just have to look for them.  Very hard to see.  I am not sure if this same type of image would be the same type viewed from the search place..

My expertise is on submarines.  I have stood many a watch as look out. From when I was a junior sailor, to a Senior Contact Coordinator...

thank you

Jk

Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on June 14, 2012, 11:43:55 AM
In my opinion, it serves as part of the conjecture that motivates to seek the evidence that leads to proof and that's a good thing but, for me, it does not offer any defendable argument for on the island or not.

Agreed.
This is pure logic.  No research required to see the truth of these two propositions.

This is a different line of argument:
Nobody has made this argument:
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Tom Bryant on June 14, 2012, 12:47:50 PM
An excellent summation of the issue Marty and also a caution to people (the media for instance) who like to grab a conjecture or postulation and use it to defend a position as if it has the strength of proof. We know the fliers did not see them therefore we know ....they didn't see them.
That should not stifle debate or conjecture or even the belief in one position or another. Its ammunition that does not fit in anybody's gun in the debate.
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on June 14, 2012, 01:24:26 PM
We know the fliers did not see them therefore we know ....they didn't see them.

That's the best laugh I've had in weeks. 

That about sums it up.

Thanks, Tom!   :D
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Chris Johnson on June 14, 2012, 01:34:58 PM
But they should have because a manual writen in the future based on practice and procedure from the future says so  ;)

I always use a Windows 7 manual when i have to investigate a problem on a windows 2000 PC.  Makes perfect sense dosn't it? Use the latest reference.

IGMC
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Malcolm McKay on June 14, 2012, 07:17:34 PM

...

What is peculiar is your perception that someone has made that argument.  Now in addition to your fact-free speculation about the nature of the airmen's education, you've started seeing things that aren't there in this thread.

Sorry Marty but once again your point by point dismissal is as usual not coming even close to answering my comment that "Call me difficult (go ahead, I don't mind, I have a broad back) but I find it amusing that it can be argued that the undeniable fact that Earhart and Noonan were not seen is undeniable proof that they were there to be seen. It has chutzpah I admit.  :)  "

And given the level of fruitless circular discussion on this particular issue I think that I have pretty much got that right. As for the belief in the capability of Naval observers it is I who is arguing that they were performing well within their remit while it is you who believes that they were not simply because you just see them as shell splash spotters. You claim I haven't backed my claim, which I think I have, while equally I can assert that you haven't backed your claim that they were incapable of seeing a couple of stranded people. Once again it becomes circular and such arguments are silly.

Also this failure to sight them relies as I have continued to point out on a string of unproven assertions -

1. The Electra landed on the reef then at some stage got washed off so it couldn't be seen,

2. Earhart and Noonan were on shore and possibly concealed by trees,

3. One of them, Noonan, was injured (the Betty notebook) which may have hampered mobility,

4. By the time of the Navy fly over Earhart and Noonan were rendered incapable of attracting attention by physical debilitation,

5. The Navy aviators lacked the necessary training to spot anyone on the ground,

6. The Naval air search was haphazard.

The list goes on so when I say half tongue in cheek that it would seem "that it can be argued that the undeniable fact that Earhart and Noonan were not seen is undeniable proof that they were there to be seen." I think I have pretty much summed up that component of the Nikumaroro hypothesis at present. However all the belief in the world cannot take the argument any further to resolution, only the discovery of identifiable wreckage off the island reef or some other unassailable artifact can do that.
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Gary LaPook on June 15, 2012, 01:45:45 AM
My two cents - 



I tried going to Google Earth, typed in "Jones Beach NY" - A very populated place here on the Island. I zoomed to an "Eye Alt" of 1000 ft.  Try it....  Then try and spot a person on the beach. They are there, you just have to look for them.  Very hard to see.  I am not sure if this same type of image would be the same type viewed from the search place..


Jk
I tried the same thing and I can tell you that the "Eye altitude" is not anywhere near to being correct and shows a completely erroneous idea of visibility at various altitudes in a real airplane.

gl
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Gary LaPook on June 15, 2012, 01:59:23 AM



I reviewed some older posts made my Andrew before I got involved on this forum and found that Andrew had used the POD table in a more reasonable manner here, (https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,253.msg2331.html#msg2331) the exact same way I used it in my prior posts on this subject. He assumed a one mile search visibility (I had used a four mile search visibility, which I still think is correct) and half mile track spacing (as had I) and came up with a 10% POD for spotting a person in the thick brush for one pass using the same method with the POD tables that I had used, (my calculation resulted in 30%.) He then correctly used the cumulative POD table to show that the POD would rise to 20% after three passes. Let's use Andrew's numbers. The track spacing would actually have been less than 0.5 NM because the strip of land is much narrower than that so the POD per pass would actually have been greater than 10%. (See diagram of search tracks here. (https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,253.msg12707.html#msg12707))Continuing the cumulative POD calculation, the three planes had enough time, 18 to 28 minutes according to Ric, for each of them to complete 3 to 5 complete circuits of the island. Each pass by each of the planes is an additional search for cumulative POD purposes so there were actually 9 to 15 passes, not the three that Andrew stopped his calculation at. Even using the low 10% per pass assumed by Andrew, the cumulative POD increases to 85% after 9 passes, and this is using Andrew's numbers, not mine, it should actually be higher. So even if they were not able to get to the beach when they heard the planes the POD is still quite high, much higher than Ric and Andrew estimated.

Looking at spotting Earhart and Noonan in the open, on the beach or reef, and using Andrew's one mile search visibility and 0.5 mile track spacing, the POD table shows a 35% POD for one pass. (I had computed 75% using the four mile search visibility.) This increases to 60% after the second pass,(using Andrew's numbers) 70% after the third pass (one circuit of the island by the three planes), 80% after the fourth pass, 85% after the fifth pass and 90% after the sixth pass (two circuits by the three planes). Since the track spacing was actually less than 0.5 NM the POD would actually be higher for each pass and with possibly 15 passes the cumulative POD would be above 90%.

So IF Eahart was on Gardner there was a high probability that they would have been spotted even if they were in the bush and a very high probability if they were in the open which supports my contention that they were never there.

gl

Here is what Andrew wrote: (https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,253.msg2331.html#msg2331)
Search visibility is defined as " the distance at which an object on the ground can be seen and recognized from a particular height" i.e. how far away can you recognize a VW as a VW, from the height you are flying at.  Rule of thumb is that you really can't tell a VW from anything else at more than a mile, so 1 mile is usually the max Search Visibility used, especially if were looking for humans instead of Electras.

So, using the chart, flying at 500ft with a track spacing of .5 miles - up the beach side of the island and down the lagoon side, with a 1 mile Search Visibility in Heavy Tree Cover, yields a 10% POD.  That would be one pass around the exterior combined with one pass around the lagoon side.

To get the cumulative POD of multiple passes, google "CAP Cumulative POD" to get the CAP Mission Pilot / Aircrew Course Slides, where you will find the Cumulative POD chart on slide 19.

Two complete circuits would raise the Cumulative POD to 15%, three complete passes to 20%, etc.  You can see that our flyers would have to remain on station for some time making some 7 to 8 passes before they could get their POD up above even 50%.

Have Fun

Andrew
---------------------------------------------------------
Here is what I had posted: (https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,517.msg6481.html#msg6481)
We can go through the computation looking first at the worst case example of "heavy tree cover." Since Lambrecht was flying at about 400 feet we  use the 500 foot table. We also know that the visibility was at least 4 nautical miles since Lambrecht's report said it was 30 nautical miles so we use the visibility 4 mi. column. We also know that the track spacing could not have been greater than one-half mile because the island is too narrow for a greater spacing, see attached diagram of .5 nm spacing.

Using all of these entry values and entering the POD tables (either yours or mine) we find the probability of detection is 30% for the worst case, not the 10 to 20% that you stated. Using the same information and looking at the table for "open, flat terrain," such as the beach and the reef flat, we see that the probability of spotting Earhart and Noonan standing on the beach or on the reef is 75%, again much higher than the value that you stated.

But this is not the end of the computation, your must then go on to the Cumulative POD table on page 157 (173 of the PDF) of your manual, page 8-2 of my manual. Every additional pass over the same area increases the probability of detection. For Earhart, hiding among the trees, the cumulative probability of detection increases to 45% after a second pass; 50% after a third pass; 60% after a fourth pass; 65% after a fifth pass; 75% after a sixth pass; 80% after a seventh pass and 90% after 8 passes.

Looking at the case of Earhart standing on the beach, the probability increases to 95% after only 2 passes. Each pass around the island by each of the three planes in Lambrecht's flight counts as an additional search. Page 157 (173 of the PDF) of the manual that you used states:

"If you, or another aircraft and crew, fly the same pattern a second time, the POD increases significantly."

-----------------------------------------------------

You can see that we both used the tables and the same methodology and our only differences is in choice of "search visibility" and number of passes. Using Ric's estimate of the time over Gardner the planes had time for 3 to 5 circuits of the island, constituting 9 to 15 search passes. But Ric bases his estimate of the time available for searching Gardner on the assumption that the O3U-3 search planes flew at only 90 knots for the entire time they were away from the ship, including the flights between the islands. This type of plane had a top speed of 143 knots and a normal cruising speed of 115 knots so the planes could have flown between the islands at this higher cruising speed thereby leaving significantly more search time over Gardner,so they might have made even more circuits of the island.

Here is a link to the appropriate POD tables. (https://tighar.org/smf/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=517.0;attach=310)

I have also attached CAP form 104a used for this calculation.

gl
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Gary LaPook on June 15, 2012, 03:24:49 AM
When they were sending spacecraft to Mars they included certain chemistry experiment packages to test for life. Since life needs water they included a test for water. Since life is based on carbon they included a test for signs of carbon. Then a fairly smart guy said "lets also include a camera so that even if a silicon based life form happens to come walking by we will be able to spot it."

Reading some of the responses, it makes me wonder if the O3U-3 search planes didn't have storage compartments for the white canes of the flight crews.

Its pretty easy to see people from the air, with or without special training. I have flown around in Hueys looking for soldiers on the ground and I had no trouble spotting them and I had no special training for this. And these guys were wearing camouflage and they were even visible under camouflage nets. Still pictures do not accurately show visibility from airplanes because movement of the plane makes objects that are standing upright  appear to move in relationship to the background and the human eye has evolved (assuming you believe in evolution) to spot movement, this skill kept our ancestors alive, spotting the lion sneaking up behind them or the dinner rabbit moving under the bush. In fact, movement is processed right on the retina and a signal sent to the brain to flag the movement. This is an innate human skill just like being able to catch a ball. Can an observer with a little bit of specialized training do better, sure, but even those without this additional training also do very well. According to the cumulative POD tables, there was a 95% probability of spotting Earhart and Noonan if they were in the open but this is almost certainly a conservative estimate and highly trained observers might do better and untrained observers maybe slightly worse, say 90% of 85%, certainly not a whole lot worse.

Aerial observation techniques were highly developed during the "Great War" and there is no reason to think that the Army kept these techniques secret from their brothers in the Navy. Navy aviators did not just spot shell splashes they also scouted for other ships such as "the enemy." And this was not the first search for lost airmen conducted from planes. In 1927 planes were use to search for the missing pilots of the planes competing in the Dole Derby so search and rescue techniques were already developed ten years prior to the Earhart search.

Whatever disparagement of the skills of the Navy aviators the defenders of the Gardner hypothesis feel compelled to make, the commanders of the Colorado and the Lexington felt otherwise and they had current knowledge of the skill and training that the aviators possessed. If the commanders did not believe that the aviators had the necessary skill to spot Earhart then there would have been no reason to launch the search planes.

It's interesting to watch these kerfluffles. Any time a piece of evidence points away from the TIGHAR hypothesis, the defenders of the faith jump up to disparage it. I have never claimed that the failure to spot them on the island proved that they were not on the island. Even with a high probability of detection, it is just that, a probability, and it is never a certainty. But it does provide one more piece of evidence on the not TIGHAR end of the scale, it doesn't prove it. The TIGHAR enthusiasts pile everything they can find on the island (unless it has a clear date on it of 1938 or later) on their end of the scale as additional evidence of Earhart being on the island so it is certainly fair for me to bring up evidence pointing in the other direction.

gl

Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Andrew M McKenna on June 15, 2012, 04:26:00 AM
Gary loves to make this seem like a simple math problem, but it really isn't.  These charts are a guide that was developed to help manage a search, they do not in themselves constitute the search.  The kind of searches they were developed for was missing aircraft such as the example given, as the USAF figured out that they really did not have anything in their inventory that could do a good job searching, so they gave the job to the CAP.  I do not think the POD chart was developed for looking for missing persons, although it can be a tool used to do so.

The thing about missing airplanes is that they generally leave some sort of trace, fire, smoke, smoking hole, broken trees, aluminum debris field, disturbed snow, vultures gathering - something that can be seen from farther away than a single person can be seen.  That's why the search visibility in the POD Chart starts at 1 mile, it was developed for missing airplanes and the signs they leave.  Gary likes to quote my sample that uses the 1mi visibility, which is probably reasonable if we're looking for the Electra or perhaps a VW.  However, in this case we're talking about looking for a person who is not necessarily out in the open, and I don't think a 4 mile, or even 1 mile search visibility is reasonable.  I would not use those values if I were managing an actual search for a missing person in heavy cover.

Instead, I would use a less than 1mi search visibility and extrapolate the values of the POD chart to accommodate.  Why?  Because I don't believe that it is reasonable to say that anyone can see and recognize a person on the ground in heavy tree cover from a height of 500 ft from a mile away.  The trees in the way would prevent you from seeing the person, all you end up seeing is the canopy.  In effect, you have to be right on top of them to see them. 

Gary on the other hand, believes he and our Navy fliers (apparently untrained in any SAR technique) can see and recognize a person on the ground under the tree cover from 4 miles away.  He apparently has very good eyes.

A good case in point is found in the aerial tour http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DL9FGsvB3E8&feature=youtu.be (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DL9FGsvB3E8&feature=youtu.be) where if you freeze frame the flight at 5:30 you will find that it is extremely difficult to see the three persons in the video, even though you are flying at less than 200 ft, and within about .2 of a mile from them.  Note that the single person who is subsequently visible, only becomes so when the camera (who knows where they are) zooms in on them.  And even then, only one out of three can be found.

As each of you evaluate this, what is your search visibility at this point, when you cannot see and recognize three persons on the ground?  Is it appropriate for you, as search manager, to be using a 4 mile search visibility, or even a 1 mile search visibility for this search?  I think not.

Gary prefers to go in that direction as it suits his argument that AE was never on Nikumaroro, and if she had been, the Navy would have seen her in their few passes over the island with their 2 man untrained in SAR crews flying open cockpit biplanes.  If the Electra was lying on the beach, I would agree with him.

If Gary was hired to argue the case of CAP pilot sued by the grieving spouse of a pilot who wasn't found during a search, he'd be arguing the other way and describing how difficult such searches can be.  He likes to portray things as black and white simple, because that makes it easy for juries to make a decision.  Apparently, he's pretty good at it.

But, as usual, things are rarely black and white simple.  You can judge this for yourselves.  Look at Bill Carter in the aerial tour video, the guy in the white shirt.  I can almost guarantee you that he, along with everyone else on the ground that day, has scrambled as best he can to get to a place "out in the open" where he can see the helicopter, he's between trees, and as far as he is concerned, he thinks he's easily visible.  Bill is not hidden away under a tree, but he is in the shadow of the tree, so even though there are areas that are clear, that doesn't mean that a person in the clear area is easy to see.

If you look at the fly by the 7 site, even with the camera lens zoomed in, you cannot see the 3 to 4 persons who are ashore - not the three guys headed out into the lagoon - but several additional folks back in the bush.  You have to ask yourself if there is really 30% probability of seeing persons on the ground in a single pass?

If you stop the video at 11:55, before the camera zooms in, the helicopter is approximately .75 nm from the 7 site, yet the three people who are out in the lagoon, wading in the open, are not recognizable, nor for that matter is the 21 ft red color rubber Naiad boat they are wading to, and they are all as out in the open as they can possibly be.

For the CAP, I've sat a target consisting of the major parts of a Cessna 152, set in a small clearing in the tall pine trees of Colorado, with a practice ELT beacon going.  Several trained SAR crews failed to visually spot me even when they pretty much knew the target was localized to one ridge.  Again, they had to be right on top of me to see me from the right angle.

You'd think that something that looks like the photo below (if I can get it inserted) would be easy to find, but it wasn't.

So we can go on arguing about what the probability was, or the search visibility to use, but in the end it really won't solve anything.  My experience in SAR tells me that the probability, given the scenario, was pretty low, and I don't think that the POD tables are going to somehow mathematically get us there.

Andrew
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: C.W. Herndon on June 15, 2012, 05:09:40 AM
Gary, I think Andrew has done a great job of summarizing  some of his experiences in SAR work, but let me, as an old Army pilot who spent more than 700 hours flying at low levels, usually less than 100 feet, in support of ground troops in Viet Nam put in my 2 cents worth. I also disagree with your pronouncements about how easily people on the ground can be detected. I have over flown friendly troops on the ground for hours at a time and we, my crew and I plus a second ship that was part of our team, frequently only got fleeting glimpses of them when they were in moderate cover and we basically knew where they were.

I have also looked at your POD charts and while I can find no indication of just what object (objects) was used to compute the POD the examples used in the instructions/examples were a red and white Cessna 172 and a red and white Cessna 182. I would agree the the POD for these items might be consistant with the charts but they are not people on the ground.

I also remember reading somewhere in one of the reports of a previous trip to Niku, maybe someone can help me out here because I can't remember which one, that the noise from the surf was so loud it was difficult to hear sounds from other than the immediate area. Could this help mask the sound of search aircraft and reduce the time someone would have to try to attract their attention?

Just my thoughts.
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Chris Johnson on June 15, 2012, 05:32:02 AM
Woody,

not sure if it was in the book "shoes" or on the main site (will look later) but during one expedition the ground crew were in the bush when they heard as it passed over them a prop engineed plane.  By the time they were out of the bush it was gone.

The interesting thing is they didn't hear it approach due to noise, surf, wind in trees etc..
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: C.W. Herndon on June 15, 2012, 05:36:19 AM
Thanks for the verification Chris. I was hoping it wasn't just me, but us old guys sometimes have memory problems.
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Jeff Victor Hayden on June 15, 2012, 06:31:18 AM
I find the SAR aspect of sighting 'possible' survivors on Gardner Island intriguing. The theory and maths involved has been explained brilliantly. The personnel who carry out these tasks, superb. The equipment and techniques, outstanding.
That's the theory and, I'm sure it works in practice, sometimes.
And that's the point I would like to add, 'it works in practice, sometimes'.
I say that because during my research into other aircraft lost in the vicinity of Gardner island and, surrounding area. I have noticed that survivors of ditching aircraft who end up adrift on the Pacific ocean have all reported their difficulty in attracting the attention of SAR aircraft that have been sent to find them.
Now, the SAR aircraft and crews are actively looking for the ditched aviators.
The ditched aviators are actively trying to get the attention of the SAR aircraft.
There is no 'cover' to prevent sighting of downed aviators.
life rafts are a bright colour, to stand out from the background, to be seen.
And yet, they were not seen.
I'm sure there could be other factors that prevented sighting, weather? light? but, it would be foolish and, has been shown, that trained SAR teams actively looking and, ditched aircrews actively trying to get noticed, don't always end up meeting each other even in open water conditions.

Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Andrew M McKenna on June 15, 2012, 07:39:05 AM
Jeff

That is a great point.  Open terrain, 4 mile search visibility, 1000 ft altitude,

Gary would give it better than 50% probability of detection for a single pass, even up to 85% probability - YET - they were not seen out there in the wide open.

It just isn't so easy, even when the target is out in the wide open.  Gives perspective on trying to see someone in dense bush.

Andrew
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Jeff Victor Hayden on June 15, 2012, 07:47:59 AM
Another point to note Andrew was that the ditched crews could see the search planes but, they themselves could not be seen. So the altitude of the search planes allowed visual contact to be made but, only by the ditched crews not the SAR planes crews.
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on June 15, 2012, 09:55:33 AM
Sorry Marty but once again your point by point dismissal is as usual not coming even close to answering my comment that "Call me difficult (go ahead, I don't mind, I have a broad back) but I find it amusing that it can be argued that the undeniable fact that Earhart and Noonan were not seen is undeniable proof that they were there to be seen. It has chutzpah I admit.  :)  "

This is called a "straw man."  It is one of the logical fallacies identified and condemned in Carl Sagan's book, The Demon-Haunted World.  Demolishing an argument that no one has made is not a respectable scientific method.

Quote
And given the level of fruitless circular discussion on this particular issue I think that I have pretty much got that right.

I don't doubt your confidence in your judgments.

I doubt the quality of your judgments.

I question your authority.

Quote
As for the belief in the capability of Naval observers it is I who is arguing that they were performing well within their remit while it is you who believes that they were not simply because you just see them as shell splash spotters. You claim I haven't backed my claim, which I think I have, ...

The question in need of evidence is the nature of their training.

You have the burden of proof.

You have offered nothing outside of your own belief system.  No artifacts, no primary sources. 

Quote
... while equally I can assert that you haven't backed your claim that they were incapable of seeing a couple of stranded people.

Another straw man.  I have never said they were "incapable of seeing a couple of stranded people."  What I have said is that there is no indication that their education prepared them for that kind of search and that, therefore, those who claim that they were fully equipped to do such a search have gone beyond the evidence available.

Quote
Once again it becomes circular and such arguments are silly.

A circular argument presumes what it attempts to prove.  While I agree that circular arguments are silly, this is not one: If you have no evidence for the assertion you have made about the education of the six Navy men, then you do not have objective grounds for asserting that they were well-prepared to do an aerial search of Niku.

If by "circular argument," you mean that each one of us is repeating what we have said before, that may well be the case. 

Quote
Also this failure to sight them relies as I have continued to point out on a string of unproven assertions -

You have not stated my position fairly.  I make none of the assertions you listed.  I noted that the fact that the naval personnel did not see them may be accounted for on two different grounds: if they were on the island, then something kept them from being see; if they were not on the island, then that explains why they were not seen.

Quote
The list goes on so when I say half tongue in cheek that it would seem "that it can be argued that the undeniable fact that Earhart and Noonan were not seen is undeniable proof that they were there to be seen." I think I have pretty much summed up that component of the Nikumaroro hypothesis at present.

I think your "summary" imputes things to TIGHAR that TIGHAR has never said.  It is not a summary at all, but a misrepresentation of TIGHAR's position.
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on June 15, 2012, 10:14:09 AM
Aerial observation techniques were highly developed during the "Great War" and there is no reason to think that the Army kept these techniques secret from their brothers in the Navy. Navy aviators did not just spot shell splashes they also scouted for other ships such as "the enemy."

I don't doubt that some of the aviators were good at seeing big objects at long range.

Quote
And this was not the first search for lost airmen conducted from planes. In 1927 planes were use to search for the missing pilots of the planes competing in the Dole Derby so search and rescue techniques were already developed ten years prior to the Earhart search.

The question is whether those techniques (if one search did, in fact, develop S.A.R. techniques comparable to those taught today) for doing a regular visual search for small objects were taught to the Navy personnel who were over Niku. 

Quote
Whatever disparagement of the skills of the Navy aviators the defenders of the Gardner hypothesis feel compelled to make, the commanders of the Colorado and the Lexington felt otherwise and they had current knowledge of the skill and training that the aviators possessed. If the commanders did not believe that the aviators had the necessary skill to spot Earhart then there would have been no reason to launch the search planes.

The commanders were commanded to go search.  They used the resources they had on board.  I don't deny their conviction that it would be easy to spot folks on tropical islands from the air.  I question whether that is a reasonable conviction, since they hadn't had any practice at doing so in the Great War and the Little War hadn't yet begun to produce wrecks and survivors in the Pacific Theater.
 
Quote
Any time a piece of evidence points away from the TIGHAR hypothesis, the defenders of the faith jump up to disparage it.

And believers in a different faith jump up to state their creed.

Strange things do happen.

An improbability is not the same thing as an impossibility.

A probability is not the same thing as a certainty.

You credit the six men (like Malcolm, without providing evidence of S.A.R. training) with so much skill that you conclude it is highly unlikely that AE and FN were on the island.  I do not give the men or their training that much credit, and rate the odds of them missing AE and FN (if they were on the island) higher than you do.

This is something about which reasonable people may reasonably disagree.

No more faith is involved on one side than the other.

Quote
I have never claimed that the failure to spot them on the island proved that they were not on the island. Even with a high probability of detection, it is just that, a probability, and it is never a certainty.

OK.  I made the same point above before reading these lines.

Quote
But it does provide one more piece of evidence on the not TIGHAR end of the scale, it doesn't prove it.

That sentence is a train wreck, and it doesn't quite follow from the concession you have just made about probabilities and certainties.

Quote
The TIGHAR enthusiasts pile everything they can find on the island (unless it has a clear date on it of 1938 or later) on their end of the scale as additional evidence of Earhart being on the island so it is certainly fair for me to bring up evidence pointing in the other direction.

Let's use parallel construction: you are also an enthusiast making judgments for which you are responsible.  If you call the material you are using "evidence," then you should also call the material used by your opponents "evidence."  If the proper description is "bringing up evidence" for what you do, then you should use that same neutral language for what your opponents do.

Otherwise, you are slanting the playing field rhetorically.   You say either view could be right, but portray those who view things differently from you as merely "piling up stuff on the scale," while you, the reasonable man, are "bringing up evidence."
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Tom Bryant on June 15, 2012, 02:21:53 PM
While I agree that it is important for those of us in the discussion to establish what we base our assumptions on I find it equally important to remember that some people assume that because an assumption is made that the person making the assumption is presenting it as "proof" of their argument. Perhaps the strength and passion that some bring to their assumptive argument can give that impression but in fact I do not see that from either "side" of the discussion. Debates of this nature can quickly get skewed and/or misinterpreted from "my point proves my assumption to my assumption proves my point" so its good that we do not hesitate to challenge or seek clarification.
As I wander around this excellent site I do see some spirited sacred cow poking and perhaps a certain amount of that is to try to help each other maintain perspective and to a certain extent (recognizing the often passionate defense and offence that can be mustered at the drop of a hat) the poking is just to make somebody squeal.
Many of the arguments presented are Schrodinger's Cat-like.
Arguing probabilities is a good part of what this site is about and the polarization down the dead cat/live cat/both dead and alive cat keeps everybody in fighting trim and on their toes so I say bully for us. LOL
Were AE and FN on the island? Did the fliers miss them? Did the plane come down elsewhere?
Did anybody else just hear a cat meow?


Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: richie conroy on June 15, 2012, 04:14:45 PM
I base mine on fact for a couple reason's

1) Tighar has done the leg work, searched the archives, done the ground work literally, and have gone on the documented evidence available to highlight the reason's to exhaust the Niku Hypothesis, The July expedition has of this time, got the best chance of producing the smoking gun...

for me the wire and rope video, produce's enough evidence to search the reef than any other evidence found on Niku

so me personally it's just a formality the fourth coming expedition

2) the other search partys Hypothesis, just don't have the evidence at this time to proceed with a now or ever valued search no matter what they are...     

As for  u Malcolm to dismiss the Niku Hypothesis before all options have been exhausted is just bizarre, considering your a DR e.t.c

I However admire your timing of joining the site an disproving the Tighar Hypothesis when

1) Tighar are in the news

2) The One person who would put you straight (apart from Marty  :) ) is busy else were

Based on evidence none come close to Tighar's

 :)

 
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: richie conroy on June 15, 2012, 04:19:25 PM
until the Niku Hypothesis is proved wrong, it still the best out there  :)

Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Jeff Victor Hayden on June 15, 2012, 06:19:28 PM
The examples I gave in my previous post in this thread were based on what actually happened as opposed to what should have happened according to a training manual/book/set of tables/theory/choice of crew/experience etc...

Some 70 feet down, Zamperini finally forced his way out of the sinking plane, scraping the skin off his back as he squeezed through a hole in the fuselage. He surfaced and caught his breath only to see fire, smoke, and debris on the water. “Swallowing a nauseous saltwater mixed with gasoline, oil, hydraulic fluid, and blood, I somehow managed to inflate my Mae West—my life jacket,” he says. “Then I noticed two crewmen about 20 feet away clinging to the side of a gas-tank float. I managed to grab onto a portion of a nylon parachute cord that was attached to an inflatable life raft. I climbed in, unhooked the oars, and rowed over to pick up our pilot, Russell Phillips, who was badly injured, and pulled him up into the raft. Then Francis McNamara, our tail-gunner, made it in. We were the only three survivors of the eleven-man crew.

“The next two days we saw B-25s searching for us, but they did not notice our flares or dye markers.

http://www.americainwwii.com/stories/luckylouie.html (http://www.americainwwii.com/stories/luckylouie.html)

Peering intently into the distance, all seven men strained their eyes against the dark clouds.  Then they saw it, a single-engine pontoon boat flying low through the squall about five miles away.  Bartek stood up in the raft he now shared with Rickenbacker and Adamson, Rick steadying him against the crash of the ocean swells, to wave his shirt.  All seven men, including Adamson, yelled at the top of their voices.  Then the dark clouds obscured the small plane in the distance and it disappeared.  The men had gone unseen on the dark waters.

Still, for the first time in nineteen days the doomed men saw signs of life beyond the rims of their raft.  A new optimism began to grow.

 
 
Day 19

The rain that had refreshed the seven survivors intermittently became more steady with the dawn.   By early afternoon the waves had become large, white-capped swells.  Water had been collected that might last for several more days.  Suddenly Captain Cherry yelled above the howl of the winds:

"I hear a plane.  Listen!"


 

Day 20 & 21

Two more similar airplanes appeared in the distant skies the following day.  The men had no way of knowing if they were American or Japanese aircraft, but by this time it mattered little.  Besides, neither pilot noticed the three small rafts that floated on the wide expanse of the Pacific Ocean.

Four more airplanes appeared on the distant horizon early the following day, but again the men in the rafts went unseen.  During the afternoon the survivors were able to scoop up several small minnows that swarmed around the raft, a most welcome meal at a time when hopes began once again to sag.  As the day wore on, no more aircraft were spotted.  Rick feared that perhaps the rafts had been near an island base, then floated on past.


http://www.homeofheroes.com/wings/part1/8_newwar.html (http://www.homeofheroes.com/wings/part1/8_newwar.html)


Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: john a delsing on June 15, 2012, 07:43:35 PM
I happen to be a believer, but I think malcum is pointing out that after 23 years of searching, thousand of man hours working on this hypothesis, and millions of dollars, we still have zero proof, and he is right.
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Malcolm McKay on June 15, 2012, 08:41:50 PM

As for  u Malcolm to dismiss the Niku Hypothesis before all options have been exhausted is just bizarre, considering your a DR e.t.c

I However admire your timing of joining the site an disproving the Tighar Hypothesis when

1) Tighar are in the news

2) The One person who would put you straight (apart from Marty  :) ) is busy else were

Based on evidence none come close to Tighar's

 :)

 

And Richie I admire your demonstrated ability to discern aircraft components in amorphous blobs of coral debris.   ;)

You appear to forget the meanings of "hypothesis" and "proof". So far not even the management of TIGHAR have produced proof positive that Earhart and Noonan were on Nikumaroro. If they had we wouldn't be debating the value of the evidence offered to support the hypothesis.
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Malcolm McKay on June 15, 2012, 08:58:26 PM

Quote
Also this failure to sight them relies as I have continued to point out on a string of unproven assertions -

You have not stated my position fairly.  I make none of the assertions you listed.  I noted that the fact that the naval personnel did not see them may be accounted for on two different grounds: if they were on the island, then something kept them from being see; if they were not on the island, then that explains why they were not seen.


I have deleted the parts not germane to the argument.

Gary has summarised the objections to the disparagement of the Naval aviators observational skills quite well, as have I in my humble way. The point remains that they did not see Earhart and Noonan, they were not untrained amateurs and there is a certain air of convenience in the excuses offered to explain the failure to sight the missing pair. None of which however rules out completely their presence at any time on the island, but nevertheless disparaging the aviators' skills and positing unproven scenarios to explain this are not evidence of any acceptable kind.

Further I will state again that there is a tacit intent in the arguments of those who support the Nikumaroro hypothesis to denigrate the capacity of the Naval aviators in order to strengthen their arguments. You might also note Marty that nowhere have I accused the TIGHAR organization of this, only some of the supporters - a very different thing. In fact throughout the discussion of the evidence offered in support of the Nikumaroro hypothesis I have been at pains to state that I find no fault in the presentation of the evidence offered be it documentary or artifacts. At all times I have restricted my analysis to the evidence itself without any gratuitous comments that might be construed otherwise.

I find much of the evidence to be circumstantial and very thin - I do not retreat from that position, however I will accept evidence that clearly and unambiguously can be connected to Earhart and Noonan. So far that has not been forthcoming and I would say given the persistence of TIGHAR in this matter they also recognise that weakness.
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Malcolm McKay on June 15, 2012, 09:00:59 PM
I happen to be a believer, but I think malcum is pointing out that after 23 years of searching, thousand of man hours working on this hypothesis, and millions of dollars, we still have zero proof, and he is right.

Thanks John.
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Jeff Victor Hayden on June 15, 2012, 09:10:31 PM
I happen to be a believer, but I think malcum is pointing out that after 23 years of searching, thousand of man hours working on this hypothesis, and millions of dollars, we still have zero proof, and he is right.

Thanks John.
I agree but, later this year there will be something which will either support or, cast doubt upon the Gardner Island theory. Time will tell.
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on June 15, 2012, 11:48:05 PM

The point remains that they did not see Earhart and Noonan, they were not untrained amateurs and there is a certain air of convenience in the excuses offered to explain the failure to sight the missing pair. None of which however rules out completely their presence at any time on the island, but nevertheless disparaging the aviators' skills and positing unproven scenarios to explain this are not evidence of any acceptable kind.

I'm waiting for you to produce evidence of "any acceptable kind" as to the nature of the training received.

It was your assertion.

You have the burden of providing evidence for your assertion.

My job is simply to examine what you've submitted objectively and to notice when you've left some blanks in your argument.

It's a lot like saying, "Nothing TIGHAR has found proves its case."

Nothing you have submitted (because you have submitted nothing) proves your case about the kind of training given the six people who were over Niku.

Quote
Further I will state again that there is a tacit intent in the arguments of those who support the Nikumaroro hypothesis to denigrate the capacity of the Naval aviators in order to strengthen their arguments.

"Tacit" means "silent."

In this case, it would mean "unwritten."

So now you're doing mind-reading instead of archaeology.

You've gone from creating straw men to imputing motives to others.  Neither is good form.

Quote
I find much of the evidence to be circumstantial and very thin ...

I find the evidence you've submitted to back up your theory about the training of the Navy personnel non-existent.  That's a whole lot less than "circumstantial."
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Malcolm McKay on June 16, 2012, 12:51:06 AM

I'm waiting for you to produce evidence of "any acceptable kind" as to the nature of the training received.


And I, Marty, am waiting for you to produce any form of acceptable evidence that the Navy airman were incapable of spotting Earhart and Noonan if indeed they were on the island. So far you have failed to do so, and as the question of the competence of the Naval aviators has been alluded to by implication, and in some cases directly, in discussions of why in the days following their disappearance Earhart and Noonan were not spotted by the Navy on Nikumaroro then during the fly over, I suggest that you prove conclusively that the Navy personnel were professionally incapable of doing so.

If you aren't aware by now the TIGHAR hypothesis rests on rather shaky ground in regard to the material and documentary evidence then adding to that flimsy case by imputing that the Navy search personnel were incompetent is an element of special pleading which actually weakens rather than strengthens the case. In view of that if it was my hypothesis that Earhart and Noonan met their end on Nikumaroro I would simply accept that they were missed by the Navy and leave it at that. The failure of the Navy to find the missing pair on the island is not proof positive that they weren't there, but that is all it is. Equally however it cannot be turned into proof positive, by adding a frisson of supposed Navy incompetence, that they were. 
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Gary LaPook on June 16, 2012, 04:02:03 AM


The thing about missing airplanes is that they generally leave some sort of trace, fire, smoke, smoking hole, broken trees, aluminum debris field, disturbed snow, vultures gathering - something that can be seen from farther away than a single person can be seen.  That's why the search visibility in the POD Chart starts at 1 mile, it was developed for missing airplanes and the signs they leave.  Gary likes to quote my sample that uses the 1mi visibility, which is probably reasonable if we're looking for the Electra or perhaps a VW.  However, in this case we're talking about looking for a person who is not necessarily out in the open, and I don't think a 4 mile, or even 1 mile search visibility is reasonable.  I would not use those values if I were managing an actual search for a missing person in heavy cover.

Gary on the other hand, believes he and our Navy fliers (apparently untrained in any SAR technique) can see and recognize a person on the ground under the tree cover from 4 miles away.  He apparently has very good eyes.


Andrew
I've pointed out before that you are conflating "search visibility" with "scanning range" so please re-read my attempt to convince you of this at my post here. (https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,517.msg6556.html#msg6556)

I also wrote this before: (https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,517.msg6567.html#msg6567)


"2. Perhaps you missed this part of my post:

"Look at the definition of "Scanning Range" which is the distance that a searcher "is expected to have a good chance of spotting the search objective" so scanning range is what you have mistaken for search visibility. To make this even more clear, the definition continues, "Scanning range can be less than but never greater than the search visibility" so these are obviously two different things."

3. The manual states that persons on the ground are the second most common search subjects so the CAP contemplates searching for persons and uses the POD table to plan the search for people  and to assess the effectiveness of the completed search.

If you are correct that the smallest thing covered by the POD table is the size of a car, since people are the second most common object searched for, where is the correction table that would be necessary to adjust the percentages derived from the POD tables to account for the smaller object of a person. And why don't the tables include greater distances than 4 mi because you can certainly see a crashed B-52 more than 4 mi away?"

And also this (https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,517.msg6571.html#msg6571):
-----------------------------
Just for you Ric, I am attaching page 74 from the CAP manual since it appears to apply to you.

"Scanning range sometimes may be confused with search visibility..."

gl  (https://tighar.org/smf/Themes/core/images/icons/clip.gif) Pages 74-75 from ref_aircrew.pdf (https://tighar.org/smf/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=517.0;attach=312) (47.09 kB - downloaded 22 times.)

I never claimed that a person can be spotted at 4 miles, again that is your misunderstanding of "search visibility." This is a value about the clarity of the air, that you can recognize a small object, maybe a house or a building at four miles. Lambrecht reported 30 miles visibility so the you use the 4 mile search visibility column in the POD table as that is the maximum visibility listed. With a .5 mile track spacing the farthest you have to look to see a person on the ground is 1/4 of a mile, not the 4 miles you misrepresented that I was claiming. In fact,  because the strip of land is so narrow on Gardner, the farthest one can be away from a person on the ground, and still be flying over the island, is less than 600 feet for fully 84% of the circuit. In fact, 39% of this donut is less than 700 feet wide and a further 45% is less than 1200 feet wide. Only the northern end of the island is a half nautical mile wide. This means that the search planes flying down the center of the strip of land would only have to search 350 feet either side of the plane (a little bit longer than a football field) for 39% of the circuit and 600 feet for 45% of the circuit. Only on the northern tip, constituting the remaining 16% of the island,  would they have to search a quarter mile either side, 1519 feet.

You now claim that the POD values are only valid for searching for large objects but I quoted your words "so 1 mile is usually the max Search Visibility used, especially if were looking for humans instead of Electras" so you used exactly the same method of using the POD table that I used and in this prior post didn't not make any other adjustment for a search for a person. Only after I posted the computation showing a high probability of detection did you then make a new post using an extrapolation method, not mentioned in the Search and Rescue Manual, to come up with an unsupported extremely low POD. I asked you to provide us with a scanned copy of an actual search planning document, the form 104a, showing that you had used this extrapolation method for a real search that you conducted and you have not provided one. I also asked you what track spacing you have used in the past when searching for persons and how you could ever arrive at a cumulative POD that would justify ever making a search for a person in the woods based on your unsupported, extremely low, extrapolated single pass POD, and you have not responded to that request either. You made a very big change in your method for determining the POD for a search for a person in your second post compared to your first post and the only thing that had changed between those two posts was that I posted my computation.

There is a big difference between "extrapolation" and "interpolation." "Interpolation" can be quite accurate while "extrapolation" rarely is.

The Search and Rescue Manual states that searching for persons is the second most common type of search yet there is no separate POD table for this type of search or any correction table to use in adjusting the published values for POD as would be necessary if your interpretation was correct, that the tables only apply to searches for downed aircraft. I have stated before that the people who drafted this manual were compelled to use conservative numbers so as not to overestimate the effectiveness of a search. So, if the values only applied to searches for aircraft and the same tables also had to be used for searching for people then, if the calculated POD was designed to apply to aircraft, then the numbers would overestimate the effectiveness of a search for a person and so would NOT be conservative. But, if instead, they assumed the worst case, that of searching for the more difficult object to find, a person, then the tables correctly, and conservatively, predict the quality of a search for a person and underestimate the effectiveness of a search for a larger object. The is a conservative way to draft the POD tables. So which one makes more sense when drafting this table, overestimating the effectiveness of a search for a person or underestimating the the effectiveness of a search for a larger object? Which would be more conservative? Which would result in more lives being saved?

My National Search And Rescue Manual is dated 1986. You referred us to a CAP document dated 2005 (https://tighar.org/smf/so%201%20mile%20is%20usually%20the%20max%20Search%20Visibility%20used,%20especially%20if%20were%20looking%20for%20humans%20instead%20of%20Electras.). In spite of almost 20 additional years of search experience the POD table in your 2005 document is identical to the table in the 1986 manual. There is no separate POD table for searches for people nor is there a table to make an adjustment for searches for persons even though many thousands of such searches must have been made in this period. It appears that the drafters of the 2005 document were satisfied with the existing POD tables. They are also the same tables in the CAP Aircrew Reference Text (2004) excerpts of which I have attached including the definitions section. Compare "search visibility" with "scanning range." This document does have a table of distances you can expect to spot persons on the ground, 1/2 mile or less for a person in a clearing and one mile or less for a person in the open. Looking at the 1/2 mile of less situation, a track spacing of 0.5 miles means that you will pass within half of that distance, one-quarter of a mile, of every point which places a person well within the spotting distance and even better for a person in the open. This CAP document does NOT support your statement:
 "So in theory, with track spacing of .5 miles, flying at 500 ft AGL and IF you were able to see and recognize a person in the bush at a lateral distance of 1/8th of a mile (660 ft), you'd have a 1.25% POD for a single pass" in Reply #6 (https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,517.msg6494.html#msg6494).


None of these documents provide any guidance for "extrapolating" to your extremely low POD for a search for a person. The National Search And Rescue Manual manual is not a document just used by a civilian agency, the CAP, but is also an official manual of the military services, Army FM 20-150, Navy NWP-19, Air Force AFM 64-2, and Coast Guard COMDTINST M16120.5. I spent 26 years in the Army, the last 7 years in the Judge Advocate General's Corps, and there is not a chance in the world that there would not be guidance for making this type of adjustment in these manuals if such adjustment was authorized. The military is not going to leave it up to the imagination of some low ranking person planning the search for a lost person to come up with his "extrapolation" of the POD tables. And think of the all the lawyers parachuting in when a person dies because of an improperly planned search and then the evidence comes out that some low ranking person was just "winging it" by making an unauthorized extrapolation when planning the search. Get out your checkbook.

So at the end of this debate we are left with some anecdotes from Andrew and others saying the navy guys would not be able to spot Earhart and also some anecdotes saying that they could. Ric always criticizes "anecdotal" claims. But we also have several official government manuals clearly laying out the procedure for calculating the POD and that computation , even using Andrew's numbers and method in his first post, shows a high level of probability that they would have been spotted even in tree covered terrain if they were on Gardner when it was searched by the navy planes.

 I'm going to take Ric's advice to ignore anecdotes and I'm going with the official Army, Navy, Air Force, Coast Guard and Civil Air Patrol documents.

gl
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Gary LaPook on June 16, 2012, 04:20:47 AM


I'm waiting for you to produce evidence of "any acceptable kind" as to the nature of the training received.


Stop worrying about the training, I've stated that with no training all you have to do is look out the window or door or over the cockpit combing and you see stuff. My anecdote was doing that from army Hueys without any special training and being able to see guys wearing camouflage uniforms.

gl
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Gary LaPook on June 16, 2012, 04:37:26 AM
I find the SAR aspect of sighting 'possible' survivors on Gardner Island intriguing. The theory and maths involved has been explained brilliantly. The personnel who carry out these tasks, superb. The equipment and techniques, outstanding.
That's the theory and, I'm sure it works in practice, sometimes.
And that's the point I would like to add, 'it works in practice, sometimes'.
I say that because during my research into other aircraft lost in the vicinity of Gardner island and, surrounding area. I have noticed that survivors of ditching aircraft who end up adrift on the Pacific ocean have all reported their difficulty in attracting the attention of SAR aircraft that have been sent to find them.
Now, the SAR aircraft and crews are actively looking for the ditched aviators.
The ditched aviators are actively trying to get the attention of the SAR aircraft.
There is no 'cover' to prevent sighting of downed aviators.
life rafts are a bright colour, to stand out from the background, to be seen.
And yet, they were not seen.
I'm sure there could be other factors that prevented sighting, weather? light? but, it would be foolish and, has been shown, that trained SAR teams actively looking and, ditched aircrews actively trying to get noticed, don't always end up meeting each other even in open water conditions.
I'm glad you brought this up because what you have described is accurately predicted in the National Search and Rescue Manual so provides further validation of that manual. It turns out that a survivor in the life raft will be able to see the search aircraft much further away than the searchers can be expected to see the life raft. According to table 4-4 and figure 4-3 of that manual, a fixed wing aircraft flying at 500 feet has only a 50% chance of spotting a person in a life raft under the most optimum conditions at 1.4 NM and only a 30% chance at 2.1 NM. In order to raise the POD up to 90% (still not certain) requires the plane to pass within 0.5 NM of the raft. So you can see that from the perspective of the person in the life raft that he expects the plane to see him but the reality is that he is mistaken in this expectation.

gl
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Gary LaPook on June 16, 2012, 04:47:51 AM
Gary, I think Andrew has done a great job of summarizing  some of his experiences in SAR work, but let me, as an old Army pilot who spent more than 700 hours flying at low levels, usually less than 100 feet, in support of ground troops in Viet Nam put in my 2 cents worth. I also disagree with your pronouncements about how easily people on the ground can be detected. I have over flown friendly troops on the ground for hours at a time and we, my crew and I plus a second ship that was part of our team, frequently only got fleeting glimpses of them when they were in moderate cover and we basically knew where they were.


That's because you were flying too low. Look at the POD tables and you will see that the POD improves with higher altitudes and the lowest tabulated altitude is 500 feet and the highest listed altitude is 1,000 feet so at 100 feet or less you can expect the POD to be really bad. The marine search tables include altitudes all the way up to 3,000 feet and the POD for marine searches also increases with altitude. Oh, I just thought of this. The assertion that the bird activity caused the search to be flown at a higher altitude and that this caused the search to be less effective is proven wrong by the POD table since the POD increases with altitude, it does not decrease. (BTW, I've done a bit of flying myself.)
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Adam Marsland on June 16, 2012, 05:04:31 AM
Aerial observation techniques were highly developed during the "Great War" and there is no reason to think that the Army kept these techniques secret from their brothers in the Navy. Navy aviators did not just spot shell splashes they also scouted for other ships such as "the enemy."

I don't doubt that some of the aviators were good at seeing big objects at long range.

Quote
And this was not the first search for lost airmen conducted from planes. In 1927 planes were use to search for the missing pilots of the planes competing in the Dole Derby so search and rescue techniques were already developed ten years prior to the Earhart search.

The question is whether those techniques (if one search did, in fact, develop S.A.R. techniques comparable to those taught today) for doing a regular visual search for small objects were taught to the Navy personnel who were over Niku. 

Quote
Whatever disparagement of the skills of the Navy aviators the defenders of the Gardner hypothesis feel compelled to make, the commanders of the Colorado and the Lexington felt otherwise and they had current knowledge of the skill and training that the aviators possessed. If the commanders did not believe that the aviators had the necessary skill to spot Earhart then there would have been no reason to launch the search planes.

The commanders were commanded to go search.  They used the resources they had on board.  I don't deny their conviction that it would be easy to spot folks on tropical islands from the air.  I question whether that is a reasonable conviction, since they hadn't had any practice at doing so in the Great War and the Little War hadn't yet begun to produce wrecks and survivors in the Pacific Theater.
 
Quote
Any time a piece of evidence points away from the TIGHAR hypothesis, the defenders of the faith jump up to disparage it.

And believers in a different faith jump up to state their creed.

Strange things do happen.

An improbability is not the same thing as an impossibility.

A probability is not the same thing as a certainty.

You credit the six men (like Malcolm, without providing evidence of S.A.R. training) with so much skill that you conclude it is highly unlikely that AE and FN were on the island.  I do not give the men or their training that much credit, and rate the odds of them missing AE and FN (if they were on the island) higher than you do.

This is something about which reasonable people may reasonably disagree.

No more faith is involved on one side than the other.

Quote
I have never claimed that the failure to spot them on the island proved that they were not on the island. Even with a high probability of detection, it is just that, a probability, and it is never a certainty.

OK.  I made the same point above before reading these lines.

Quote
But it does provide one more piece of evidence on the not TIGHAR end of the scale, it doesn't prove it.

That sentence is a train wreck, and it doesn't quite follow from the concession you have just made about probabilities and certainties.

Quote
The TIGHAR enthusiasts pile everything they can find on the island (unless it has a clear date on it of 1938 or later) on their end of the scale as additional evidence of Earhart being on the island so it is certainly fair for me to bring up evidence pointing in the other direction.

Let's use parallel construction: you are also an enthusiast making judgments for which you are responsible.  If you call the material you are using "evidence," then you should also call the material used by your opponents "evidence."  If the proper description is "bringing up evidence" for what you do, then you should use that same neutral language for what your opponents do.

Otherwise, you are slanting the playing field rhetorically.   You say either view could be right, but portray those who view things differently from you as merely "piling up stuff on the scale," while you, the reasonable man, are "bringing up evidence."

My favorite post of the year.

I don't mind being wrong, myself, and I enjoy being proven wrong, because I learn something.  Having people asserting intellectual superiority by being intellectually dishonest, however, is just infuriating.  Especially when the assumption is no one will ever call them on it.
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Gary LaPook on June 16, 2012, 05:15:19 AM

The TIGHAR enthusiasts pile everything they can find on the island (unless it has a clear date on it of 1938 or later) on their end of the scale as additional evidence of Earhart being on the island so it is certainly fair for me to bring up evidence pointing in the other direction.

Let's use parallel construction: you are also an enthusiast making judgments for which you are responsible.  If you call the material you are using "evidence," then you should also call the material used by your opponents "evidence."  If the proper description is "bringing up evidence" for what you do, then you should use that same neutral language for what your opponents do.

Otherwise, you are slanting the playing field rhetorically.   You say either view could be right, but portray those who view things differently from you as merely "piling up stuff on the scale," while you, the reasonable man, are "bringing up evidence."

I did, read what you quoted again.

gl
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Adam Marsland on June 16, 2012, 05:18:35 AM
All this argument is silly.  It's trying to make a completely plausible event out to be something that's completely unbelievable.  Even if something has a 90% chance of happening, there's a 10% chance of it not happening.  I personally believe the idea that people doing a few passes over an island, no matter how competent, picking two people out and having a 90% chance of seeing them is laughable...I claim no expertise but again, it's just common sense. The real world does not function perfectly, and very few things have a 90% success ratio, no matter how competent the people involved.  But even in that unlikely event, 10% events do happen.  Roughly about 1 out of every 10 times.

Malcolm and Gary, is it your assertion that it is fundamentally impossible that AE or FN were unseen by the navy pilots flying overhead?  If not, then what is the point of all this back and forth?  If there was a 90% chance of being seen or a 35% chance of being seen, it's still perfectly plausible in either case that they were unseen.  Asserting a higher probability doesn't really do much of anything.  The fact that they were not seen is a data point against the Niku hypothesis.  Granted.  But to go to such lengths to try and assert that of course they would have been seen...to me, it's just silly.  You can't possibly know that.  You weren't in the cockpit, you don't have the pilot's eye view, you don't have a sense of the training or imperatives the pilots were functioning under, you have no idea what was going on the ground.  You just have your opinions, which are totally valid, but the fact is:  they were either there or they weren't.  If they were there, they weren't seen.  And unless you are prepared to assign a 100% probability to them being seen by the Navy fliers, all this argument accomplishes exactly nothing.  It's perfectly plausible that (a) they weren't there or (b) they were there, and weren't seen.  If you like (a), then the fact that they weren't seen supports your belief BUT it doesn't really carry nearly as much evidentiary weight against TIGHAR's thesis as you both seem to think it does -- because it's still perfectly possible and even plausible that they were missed even under a 90-10 scenario.  And the, to me rather desperate sounding, attempts to blow up the Navy overflight into something like a near-conclusive indictment of the TIGHAR theory sounds a bit strident and silly.

Give it up, guys.  However likely or unlikely the Navy overflight was to have found AE and FN, it's a data point for sure, but it's hardly conclusive against TIGHAR.  If AE or FN wound up on Niku, it's because of a string of events that, taken on their own, each had a low probability.  But if such were not the case, there would be no mystery.  Low probability events do happen....though in this case, I think it's a stretch to assert with such confidence that AE and FN being missed is such a low probability event.  But to the point trying to be made, it simply doesn't matter.
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Gary LaPook on June 16, 2012, 05:40:00 AM
All this argument is silly.  It's trying to make a completely plausible event out to be something that's completely unbelievable.  Even if something has a 90% chance of happening, there's a 10% chance of it not happening.  I personally believe the idea that people doing a few passes over an island, no matter how competent, picking two people out and having a 90% chance of seeing them is laughable...I claim no expertise but again, it's just common sense. The real world does not function perfectly, and very few things have a 90% success ratio, no matter how competent the people involved.  But even in that unlikely event, 10% events do happen.  Roughly about 1 out of every 10 times.
Well, that is your opinion that you admit you have no expertise to  base it on. I just referred everyone to the official military and CAP manuals that say you are wrong in your opinion, that's all. It is not my opinion that that there was a high POD, it is the opinion of those who do have expertise in this field, who drafted the manuals for use in the serious business of saving lives. Now if you can come up with some other official publications that support you opinion then please post them.
Quote

Malcolm and Gary, is it your assertion that it is fundamentally impossible that AE or FN were unseen by the navy pilots flying overhead?  If not, then what is the point of all this back and forth?  If there was a 90% chance of being seen or a 35% chance of being seen, it's still perfectly plausible in either case that they were unseen.  Asserting a higher probability doesn't really do much of anything.  The fact that they were not seen is a data point against the Niku hypothesis.  Granted.  But to go to such lengths to try and assert that of course they would have been seen...to me, it's just silly.  You can't possibly know that.  You weren't in the cockpit, you don't have the pilot's eye view, you don't have a sense of the training or imperatives the pilots were functioning under, you have no idea what was going on the ground.  You just have your opinions, which are totally valid, but the fact is:  they were either there or they weren't.  If they were there, they weren't seen.  And unless you are prepared to assign a 100% probability to them being seen by the Navy fliers, all this argument accomplishes exactly nothing.  It's perfectly plausible that (a) they weren't there or (b) they were there, and weren't seen.  If you like (a), then the fact that they weren't seen supports your belief BUT it doesn't really carry nearly as much evidentiary weight against TIGHAR's thesis as you both seem to think it does -- because it's still perfectly possible and even plausible that they were missed even under a 90-10 scenario.  And the, to me rather desperate sounding, attempts to blow up the Navy overflight into something like a near-conclusive indictment of the TIGHAR theory sounds a bit strident and silly.

Give it up, guys.  However likely or unlikely the Navy overflight was to have found AE and FN, it's a data point for sure, but it's hardly conclusive against TIGHAR.  If AE or FN wound up on Niku, it's because of a string of events that, taken on their own, each had a low probability.  But if such were not the case, there would be no mystery.  Low probability events do happen....though in this case, I think it's a stretch to assert with such confidence that AE and FN being missed is such a low probability event.  But to the point trying to be made, it simply doesn't matter.
I never made any claim that the search disproved the TIGHAR hypothesis only that there was a  high probability of detection and that this constituted one more piece of evidence pointing away from that hypothesis. And I only quoted the POD tables in the original thread because Ric had claimed in Finding Amelia that the POD tables supported his hypothesis and gave only a 10 to 20% POD meaning that the pilots had an 80 to 90% probability of not seeing Earhart when, in fact, the calculation shows it is much higher, and, instead of supporting the TIGHAR theory it tends to disprove it, see

https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,517.msg6503.html#msg6503

https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,517.msg6459.html#msg6459

 https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,517.msg6481.html#msg6481

https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,517.msg6497.html#msg6497

Then Andrew reopened this discussion on the current thread.

gl

Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Gary LaPook on June 16, 2012, 06:07:44 AM
The examples I gave in my previous post in this thread were based on what actually happened as opposed to what should have happened according to a training manual/book/set of tables/theory/choice of crew/experience etc...

Some 70 feet down, Zamperini finally forced his way out of the sinking plane, scraping the skin off his back as he squeezed through a hole in the fuselage. He surfaced and caught his breath only to see fire, smoke, and debris on the water. “Swallowing a nauseous saltwater mixed with gasoline, oil, hydraulic fluid, and blood, I somehow managed to inflate my Mae West—my life jacket,” he says. “Then I noticed two crewmen about 20 feet away clinging to the side of a gas-tank float. I managed to grab onto a portion of a nylon parachute cord that was attached to an inflatable life raft. I climbed in, unhooked the oars, and rowed over to pick up our pilot, Russell Phillips, who was badly injured, and pulled him up into the raft. Then Francis McNamara, our tail-gunner, made it in. We were the only three survivors of the eleven-man crew.

“The next two days we saw B-25s searching for us, but they did not notice our flares or dye markers.

http://www.americainwwii.com/stories/luckylouie.html (http://www.americainwwii.com/stories/luckylouie.html)

Peering intently into the distance, all seven men strained their eyes against the dark clouds.  Then they saw it, a single-engine pontoon boat flying low through the squall about five miles away.  Bartek stood up in the raft he now shared with Rickenbacker and Adamson, Rick steadying him against the crash of the ocean swells, to wave his shirt.  All seven men, including Adamson, yelled at the top of their voices.  Then the dark clouds obscured the small plane in the distance and it disappeared.  The men had gone unseen on the dark waters.

Still, for the first time in nineteen days the doomed men saw signs of life beyond the rims of their raft.  A new optimism began to grow.

 
 
Day 19

The rain that had refreshed the seven survivors intermittently became more steady with the dawn.   By early afternoon the waves had become large, white-capped swells.  Water had been collected that might last for several more days.  Suddenly Captain Cherry yelled above the howl of the winds:

"I hear a plane.  Listen!"


 

Day 20 & 21

Two more similar airplanes appeared in the distant skies the following day.  The men had no way of knowing if they were American or Japanese aircraft, but by this time it mattered little.  Besides, neither pilot noticed the three small rafts that floated on the wide expanse of the Pacific Ocean.

Four more airplanes appeared on the distant horizon early the following day, but again the men in the rafts went unseen.  During the afternoon the survivors were able to scoop up several small minnows that swarmed around the raft, a most welcome meal at a time when hopes began once again to sag.  As the day wore on, no more aircraft were spotted.  Rick feared that perhaps the rafts had been near an island base, then floated on past.


http://www.homeofheroes.com/wings/part1/8_newwar.html (http://www.homeofheroes.com/wings/part1/8_newwar.html)
I posted a photo I took of Zamperini here. (https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,616.msg12654.html#msg12654)

gl
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Jeff Victor Hayden on June 16, 2012, 07:57:12 AM
A very tough breed these WW2 flyers. I am amazed that Louis even survived the war never mind reaching a grand old age!
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: C.W. Herndon on June 16, 2012, 08:05:06 AM
Gary, I think Andrew has done a great job of summarizing  some of his experiences in SAR work, but let me, as an old Army pilot who spent more than 700 hours flying at low levels, usually less than 100 feet, in support of ground troops in Viet Nam put in my 2 cents worth. I also disagree with your pronouncements about how easily people on the ground can be detected. I have over flown friendly troops on the ground for hours at a time and we, my crew and I plus a second ship that was part of our team, frequently only got fleeting glimpses of them when they were in moderate cover and we basically knew where they were.


That's because you were flying too low. Look at the POD tables and you will see that the POD improves with higher altitudes and the lowest tabulated altitude is 500 feet and the highest listed altitude is 1,000 feet so at 100 feet or less you can expect the POD to be really bad. The marine search tables include altitudes all the way up to 3,000 feet and the POD for marine searches also increases with altitude. Oh, I just thought of this. The assertion that the bird activity caused the search to be flown at a higher altitude and that this caused the search to be less effective is proven wrong by the POD table since the POD increases with altitude, it does not decrease. (BTW, I've done a bit of flying myself.)

Gary, I usually have a lot of respect for your posts but in this case you have, in my opinion, stepped on it so to speak.

First of all, almost all of the Army close air support in Viet Nam was flown at very low altitudes until the Cobra helicopter came along. Although the cobra was normally flown at a higher altitude, usually 1500' or a little higher, in most cases he relied on a scout helicopter down on the deck , in many cases hovering right above the vegetation, to locate targets and mark them with smoke. Only rarely did the Cobra crew actually see what they were shooting at.

In the part of the country that I flew in your chances of survival decreased rapidly in the altitudes from 100' to 300' and then progressively got a little better up to 1500' which we considered to be fairly safe unless there were .51cal machine guns in the area. Army aircrews became very proficient in "scouting" operations at altitudes of 100' and below and received many hours of supervised practice before they were released to preform on their own. I personally had hundreds of hours of experience in this environment and yet you, apparently, pass that off as anecdotal and not worthy on consideration. I find this to be highly offensive. On the other hand you claim to have (expert?) experience, you don't mention how much, as an observer in a Huey that is credible. I am sure you have done a bit of flying yourself but how much of it was directly related to the questions here?

I guess that my whole point is that, in the eyes of one who has been there done that, your charts don't impress me much when it comes to finding people. Finding equipment yes, finding people no.

The Navy "Seawolf" pilots who flew Huey helicopters in the most southern parts of Viet Nam, where most of my experience was, used much the same tactics that the Army did.

By the way, US Air Force Pilots when in this area, with the exception of FACS (forward air controllers), rarely got below 5000' except when they were on takeoff/landing or cruising along at 400kts or more. The fighter pilots had to rely on the FACS to mark their targets with smoke before a strike and complete a BDA (bomb damage assessment) after the strike. On rare occcasions the troops on the ground surveyed the strike area to complete the damage assessment.
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on June 16, 2012, 08:06:33 AM
And I, Marty, am waiting for you to produce any form of acceptable evidence that the Navy airman were incapable of spotting Earhart and Noonan if indeed they were on the island.

The thought that they were "incapable" is not my thought.

Asking me to defend an argument I have not made is not logical.

Quote
So far you have failed to do so, and as the question of the competence of the Naval aviators has been alluded to by implication, and in some cases directly, in discussions of why in the days following their disappearance Earhart and Noonan were not spotted by the Navy on Nikumaroro then during the fly over, I suggest that you prove conclusively that the Navy personnel were professionally incapable of doing so.

Proving a negative is notoriously difficult.

In the absence of objective evidence that the six personnel had S.A.R. training that would improve the odds of finding what they are looking for, I real it is reasonable to suppose that they only had the kind of training appropriate for finding targets and directing gunfire.  You are the one who claims that such specific training would make them omnicompetent (despite your own anecdote to the contrary about having your perceptual skills enhanced by training).

Your assertion, your burden of proof.

Quote
If you aren't aware by now the TIGHAR hypothesis rests on rather shaky ground in regard to the material and documentary evidence ...

I believe I have indicated before now that I'm aware of the status of TIGHAR's work.  Evaluating how shaky the ground is depends on how one interprets the information TIGHAR has collected.

Quote
... then adding to that flimsy case by imputing that the Navy search personnel were incompetent is an element of special pleading which actually weakens rather than strengthens the case.

Your argument seems to be:
But I can disagree with the first premise. Without insulting the searchers, I can see reasons why they might have missed spotting the plane or the survivors if the plane or the survivors were on Niku.
Quote
In view of that if it was my hypothesis that Earhart and Noonan met their end on Nikumaroro I would simply accept that they were missed by the Navy and leave it at that. The failure of the Navy to find the missing pair on the island is not proof positive that they weren't there, but that is all it is.

OK.  That's all I've ever said.

Quote
Equally however it cannot be turned into proof positive, by adding a frisson of supposed Navy incompetence, that they were.

I agree that anyone who defended that straw man would be absurd.  I think I've said that already, more than once, in writing.
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on June 16, 2012, 08:12:00 AM
Stop worrying about the training, I've stated that with no training all you have to do is look out the window or door or over the cockpit combing and you see stuff. My anecdote was doing that from army Hueys without any special training and being able to see guys wearing camouflage uniforms.

OK.  If all we're doing is relying on anecdotal evidence, then anecdotes to the contrary have been abundantly supplied in this thread.

If all we are doing is comparing assertions, then what one person freely asserts as a matter of opinion may be freely denied by another as a matter of opinion.

I've never denied that people can see things by looking out the windows of aircraft.  I've done that myself.  I've seen lots of interesting things.  The view that I hold is that we now know how to help observers do an effective visual scan and that such training improves the odds (without ever reaching 100% reliability) of finding what is sought.

Since you're willing to drop your claim that the six personnel must have benefited from the 1927 search and hence to argue simply at the level of assertion, I'm willing to stop pointing out the complete absence of evidence supporting your earlier assertion.
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: John Ousterhout on June 16, 2012, 08:45:49 AM
What is the likelyhood of the Lockheed making a successful water landing?  Since the mostly likely failure mode of the flight was to end in open water, either sinking before searchers arrived to see it, or floating long enough for searchers to miss it, it might be instructive to compare those chances with the island search chances.
The ability of the Lockheed to float after a water landing has not been well established one way or the other, according to previous discussions that I'm familiar with.  The aircraft had lots of empty fuel tanks that may have provided significant buoyancy, although we know next to nothing about their design and whether they would actually float or sink.  If the search aircraft were as thorough as the CAP tables would seem to indicate, then is the only conclusion that the aircraft almost certainly had sunk by the time they flew over?  What was the likelyhood of the search spotting a floating Lockheed or wreckage of a water crash?
Or do we assume the Lockheed wasn't there to be spotted? 
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Jeff Victor Hayden on June 16, 2012, 08:56:42 AM
That would depend on a number of factors John...
Pilot skills
Dead stick ditching
Sea swell and conditions
There's probably more, maybe someone could add to the list.
The 2 aircraft that I mentioned that went into the Pacific sank within minutes, the plexiglass is no match for the Pacific Ocean. Once the plexiglass went the ocean poured in so fast they barely had time to get the rafts out never mind anything else.

Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Leon R White on June 16, 2012, 09:46:30 AM
It might be concluded by examining any statistical or anecdotal reports of ANY plane ever floating after crashing or crash landing in the pacific.  I can think of only one:  Way back when (1950?) a Lockeed constellation airliner passed the point of no return from LA to Hawaii, only to determine it could not reach Hawaii. With a lot of fuel left the airliner coordinated a highly orchestrated daylight water landing near Navy/Coast Guard vessel(s) in a particular location after burning fuel off.  There are photos (I believe) of the airliner in the water, like the one that went into the hudson river, with people getting out etc.  No fatalities.  Or, I could have remembered this entirely wrong. 
During WW II there might be some statistics, but I'm  thinking the plane would not last long. If it lost even one wing on crash, the rest would sink I'd imagine.

Leon
An optimist may see a light where there is none, but why must the pessimist always run to blow it out?
-Rene Descartes
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Greg Daspit on June 16, 2012, 09:48:57 AM
"What was the likelyhood of the search spotting a floating Lockheed or wreckage of a water crash?"
I did read somewhere that due to empty tanks the Electra would float. However, it would float nose down due to the engines pulling the nose down. So I think if it did float, it's tail would be up and therefore easier to spot.
http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Forum/FAQs/float.htm

"The plane’s center of gravity (CG) was forward of the wing, and virtually all buoyancy was aft of the CG. 10 The unpressurized fuselage was not watertight. If the plane ditched, the nose section, the cockpit, and the space below the cockpit, would flood within minutes 11 and the plane would float nose-down, with the engines and generator submerged and inoperable. The main electrical junction box would flood, short-circuiting the electrical system and discharging the batteries. And the transmitter dynamotor would be submerged and inoperable"
http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/50_HillPaper/50_HillPaperCritique.htm
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: C.W. Herndon on June 16, 2012, 09:49:46 AM
That would depend on a number of factors John...
Pilot skills
Dead stick ditching
Sea swell and conditions
There's probably more, maybe someone could add to the list.
The 2 aircraft that I mentioned that went into the Pacific sank within minutes, the plexiglass is no match for the Pacific Ocean. Once the plexiglass went the ocean poured in so fast they barely had time to get the rafts out never mind anything else.

Jeff, John, Leon,

Here is a web site with an evaluation of a simulated water landing by the Electra.

http://www.niar.wichita.edu/CompMechPortal/MainMenuCurrentResearchProjects/AmeliaEarhartsCrashReconstruction/tabid/94/Default.aspx (http://www.niar.wichita.edu/CompMechPortal/MainMenuCurrentResearchProjects/AmeliaEarhartsCrashReconstruction/tabid/94/Default.aspx)
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Jeff Victor Hayden on June 16, 2012, 10:52:45 AM
It might be concluded by examining any statistical or anecdotal reports of ANY plane ever floating after crashing or crash landing in the pacific.  I can think of only one:  Way back when (1950?) a Lockeed constellation airliner passed the point of no return from LA to Hawaii, only to determine it could not reach Hawaii. With a lot of fuel left the airliner coordinated a highly orchestrated daylight water landing near Navy/Coast Guard vessel(s) in a particular location after burning fuel off.  There are photos (I believe) of the airliner in the water, like the one that went into the hudson river, with people getting out etc.  No fatalities.  Or, I could have remembered this entirely wrong. 
During WW II there might be some statistics, but I'm  thinking the plane would not last long. If it lost even one wing on crash, the rest would sink I'd imagine.

Leon
An optimist may see a light where there is none, but why must the pessimist always run to blow it out?
-Rene Descartes


This one?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_Am_Flight_6 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_Am_Flight_6)

(http://)
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Gary LaPook on June 16, 2012, 11:28:55 AM


"The plane’s center of gravity (CG) was forward of the wing, and virtually all buoyancy was aft of the CG. 10 The unpressurized fuselage was not watertight. If the plane ditched, the nose section, the cockpit, and the space below the cockpit, would flood within minutes 11 and the plane would float nose-down, with the engines and generator submerged and inoperable. The main electrical junction box would flood, short-circuiting the electrical system and discharging the batteries. And the transmitter dynamotor would be submerged and inoperable"
http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/50_HillPaper/50_HillPaperCritique.htm
The center of gravity of a plane can never forward of the wing or even near the front of the wing. The CG of the Electra was limited to to 11.65 inches forward of the wing spar to 2.9 inches aft of the spar, pretty much limited to the middle of the wing's span. The second part of the statement is correct, that the center of buoyancy, with the empty fuselage tanks, is aft of the center of gravity range so the plane would float nose down. The question is how much nose down? This is a difficult thing to model because the buoyancy force is produced by the parts immersed in the sea while a downward force is caused by the parts still out of the water.

gl
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Leon R White on June 16, 2012, 11:53:43 AM
Whoa! That wikipedia page makes it seem like landing and floating was more common then arriving on time.  I guess the plane you highlighted was what I remembered. Hmm, I can still see that constellation photo taken from the Cutter so clearly . . .just goes to show.  Thanks for providing the link.

Leon
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Brad Beeching on June 16, 2012, 12:04:47 PM
Mr. Daspit, here is a link that better explains why things float and why they don't: see Buoyancy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buoyancy)

Mr. LaPook, In the above link you will find sufficient mathematical formulae for you to expound further on why the Electra would or wouldn't have floated for any appreciable time. Have some fun!  ;D

Brad
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: John Ousterhout on June 16, 2012, 12:23:49 PM
The analysis that Woody provided a link to (thanks Woody) predicts a well executed water landing would be survivable, and that the aircraft might float for 8 minutes without any contribution from the fuselage tanks.  How long might the tanks keep it afloat?  What is  the chance it would have been afloat when the search was conducted?
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Tom Bryant on June 16, 2012, 12:25:02 PM
Perhaps we should move the floating plane discussion to a new thread - newcomers might not have the stamina to wade through the earlier discussion to get to it and it deserves to be given some better searchable uniqueness. (And no I have no way to calculate the capability of searchers on this site given their training, the conditions they are under, the likelihood that the topic is out in the open or covered by thread cover. Since I lack the proper tables to calculate their potential for success given the above I just think it would be nice to get the topic out on the beach with flares, smoke and a signal mirror to give the poor thing a chance.)
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Chris Johnson on June 16, 2012, 12:29:51 PM
Concure, thread drift (unlike the electra - lol)
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Tom Bryant on June 16, 2012, 12:45:39 PM
Yes exactly and how much does anybody wanna bet that if/when electra parts are found on the reef that a bunch of the crashed in the ocean folks will be trying to argue that while the electra ended up there it in fact crashed into the ocean and drifted there from somewhere hear Howland.
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Greg Daspit on June 16, 2012, 01:35:54 PM
Gary, I was just quoting what Tighar wrote.I agree with part of what you said and think the sentence I quoted from Tigher should be clarified. I think they meant the Center of Gravity of the plane was forward of the centerline of the wing and not just the "wing", but I could be wrong.

Brad, Thanks for the link
Of course what parts of the plane were more buoyant is more of a factor in which way the plane would settle than center of gravity. And of course empty tanks are more buoyant than full ones. The article someone else linked to said the plane would sink in 8 minutes but the example they used was a passenger configuration of an electra and not one with big empty tanks in the cabin.

The reason I think discussion of if the plane could float is important to this thread is for salvaging operations after the landing. If it was still on the reef after water rose, then at low tide they may be able to go back out and salvage stuff, even if the plane was flipped over.  Of course the force of the tide could move the plane if it floated or not.  The buoyancy of the plane could be a factor in which way the tide moved it, closer to the beach or farther away.
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: John Ousterhout on June 16, 2012, 04:46:36 PM
Moving the discussion about what happens if the aircraft floats is appropriate. 
A point I was anxious to hear discussed was a comparison of the statistical chance of the search aircrraft spotting a floating Electra in the large area covered, vs. the chance of spotting two people on Gardner island.  We've heard Gary and others offer documentation and anecdotes of what has come to be called the "TIGHAR hypothesis", that AE/FN may have landed on the reef and may have been present when the search aircraft flew over, but what about a comparable analysis of the effectiveness of the search over the open ocean?  What are the chances that the search would have spotted some trace of the "crashed and sank" hypothetical end of the flight?  Shouldn't we be comparing the relative chances of the two different scenarios, rather than only one?
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Gary LaPook on June 16, 2012, 04:55:47 PM
Mr. Daspit, here is a link that better explains why things float and why they don't: see Buoyancy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buoyancy)

Mr. LaPook, In the above link you will find sufficient mathematical formulae for you to expound further on why the Electra would or wouldn't have floated for any appreciable time. Have some fun!  ;D

Brad
I've already done that, see my October 18, 2011 post here. (https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,481.msg6010.html#msg6010) and my my October 27, 2011 post here (https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,481.msg6319.html#msg6319).

gl
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Malcolm McKay on June 16, 2012, 06:30:43 PM

Quote
In view of that if it was my hypothesis that Earhart and Noonan met their end on Nikumaroro I would simply accept that they were missed by the Navy and leave it at that. The failure of the Navy to find the missing pair on the island is not proof positive that they weren't there, but that is all it is.

OK.  That's all I've ever said.

Quote
Equally however it cannot be turned into proof positive, by adding a frisson of supposed Navy incompetence, that they were.

I agree that anyone who defended that straw man would be absurd.  I think I've said that already, more than once, in writing.

Marty - let us both draw a line under this debate - I am obviously not changing your mind while neither are you changing my mind. There are more important things to consider in the evidence offered to support the hypothesis, rather than debating over the value of what someone not seeing something really indicates. There are only two possible responses, you have one I have the other.
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Malcolm McKay on June 16, 2012, 06:58:25 PM
All this argument is silly. ...  to me rather desperate sounding, attempts to blow up the Navy overflight into something like a near-conclusive indictment of the TIGHAR theory sounds a bit strident and silly.


No it is not an attempt "to blow up the Navy overflight into something like a near-conclusive indictment of the TIGHAR theory". It is simply part of the process of looking at all the bits of evidence and arguments offered to support the hypothesis. In that way we eventually winnow out the components that provide no strength to the argument and eventually arrive, if we can, at those that do.

The problem at present is that is that all the cited evidence for the TIGHAR hypothesis is circumstantial while none, apart from the last verified radio message that sparked the search, has any direct provable and unassailable link to Earhart and Noonan. Now it may well be that at some time someone will spot in the physical evidence, or in the reported events of those few days, some correlation that has eluded everyone which will prove the hypothesis to be correct. However that point cannot be arrived at without rigorous testing and that is all that is happening with the assessment of the Navy search results.

There is nothing wrong with testing data especially if people confuse what they would like to believe with that which is correct. We would all like our own theories and conjectures to be correct but in the end only testing the data and the assumptions it creates will arrive at what we need.
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: richie conroy on June 16, 2012, 07:29:56 PM
Malcolm

u believe that the new England hypothesis deserves more investigation based on sum guy sayin he found a tag wid simillar numbers to the engine tag of electra which u aint seen for ur self

yet u dismiss Tighar's documented evidence

how does this work ?
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: C.W. Herndon on June 16, 2012, 08:33:18 PM
Malcolm

u believe that the new England hypothesis deserves more investigation based on sum guy sayin he found a tag wid simillar numbers to the engine tag of electra which u aint seen for ur self

yet u dismiss Tighar's documented evidence

how does this work ?

Richie, I think it is the New Britain hypothesis you are refering to here.
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Malcolm McKay on June 16, 2012, 10:08:37 PM
Malcolm

u believe that the new England hypothesis deserves more investigation based on sum guy sayin he found a tag wid simillar numbers to the engine tag of electra which u aint seen for ur self

yet u dismiss Tighar's documented evidence

how does this work ?

Richie I don't think that you quite understand the discussion process. I have not as far as I can recall accepted the New Britain hypothesis as anything other than a hypothesis that requires testing. An appropriate test would be to attempt to relocate the purported engine and engine mount to which the C/N tag is attached. Now the fact that I am favour of testing a hypothesis does not automatically mean that I fundamentally agree that the hypothesis represents the answer to the question, only that in order for that to happen then the hypothesis must be tested. But even you must admit that until it is tested then it might show that the C/N tag is attached to the remains of Earhart's Electra. However and whatever the answer, yes or no, one cannot predict the result of such an exercise until it is actually carried out. I hope that is clear because if you do not properly understand the process of testing a hypothesis then I might as well not waste key strokes explaining that.

Now as regards the TIGHAR hypothesis all that is happening is that people like myself are discussing the evidentiary value of the various items both material and documentary that have been offered in support of the Nikumaroro hypothesis. None of those things has as yet been shown to be undeniably linked to Earhart or Noonan despite the claims made for them. It is for that reason that TIGHAR keep going back to the island. If they had found what they call "the smoking gun" then the matter would be settled, would it not? So if anything I am actually concurring with TIGHAR's demonstrated uncertainty rather than attacking TIGHAR.

Throughout the various threads you have made it very clear that you accept without reservation TIGHAR's Nikumaroro solution in its entirety. You do not question, as others do, matters like the Betty notebook, the accounts of Emily Sikuli, Pulekai Songivalu and Tapania Taiki regarding the purported aircraft wreckage, the reef landing, the conjectured behaviour of Earhart and Noonan on the island etc. The problems concerning the landing on Nikumaroro if the 157/337 line broadcast by Earhart is examined that Gary LaPook has discussed. The fact that none of the artifacts found can be directly linked to Earhart or Noonan etc. etc. It is all very well to be enthusiastic about a hypothesis, but one should never let that enthusiasm blind oneself to the validity of the evidence that is offered to support the hypothesis.       
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Gary LaPook on June 17, 2012, 12:12:07 AM
Gary, I think Andrew has done a great job of summarizing  some of his experiences in SAR work, but let me, as an old Army pilot who spent more than 700 hours flying at low levels, usually less than 100 feet, in support of ground troops in Viet Nam put in my 2 cents worth. I also disagree with your pronouncements about how easily people on the ground can be detected. I have over flown friendly troops on the ground for hours at a time and we, my crew and I plus a second ship that was part of our team, frequently only got fleeting glimpses of them when they were in moderate cover and we basically knew where they were.


That's because you were flying too low. Look at the POD tables and you will see that the POD improves with higher altitudes and the lowest tabulated altitude is 500 feet and the highest listed altitude is 1,000 feet so at 100 feet or less you can expect the POD to be really bad. The marine search tables include altitudes all the way up to 3,000 feet and the POD for marine searches also increases with altitude. Oh, I just thought of this. The assertion that the bird activity caused the search to be flown at a higher altitude and that this caused the search to be less effective is proven wrong by the POD table since the POD increases with altitude, it does not decrease. (BTW, I've done a bit of flying myself.)

Gary, I usually have a lot of respect for your posts but in this case you have, in my opinion, stepped on it so to speak.

First of all, almost all of the Army close air support in Viet Nam was flown at very low altitudes until the Cobra helicopter came along. Although the cobra was normally flown at a higher altitude, usually 1500' or a little higher, in most cases he relied on a scout helicopter down on the deck , in many cases hovering right above the vegetation, to locate targets and mark them with smoke. Only rarely did the Cobra crew actually see what they were shooting at.

In the part of the country that I flew in your chances of survival decreased rapidly in the altitudes from 100' to 300' and then progressively got a little better up to 1500' which we considered to be fairly safe unless there were .51cal machine guns in the area. Army aircrews became very proficient in "scouting" operations at altitudes of 100' and below and received many hours of supervised practice before they were released to preform on their own. I personally had hundreds of hours of experience in this environment and yet you, apparently, pass that off as anecdotal and not worthy on consideration. I find this to be highly offensive. On the other hand you claim to have (expert?) experience, you don't mention how much, as an observer in a Huey that is credible. I am sure you have done a bit of flying yourself but how much of it was directly related to the questions here?

I guess that my whole point is that, in the eyes of one who has been there done that, your charts don't impress me much when it comes to finding people. Finding equipment yes, finding people no.

The Navy "Seawolf" pilots who flew Huey helicopters in the most southern parts of Viet Nam, where most of my experience was, used much the same tactics that the Army did.

By the way, US Air Force Pilots when in this area, with the exception of FACS (forward air controllers), rarely got below 5000' except when they were on takeoff/landing or cruising along at 400kts or more. The fighter pilots had to rely on the FACS to mark their targets with smoke before a strike and complete a BDA (bomb damage assessment) after the strike. On rare occcasions the troops on the ground surveyed the strike area to complete the damage assessment.
I think we are talking apples and oranges. In the past you have said that it was hard to spot people on the ground when you were flying at 100 feet or less and at high speed. I pointed out that this is not the best way to spot people because you were well below the optimum altitude. FM 20-150, the National Search And Rescue Manual, has this to say about that:

"Search Altitude. As altitude decreases, the search target passes more rapidly through the field of vision because of the angular acceleration. This effect is most pronounced below 500 feet."

And:

"Search Speed. At low altitudes, higher speed causes a blurring of targets at close ranges and decreases exposure time to the scanner."

Normal search and rescue does not contemplate having to dodge ground fire but you faced a much different set of priorities in Viet Nam. You had to choose between flying high and slow where searching is most effective or flying low and fast to minimize your exposure to Dushkas. But flying low and fast, so that the enemy only gets a fleeting chance to see you (ideally you would be past them before they even knew you were there), also means that you only had a fleeting chance to observe people on the ground, the line of sight works both ways. I don't know why you were offended, I certainly did not mean to be at all critical of your experience and knowledge about your operations in Army Aviation. But it is your personal experience in a very different environment than that encountered in peacetime search and rescue. I did not draft the National Search and Rescue Manual, FM 20-150, so they are not "my charts" that you are not impressed with. The manual was drafted by experts in that field and they recommend higher altitudes for searching in a peacetime environment and the PODs that they came up with is for that environment and is based on their studies and history of such operations. Don't blame, I'm just the messenger.

----------------------------------------
Your post reminded me of a story told to me by my boss at the ferry company, he had ferried many O-2s to Viet Nam. He said that on his first arrival into Viet Nam he tuned in the ATIS (for non-pilots, the constantly broadcast prerecorded weather information at airports.)

"THIS IS DA NANG INFORMATION CHARLIE.
THE ZERO EIGHT FIVE ZERO ZULU WEATHER
SKY CLEAR, VISIBILITY ONE ZERO
WIND THREE TWO ZERO AT ONE FIVE
TEMPERATURE TWO SIX, DEW POINT ONE SIX
ALTIMETER TWO NINER NINER TWO
LANDING AND DEPARTING RUNWAY THREE FIVE
GROUND FIRE, LIGHT TO MODERATE"

gl


Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Gary LaPook on June 17, 2012, 12:30:42 AM
Marty, since you are concerned about what training the Navy pilots and back-seaters had and how that may have affected their ability to spot Earhart, the National Search And Rescue Manual has this to say about training:

"Scanner effectiveness depends on many factors, including number, training, positions, speed and motion of the aircraft, duration of the search, fatigue and motivation. The effects of these factors and interactions are so complex that it is difficult to gauge their individual impact systematically."

My interpretation of these sentences is that you may be placing too much emphasis on training (or lack thereof) in evaluating the effectiveness of the search as there are many other factors that may, individually or in combination, be more important to your evaluation.
Your mileage may vary.

gl
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Chris Johnson on June 17, 2012, 10:46:14 AM
Woody,

not sure if it was in the book "shoes" or on the main site (will look later) but during one expedition the ground crew were in the bush when they heard as it passed over them a prop engineed plane.  By the time they were out of the bush it was gone.

The interesting thing is they didn't hear it approach due to noise, surf, wind in trees etc..

From Amelia Earhart's Shoes page 169 'The shattered shores of Niku'
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Tom Bryant on June 17, 2012, 11:37:47 AM
As I pondered the philosophical approach to proof I remembered a famous quote by John Cretien the Prime Minister of Canada:
 "A proof is a proof. What kind of a proof? It's a proof. A proof is a proof. And when you have a good proof, it's because it's proven."
You can't get any more definite than that!  ;D
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Leon R White on June 17, 2012, 04:52:43 PM
Has there been any thought given to the 'recently inhabited' uninhabited island notion?  Specifically, was there any discussion of the possibility that the island was inhabited at, or quickly after the arrival of the plane? 

Seems like it might account for why it was reported that some island folks referred to or 'knew' about the plane, when in fact it may not have been well known publicly. They were there at some point, perhaps before Saturday's navy overflight, or immediately after if our survivors were unconcious or dead and the plane partially or completely submerged at low depth. It would make the Navy observers truthful and accurate as well as the islanders. 

I don't consider this a fact, or theory, or any such thing.  I was just wondering if it has been discussed.

Thnks
Leon 
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Andrew M McKenna on June 18, 2012, 02:03:47 AM
Leon

Not quite sure I understand your point about the "island folks referred to or 'knew' about the plane".

While we don't and probably can't know of any itinerant passerby's who may have stopped at Nikumaroro, we do know that it was "uninhabited" in an organized sense after the failure of the Arundel plantation scheme of the late 1800s.  We do know that the Brits visited in October 1937 to assess the island for colonization, and that the colony was later established there between 1939 and 1963.  It was these later colonists who reported seeing or knowing about "the plane that was here when we arrived".

Oh, yeah, we also know of a man and a woman who went missing in the area just prior to the Navy search.  One simple solution, if not the simplest solution, is that the signs of recent habitation that the Navy reported were related to the known missing persons.  To introduce an as of yet unknown person or group of persons who happened to arrive in the one week period between the disappearance of the missing persons and the overflight by the Navy, while not impossible, would induce a complexity to the scenario for which there is no contemporaneous documentation, and a low degree of probability, at least in my mind (thankfully, there are no POD charts for such an event for Gary and myself to argue about).

So, no, I don't think we've ever postulated such an event, but I also don't think we need to as the simplest thing is that the Navy did see signs of recent habitation, and the islanders did later see parts of an airplane, and that both sightings are related to the persons who went missing in the area in their airplane.

Are there other possible solutions?  Sure, but none that explain all the supporting "evidence" and odd coincidences found in the Nikumaroro Hypothesis in one simple solution.  To go in a different direction, requires multiple independent hypotheses to explain how these events are not related.  In my mind, that is a more complex solution. 

Andrew
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Andrew M McKenna on June 18, 2012, 02:32:23 AM
Marty, since you are concerned about what training the Navy pilots and back-seaters had and how that may have affected their ability to spot Earhart, the National Search And Rescue Manual has this to say about training:

"Scanner effectiveness depends on many factors, including number, training, positions, speed and motion of the aircraft, duration of the search, fatigue and motivation. The effects of these factors and interactions are so complex that it is difficult to gauge their individual impact systematically."

My interpretation of these sentences is that you may be placing too much emphasis on training (or lack thereof) in evaluating the effectiveness of the search as there are many other factors that may, individually or in combination, be more important to your evaluation.
Your mileage may vary.

gl

Gary, It is a complex thing, but when you discount the effect of training, you are approaching it from the point of view that search effectiveness is high to start with, and degraded by the factors mentioned, and training doesn't matter.  That is counter intuitive.

I see it the other way, search effectiveness is poor for the average person, and is improved through training.  The purpose of the SAR training beyond proper scanning techniques, is to teach folks how to overcome the factors such as fatigue and boredom, and to understand the ramification of aircraft speed and motion, so that they can stay focused on the task at hand, keep their motivation up, and maximize their effectiveness.  Without the understanding they get through training, they are more likely to do a poor job of it.

Like all things, training improves effectiveness.  All the statement is intended to indicate is that the factors cannot be judged individually in any "systematic" fashion.  I don't think it is saying that training is outweighed by all other factors to the point where it may not be important.

I could use the near exact same language to describe flight training.  "Student pilot effectiveness depends on many factors, including aircraft type, training, positions, speed and motion of the aircraft, duration of the flight, fatigue and motivation. The effects of these factors and interactions are so complex that it is difficult to gauge their individual impact systematically."

Do you find that "there are many other factors that may, individually or in combination, be more important" to your student pilot's effectiveness than flight training? 

I doubt that you could "systematically gauge" the factors affecting your flight instruction students performance, but how many do not become more effective as pilots through training?  Doesn't that indicate that training generally allows one to overcome all other factors?

Andrew
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Gary LaPook on June 18, 2012, 05:56:39 AM
Marty, since you are concerned about what training the Navy pilots and back-seaters had and how that may have affected their ability to spot Earhart, the National Search And Rescue Manual has this to say about training:

"Scanner effectiveness depends on many factors, including number, training, positions, speed and motion of the aircraft, duration of the search, fatigue and motivation. The effects of these factors and interactions are so complex that it is difficult to gauge their individual impact systematically."

My interpretation of these sentences is that you may be placing too much emphasis on training (or lack thereof) in evaluating the effectiveness of the search as there are many other factors that may, individually or in combination, be more important to your evaluation.
Your mileage may vary.

gl

Gary, It is a complex thing, but when you discount the effect of training, you are approaching it from the point of view that search effectiveness is high to start with, and degraded by the factors mentioned, and training doesn't matter.  That is counter intuitive.

I see it the other way, search effectiveness is poor for the average person, and is improved through training.  The purpose of the SAR training beyond proper scanning techniques, is to teach folks how to overcome the factors such as fatigue and boredom, and to understand the ramification of aircraft speed and motion, so that they can stay focused on the task at hand, keep their motivation up, and maximize their effectiveness.  Without the understanding they get through training, they are more likely to do a poor job of it.

Like all things, training improves effectiveness.  All the statement is intended to indicate is that the factors cannot be judged individually in any "systematic" fashion.  I don't think it is saying that training is outweighed by all other factors to the point where it may not be important.

I could use the near exact same language to describe flight training.  "Student pilot effectiveness depends on many factors, including aircraft type, training, positions, speed and motion of the aircraft, duration of the flight, fatigue and motivation. The effects of these factors and interactions are so complex that it is difficult to gauge their individual impact systematically."

Do you find that "there are many other factors that may, individually or in combination, be more important" to your student pilot's effectiveness than flight training? 

I doubt that you could "systematically gauge" the factors affecting your flight instruction students performance, but how many do not become more effective as pilots through training?  Doesn't that indicate that training generally allows one to overcome all other factors?

Andrew
I certainly do not disagree that training is important but, according to the experts who drafted the manual, not me, there are other important factors too. Looking at the list it appears to me that the other factors militate towards more effective searching in the Earhart case that may make up up for the speculated lack of specific search training. Position = clear view from open cockpit, no reflections from windows, etc. Speed = low speed of search aircraft while searching, long time to see objects on the ground, not "fleeting."  Duration = 18 to 28 minutes (according to Ric) and possibly 40 minutes if they used 115 knots between the islands allowing time for at least 3 complete circuits of the island upto 5 circuits (Ric's numbers) and even possibly 7 circuits if they used a higher cruising speed between the islands constituting 9 to 15 to 21 search passes. Fatigue = launched at 0700, so well rested crews and only a little bit more than an hour into the flight when they arrived at Gardner (25 NM from the Colorado to McKean then 67 NM to Gardner @ 90 knots plus short search at McKean or even less than an hour if they cruised at 115 knots between the islands. ) Motivation = EXTREMELY HIGH, everyone wants to be a hero, especially in such a high profile case, pictures in the paper of the guy who spots Earhart, possible medals too, career enhancement. Training = unknown, speculation of lack of search training.

Put em all together, I'd say decent search.

gl
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on June 18, 2012, 06:54:18 AM
... one cannot predict the result of such an exercise until it is actually carried out. I hope that is clear because if you do not properly understand the process of testing a hypothesis then I might as well not waste key strokes explaining that.

To judge, as you do, that this is an exercise that is "required" by the anecdote is to neglect the laws of aerodynamics, thermodynamics, and radio propagation.

You have never explained how the aircraft could have traveled 20 hours toward Niku, generating objective radio signals heard by many witnesses that became louder and louder, then turned around and ended up in New Britain.

You have never analyzed the length of such a flight.

You have never shown that the Electra could have carried enough fuel for such a flight.

If you do not understand the concept of arguments that defeat a hypothesis, I might as well not waste key strokes trying to explain it to you.  Your capacity for the willing suspension of disbelief is most remarkable.

Quote
If they had found what they call "the smoking gun" then the matter would be settled, would it not? So if anything I am actually concurring with TIGHAR's demonstrated uncertainty rather than attacking TIGHAR.

The same is true of the hypothesis that you want someone else to spend money researching.

If it is valuable to spend money testing hypotheses, put some money where your mouth is (as TIGHAR has) and get up an expedition to New Britain.  That would be the archeological thing to do.

Quote
It is all very well to be enthusiastic about a hypothesis, but one should never let that enthusiasm blind oneself to the validity of the evidence that is offered to support the hypothesis.       

Nor to the evidence against the hypothesis.  The New Britain hypothesis has one unconfirmed historical anecdote in its favor and a great deal of evidence against it.  Of course, if you believe in magic, then there is no reason why the aircraft could not have approached within 100 miles of Howland, generating the radio signals that it did, and then silently fly westward for another 2000+ miles.

As I understand it, when there is good evidence that falsifies a hypothesis, the hypothesis is not worth further investigation.  If someone finds the Electra in New Britain or underwater near Howland Island, that will well and truly falsify the Niku hypothesis.  Every line of argument that formerly seemed to point in the direction of Niku will have to be treated as a case of mistaken identity.  I judge that the New Britain hypothesis is well and truly falsified; of course, your faith differs from mine.
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on June 18, 2012, 07:04:03 AM
Marty, since you are concerned about what training the Navy pilots and back-seaters had and how that may have affected their ability to spot Earhart ...

I'm concerned to see that those who demand evidence from others provide it themselves when they have the burden of proof.  You are not entitled to take the high ground and posture as the paragon of reason when your theories are floating on air.

Quote
... the National Search And Rescue Manual has this to say about training:

"Scanner effectiveness depends on many factors, including number, training, positions, speed and motion of the aircraft, duration of the search, fatigue and motivation. The effects of these factors and interactions are so complex that it is difficult to gauge their individual impact systematically."

OK.  It lists "training" as a factor.  We know vastly more about such training today than people did in 1937.  It may not be enough to overcome all the other variables; there is no guarantee that even a well-trained S.A.R. flight will spot all survivors (cf. the many anecdotes to the contrary, where survivors see the aircraft searching for them, are out in the open, wave articles of clothing, and still are not spotted).

Quote
My interpretation of these sentences is that you may be placing too much emphasis on training (or lack thereof) in evaluating the effectiveness of the search as there are many other factors that may, individually or in combination, be more important to your evaluation.
Your mileage may vary.

I'm not the one who made the claim that 1) vital lessons were learned from the 1927 aerial search and 2) were communicated to the six Navy personnel who flew over Niku in 1937.  Someone else made those claims and has the burden of proof to offer objective evidence of the truth of those assertions.  In the absence of such data, what we have is a clash of views of reality.  I doubt that the crews had any relevant training, I believe that modern S.A.R. experts would do a better job.  You have a different set of beliefs and draw a different set of conclusions from the assumptions you make.  But it is a conflict of belief against belief, not a conflict of belief against evidence.
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on June 18, 2012, 07:18:35 AM
Has there been any thought given to the 'recently inhabited' uninhabited island notion?  Specifically, was there any discussion of the possibility that the island was inhabited at, or quickly after the arrival of the plane? 

We know that the 20+ survivors of the Norwich City made three "camps" (http://tighar.org/wiki/Site_of_Norwich_City_Rescue) in 1929. The first and last were extremely primitive, while the second was more elaborate.  Two were close to the wreck, and the third was estimated to be 1.5 NM south-east of it.  (See this thread (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,677.0.html) for an extended discussion of how to interpret the survivor testimony.)

It seems to me that any of those three camps could have been left "signs of recent habitation." 

There may have been any number of other visitors to the island in the intervening years.  Roger and I interviewed Enu Etuati (http://tighar.org/wiki/Eni_Etuati), who told us about finding all kinds of evidence of visitors to the island after the colony departed. 

So there is no reason to suppose that AE and FN would be the only people who could have left "signs of recent habitation" on the island.  Maybe they did; maybe they didn't; maybe they did, but the actual sites spotted from the air were not their camp; and, of course, to round out the logic table, maybe they weren't on the island at all.

It is reasonable to ask what Lambrecht meant by "signs of recent habitation."  It is a good question.  But, given the paucity of materials we have at our disposal, it is also reasonable to think that it is now an unanswerable question.  He must have had something definite in mind when he wrote those words; the aviators must have seen something definite, around which they "circled and zoomed," but I don't think we will ever be able to tell what it was.
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on June 18, 2012, 07:30:39 AM
Looking at the list it appears to me that the other factors militate towards more effective searching in the Earhart case that may make up up for the speculated lack of specific search training.

Anyone who wishes to provide evidence of specific search training will annihilate the assumption that naval personnel were aboard the Colorado to spot ships and direct gunfire, not search for people on the ground.

This is not a dogma; just an opinion.

Quote
Position = clear view from open cockpit, no reflections from windows, etc.

Large parts of the field of view blocked by the engine and wings.

(http://tighar.org/aw/mediawiki/images/e/eb/03U3float.jpg)


Quote
Put em all together, I'd say decent search.

Yes, but not infallible.  Strange things do happen.  "Improbable" does not mean "impossible."  I am, of course, alluding to Sherlock Holmes:

"You will not apply my precept," he said, shaking his head.  "How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth? We know that he did not come through the door, the window, or the chimney. We also know that he could not have been concealed in the room, as there is no concealment possible.  When, then, did he come?" ([size=-1]The Sign of the Four, ch. 6 (1890)).

[/size]
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Gary LaPook on June 18, 2012, 11:29:37 AM
would do a better job.  You have a different set of beliefs and draw a different set of conclusions from the assumptions you make.  But it is a conflict of belief against belief, not a conflict of belief against evidence.
I agree with you on this, but until someone comes up with a complete syllabus for all the training given to naval aviators in the 1930's, it is just speculation on both sides of this discussion. We know that one of the tasks that these aviators were given was to spot shell splashes and we are assuming that they got training for this but it is possible that they were not, that they were just sent out and told to use their best judgement. Not too plausible? Then is it any more plausible that they were sent out to search for Earhart if they hadn't received some training for that task?
But again, it is just speculation on both sides of this question.

gl

Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: George Pachulski on June 18, 2012, 03:18:10 PM
 I was a FOO in the forces , Canadian ( Forward observation officer ) for correcting and hitting enemy targets and it involves a great deal of training to properly judge the fall of shot and correct. On the sea this is compounded by the earths rotation and the type of projectile, gun and charge size used. If they trained them to fly without crashing they had to train them to hit enemy targets ... :o

Likewise the first thing I would have thought after landing on Gardner, after seeing a ship on its west coast waiting for me. From 1000 ft everything looks alive, kinda. That I was in the twilight zone till I figured out that im actually on the wrong island, with a shipwreck and there are no people to greet me or resupply my craft. The shock of that would have been enough after 20 hours of flight.  How many islands in the middle Pacific have ships on their west coast ?

But, I do have a question , why did they not state clearly in a distrest call  Have landed on island with a shipwreck on the west coast cannot liftoff need assistance?

This is location , situation , possibilities , criticality assesment...
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Malcolm McKay on June 18, 2012, 06:32:02 PM

To judge, as you do, that this is an exercise that is "required" by the anecdote is to neglect the laws of aerodynamics, thermodynamics, and radio propagation. ...  I judge that the New Britain hypothesis is well and truly falsified; of course, your faith differs from mine.

Once again Marty you are allowing your predilection for the Nikumaroro hypothesis dominate your capacity to read and understand what I posted. What part of  "I have not as far as I can recall accepted the New Britain hypothesis as anything other than a hypothesis that requires testing." is unclear.

As for the rest of your attempt at criticism I cannot see why you would say "If it is valuable to spend money testing hypotheses, put some money where your mouth is (as TIGHAR has) and get up an expedition to New Britain.  That would be the archeological thing to do." when in fact all I said was that so far TIGHAR have not found the smoking gun that they themselves admit they need. Is it that you claim that they have found the smoking gun? if so, what is it? and you better enlighten TIGHAR management - that will save them a lot of money. 
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Malcolm McKay on June 18, 2012, 06:36:07 PM

But, I do have a question , why did they not state clearly in a distrest call  Have landed on island with a shipwreck on the west coast cannot liftoff need assistance?

This is location , situation , possibilities , criticality assesment...

Well in the more imaginative reconstructions of the Betty notebook it is claimed that the reference to New York is in fact a reference to Norwich City and that the disparity is due to Betty being an easily confused teenage girl. However I must admit to a frisson of unease about rewriting other people's notes to suit my hypothesis.
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Greg Daspit on June 18, 2012, 07:01:56 PM
I was a FOO in the forces , Canadian ( Forward observation officer ) for correcting and hitting enemy targets and it involves a great deal of training to properly judge the fall of shot and correct. On the sea this is compounded by the earths rotation and the type of projectile, gun and charge size used. If they trained them to fly without crashing they had to train them to hit enemy targets ... :o

Likewise the first thing I would have thought after landing on Gardner, after seeing a ship on its west coast waiting for me. From 1000 ft everything looks alive, kinda. That I was in the twilight zone till I figured out that im actually on the wrong island, with a shipwreck and there are no people to greet me or resupply my craft. The shock of that would have been enough after 20 hours of flight.  How many islands in the middle Pacific have ships on their west coast ?

But, I do have a question , why did they not state clearly in a distrest call  Have landed on island with a shipwreck on the west coast cannot liftoff need assistance?

This is location , situation , possibilities , criticality assesment...
See link below. Dana Randolf said he heard "ship is on a reef south of the equator" on the radio. This was documented in the local newspaper at the time. He later said she ALSO said the plane was on a reef SE of Howland.
http://tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/2005Vol_21/onreef.pdf
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on June 18, 2012, 07:06:49 PM
would do a better job.  You have a different set of beliefs and draw a different set of conclusions from the assumptions you make.  But it is a conflict of belief against belief, not a conflict of belief against evidence.
I agree with you on this ...

Great!

Quote
... but until someone comes up with a complete syllabus for all the training given to naval aviators in the 1930's, it is just speculation on both sides of this discussion.

I'm content with that. 

Quote
We know that one of the tasks that these aviators were given was to spot shell splashes and we are assuming that they got training for this but it is possible that they were not, that they were just sent out and told to use their best judgement.

Let's distinguish, if we may.

The three pilots almost certainly had target-recognition training.  Four eyes are better than two in identifying friend or foe.  I don't know whether the pilot could direct gunfire, given that he had to fly the plane.  I don't know whether they had voice or CW communications with the Colorado.

Then there are the three Cadets:

"On page 7 of the Colorado Lookout (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Documents/ColoradoLookout/page7.pdf), the aviators who took part in the search are listed.  “Aviators who took part in the search in addition to Lieut. Lambrecht, were Lieuts. (jg)  L. O. Fox and W. B. Short, and Aviation Cadets J. A. Wilson, W. Jordan and R. A. Leake.”

They were on board for some kind of training; I don't think it unreasonable to think it had something to do with finding targets and directing gunfire, along with other tasks necessary to get the planes in and out of the water and the air.

Quote
Not too plausible? Then is it any more plausible that they were sent out to search for Earhart if they hadn't received some training for that task?

The Colorado was not a S.A.R. vessel.  It was a warship getting ready for war.  It was pressed into service because it was available, not too far away from where it was needed, and had three aircraft that could (and did) cover a lot of ground.  I don't think it all unreasonable to suppose that 1) no one with S.A.R. experience was on board; 2) no one gave them any specific instructions before takeoff, other than to look for an Electra with 36" wheels (if the wheels were 28", then it was manifestly the wrong Electra) and a man and a woman in the vicinity.  I doubt that anyone on board would have thought that more than that was necessary to see what there was to be seen.

Since you advanced the theory that they would have been informed of the wisdom gained in the 1927 aerial search (if wisdom was gained), it's up to you to provide the evidence that that wisdom was available and transmitted to them before takeoff.  Your hypothesis, your burden of proof.
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Jeff Victor Hayden on June 18, 2012, 07:11:22 PM

But, I do have a question , why did they not state clearly in a distrest call  Have landed on island with a shipwreck on the west coast cannot liftoff need assistance?

This is location , situation , possibilities , criticality assesment...

Well in the more imaginative reconstructions of the Betty notebook it is claimed that the reference to New York is in fact a reference to Norwich City and that the disparity is due to Betty being an easily confused teenage girl. However I must admit to a frisson of unease about rewriting other people's notes to suit my hypothesis.

George it would have been a good idea to transmit the message of there being a ship on the reef, that would have been a great help to any SAR teams. There was a thread regarding 'could AE have known it was called the Norwich city'. Not sure of the outcome of that though, I think the wreck had been picked clean by 1937 so any reference to the name Norwich City gone.

http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,331.0.html (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,331.0.html)

 So, ship on reef would have been the most logical message to send. Even if AE could determine the name Norwich City it wouldn't have helped the SAR teams, they would have to know what and where Norwich city is to locate it, might have ended up in Norfolk, England. No, ship on reef would have been the best message to send (apart from the ACTUAL location of where they thought they were)...(if they were there) ;)
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on June 18, 2012, 07:15:56 PM
Once again Marty you are allowing your predilection for the Nikumaroro hypothesis dominate your capacity to read and understand what I posted. What part of  "I have not as far as I can recall accepted the New Britain hypothesis as anything other than a hypothesis that requires testing." is unclear.

I understand your sentence.

I disagree with your beliefs.

A hypothesis that depends on magic does not require testing.  It requires abandonment.

Quote
As for the rest of your attempt at criticism I cannot see why you would say "If it is valuable to spend money testing hypotheses, put some money where your mouth is (as TIGHAR has) and get up an expedition to New Britain.  That would be the archeological thing to do."

I'm pretty sure I said it because I believe it.  Is there a better reason to say things than that?

Quote
When in fact all I said was that so far TIGHAR have not found the smoking gun that they themselves admit they need.

No, you also said that the New Britain hypothesis requires testing.  If you believe that, go test it.  If you don't believe it, you may continue to do mental archaeology instead.

Quote
Is it that you claim that they have found the smoking gun? if so, what is it? and you better enlighten TIGHAR management - that will save them a lot of money.

Uh, no, I have not made that claim.  My claim is that the New Britain hypothesis is not worth investigating.  Your questioning me about whether there is a smoking gun for Niku hypothesis is a total non sequitur.  That is Latin for "it does not follow," and what that means is that there is no logical connection what I said about the New Britain hypothesis and the TIGHAR hypothesis.  The fact that TIGHAR does not have an artifact that any idiot will recognize as coming from NR16020 does not mean that the New Britain hypothesis is viable.  They are two independent trains of thought.
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Jeff Victor Hayden on June 18, 2012, 07:48:19 PM
I understand that Gary did the math for the return to New Britain from '100 miles out, we must be on you but can't see you' vicinity of Howland which made 2 outcomes possible...
1. They were nowhere near Howland, short by 569 NM - 809NM, in which case they could have returned to New Britain.
2. They were in the vicinity of howland, in which case a return to New britain was impossible.
http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,651.0.html (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,651.0.html)
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Gary LaPook on June 18, 2012, 08:20:35 PM
I was a FOO in the forces , Canadian ( Forward observation officer ) for correcting and hitting enemy targets and it involves a great deal of training to properly judge the fall of shot and correct. On the sea this is compounded by the earths rotation and the type of projectile, gun and charge size used. If they trained them to fly without crashing they had to train them to hit enemy targets ... :o

Likewise the first thing I would have thought after landing on Gardner, after seeing a ship on its west coast waiting for me. From 1000 ft everything looks alive, kinda. That I was in the twilight zone till I figured out that im actually on the wrong island, with a shipwreck and there are no people to greet me or resupply my craft. The shock of that would have been enough after 20 hours of flight.  How many islands in the middle Pacific have ships on their west coast ?

But, I do have a question , why did they not state clearly in a distrest call  Have landed on island with a shipwreck on the west coast cannot liftoff need assistance?

This is location , situation , possibilities , criticality assesment...
"BRAVO TWO ZERO THIS IS BRAVO TWO SIX
DIRECTION, ONE SEVEN ZERO ZERO
RIGHT, TWO ZERO, DROP FOUR HUNDRED, OVER"
So, how much training do you need for this? Did you ever adjust fire from an airplane?

gl
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Malcolm McKay on June 18, 2012, 09:33:56 PM
Once again Marty you are allowing your predilection for the Nikumaroro hypothesis dominate your capacity to read and understand what I posted. What part of  "I have not as far as I can recall accepted the New Britain hypothesis as anything other than a hypothesis that requires testing." is unclear.

I understand your sentence.

I disagree with your beliefs.

A hypothesis that depends on magic does not require testing.  It requires abandonment.

etc....

Clearly Marty either you do not understand what I posted, or you are deliberately misconstruing it to create a debate bordering on farce. If we are going to follow your lead into farce then perhaps you should create a new subject dedicated to that form of theatre.
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on June 18, 2012, 11:17:07 PM
Clearly Marty either you do not understand what I posted, or you are deliberately misconstruing it to create a debate bordering on farce.

There is a difference between understanding and agreement.

I understand Hitler's view of the Jews.  As a committed Darwinian, he thought that he was improving the human species by eliminating unwanted specimens.  I don't agree with that view of human beings or of the Jews.

I understand that you think the New Britain hypothesis "requires investigation."  I do not agree with that assessment.  It is not a viable hypothesis, given what we know about the range of the aircraft and the physics of radio transmissions.

I understand that you have a different belief system from mine.  I don't agree with your beliefs, and I understand that you do not agree with mine.
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Gary LaPook on June 18, 2012, 11:48:06 PM
I understand that Gary did the math for the return to New Britain from '100 miles out, we must be on you but can't see you' vicinity of Howland which made 2 outcomes possible...
1. They were nowhere near Howland, short by 569 NM - 809NM, in which case they could have returned to New Britain.
2. They were in the vicinity of howland, in which case a return to New britain was impossible.
http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,651.0.html (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,651.0.html)
See my prior posts:
https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,651.msg12321.html#msg12321

https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,651.msg12322.html#msg12322

https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,651.msg12374.html#msg12374

gl
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Gary LaPook on June 18, 2012, 11:56:14 PM

The three pilots almost certainly had target-recognition training.  Four eyes are better than two in identifying friend or foe.  I don't know whether the pilot could direct gunfire, given that he had to fly the plane.  I don't know whether they had voice or CW communications with the Colorado.

Then there are the three Cadets:

"On page 7 of the Colorado Lookout (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Documents/ColoradoLookout/page7.pdf), the aviators who took part in the search are listed.  “Aviators who took part in the search in addition to Lieut. Lambrecht, were Lieuts. (jg)  L. O. Fox and W. B. Short, and Aviation Cadets J. A. Wilson, W. Jordan and R. A. Leake.”

They were on board for some kind of training; I don't think it unreasonable to think it had something to do with finding targets and directing gunfire, along with other tasks necessary to get the planes in and out of the water and the air.



The Colorado was not a S.A.R. vessel.  It was a warship getting ready for war.  It was pressed into service because it was available, not too far away from where it was needed, and had three aircraft that could (and did) cover a lot of ground.  I don't think it all unreasonable to suppose that 1) no one with S.A.R. experience was on board; 2) no one gave them any specific instructions before takeoff, other than to look for an Electra with 36" wheels (if the wheels were 28", then it was manifestly the wrong Electra) and a man and a woman in the vicinity.  I doubt that anyone on board would have thought that more than that was necessary to see what there was to be seen.

Since you advanced the theory that they would have been informed of the wisdom gained in the 1927 aerial search (if wisdom was gained), it's up to you to provide the evidence that that wisdom was available and transmitted to them before takeoff.  Your hypothesis, your burden of proof.
What about the pilots from Lexington? The Lexington was not an SAR vessel either. Their job was not to spot the fall of shells from the great guns because Lexington had no great guns. Do you think that the pilots that would eventually be assigned to Lexington had different training at Pensacola than the pilots that eventually were assigned to Colorado? I think it more likely that all went through a standard naval aviator training program. Only after they received their assignments would they have gotten specific training for the type of plane that they would be flying. As for the cadets, don't you think they got some training on the way south from Hawaii on how to search and the pilots got the same training as a refresher from their prior training at Pensacola? Doens't this seem reasonable, and what we lawyers call, the standard of care?

Again, until someone comes with the complete syllabus of naval aviator training during the '30s, we are both just speculating.
gl
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Malcolm McKay on June 19, 2012, 01:00:19 AM
Clearly Marty either you do not understand what I posted, or you are deliberately misconstruing it to create a debate bordering on farce.

I understand that you think the New Britain hypothesis "requires investigation."  I do not agree with that assessment.  It is not a viable hypothesis, given what we know about the range of the aircraft and the physics of radio transmissions.

I understand that you have a different belief system from mine.  I don't agree with your beliefs, and I understand that you do not agree with mine.

And the C/N tag on the engine bearer, if true, is just a coincidence? The difference as I see it between you and I Marty is that you have a belief system that rules out all but Nikumaroro while I have yet to see anything in the Nikumaroro hypothesis that justifies such a leap of faith.
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Tom Swearengen on June 19, 2012, 05:20:45 AM
Malcolm---This wreck you are referring to is in the jungle in New Britian, with the engine, prop, engine mount with the ID tag there. We need postive proof of its exsistance, so go ahead and go find it. We'll wait to hear from you. Remember--POSITIVE IDENTIFICATION.

Oh --you have to know where to look, and you have to get there before you can look. Might be a good idea to formulate a plan, with SEVERAL options, just incase things dont go well. Might want to bring along some trained hikers, and survival trained guides. Just in case. Oh yeah---FUNDS to do the trip with.


You dont get it do you? What the hell do you think Ric & TIGHAR have been doing? Well they have been gathering funds, and the best that those funds can buy, to go to Niku, and TRY to find evidence that matches their theory. No one here is brainwashing you into believing anything, or trying to lure you over to the DARK SIDE. Although Julia might be--
My suggestion is to go to New Brittian and find the wreckage to prove your point.
Let us hear from you-
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Jeff Victor Hayden on June 19, 2012, 06:17:31 AM
Interestingly enough there were aircraft flown in New Britain that ACTUALLY used the Pratt and Whitney Wasp 600 HP S3H engine, the Noorduyn Norseman, 1935-1960.
Might be worth looking into further?


Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Ingo Prangenberg on June 19, 2012, 07:51:09 AM
Malcolm, what are you doing? Can't you step outside of yourself and view your arguments? You are on a forum, on a website, that at present is mainly focused on this particular hypothesis. It says so on the main page.

The fact that you spend so much time talking in circles and doing nothing in regards to being productive should have created a disinterest in you for this website a long time ago. Yet you can't let go. What is your ulterior motive here?

These guys are two weeks away from doing something they have spent years working towards, don't rain on their parade. It borders on rudeness and cannot be excused with "but we are just doing archaeology".

I for one would not join a website of enthusiasts of a particular topic and use it as a playground for my ego's entertainment. I sincerely recommend you continue using your education in this field, come out of retirement and start working on your own project, in this field. Make a website too, I'll join the forum.

And, yes, pardon my snarkiness.  ;)
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on June 19, 2012, 08:45:28 AM
What about the pilots from Lexington? The Lexington was not an SAR vessel either. Their job was not to spot the fall of shells from the great guns because Lexington had no great guns.

I presume that their job was naval reconnaissance, which involves looking for fairly big objects on the water at long distances.

Quote
Do you think that the pilots that would eventually be assigned to Lexington had different training at Pensacola than the pilots that eventually were assigned to Colorado?

No.

Quote
I think it more likely that all went through a standard naval aviator training program. Only after they received their assignments would they have gotten specific training for the type of plane that they would be flying.

Agreed.

Quote
As for the cadets, don't you think they got some training on the way south from Hawaii on how to search and the pilots got the same training as a refresher from their prior training at Pensacola? Doesn't this seem reasonable, and what we lawyers call, the standard of care?

Sure.  But there is another catch phrase, "state of the art."  What you are assuming, without proof, is that the common aviator education in 1937 would include the kind of training that we now call "search and rescue."  That is where your imaginative reconstruction of the past differs very much from mine.  I can't find any history of S.A.R. in the U.S. until the middle of WWII.  People learned by doing--both by finding survivors and failing to find survivors.  Eventually that experience became codified in maxims that could then be taught and refined over many iterations, leading to a vastly improved searches nowadays.

The state of the art in 1937 differed from that in 1943, which differs from that of 2012.  It is anachronistic to imagine that the kind of training given pilots today was part of the curriculum in 1937.

Quote
Again, until someone comes with the complete syllabus of naval aviator training during the '30s, we are both just speculating.

By the way, I have been corrected about who was on board the July 9 overflight.  "On July 9, the observers were:  Seaman 1st Class J. L. Marks with Lt. Lambrecht; Radioman 3rd Class Williamson with Lt. j.g. Fox; Lt. Charles F. Chillingworth with Lt. j.g. Short (Finding Amelia, p. 205, from the deck log of the Colorado for July 9)."  One might wonder whether Marks and Fox had S.A.R. training as part of their curriculum.  I don't know about Short's career.
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on June 19, 2012, 09:02:35 AM
And the C/N tag on the engine bearer, if true, is just a coincidence?

Yes.

I doubt whether the testimony about the tag is true.

I doubt whether the testimony is verifiable (which is a separate issue).

I deny that you have made an objective case for either proposition.

If it is true and verifiable, then I would see it as a coincidence.  You have provided no evidence whatsoever that constructor numbers were used to identify engine bearers in the 1930s--or at any time in the history of aircraft production. 

Why would someone lie about seeing such a tag?  Perhaps because they were so strongly convinced that they had found AE's aircraft, they decided a little white lie wouldn't hurt their fundraising.  Alternatively, they may have looked up the C/N after the fact, then "remembered" that they had seen it on the tag. 

Quote
The difference as I see it between you and I Marty is that you have a belief system that rules out all but Nikumaroro while I have yet to see anything in the Nikumaroro hypothesis that justifies such a leap of faith.

"Between" is a preposition.  When pronouns are objects of the preposition, they take the objective case.  The proper grammatical expression is "between you and me."  This is an objective fact.  You may check grammar books to see that I am right and you are wrong.

I'm not sure how you have objectively examined my belief system.  There are no objective guides to the inside of my world.  So far as I can tell, I only consider the Niku hypothesis the most probable explanation for the post-loss radio signals.  I find that a very convincing case.  I know that I cannot make anyone else believe in that case against their will.  As I've noted elsewhere, if the remains of NR16020 are found in deep water near Howland, that means that I will have to accept that I was wrong about the Niku hypothesis.  Proving the splashed-and-sank hypothesis true would prove the Niku hypothesis false, and vice-versa.  That contest seems open to me.  I'm betting on one dog in that fight, but I don't know whether the outcome will ever be clear. 

Things are different with the New Britain hypothesis, the Japanese Capture theories, and the various sightings of a skinny white woman during and after WWII who bore an uncanny resemblance to AE.  I don't have an open mind about these hypotheses.  I don't think they require or merit investigation.   I don't have infinite time or money.  I'm spending my limited resources on the work that seems to me to be most likely to bear fruit.  So far as I can tell, you're doing armchair archaeology, declaring on a fairly regular basis that the TIGHAR hypothesis is "not proven."  While that is a true statement, it does not logically follow that every other Earhart theory is viable.  "Splashed-and-sank" is very viable, in my view; the New Britain theory is not.

I understand that you have a different belief system which inspires you to evaluate things differently from the way I do.
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Malcolm McKay on June 19, 2012, 08:30:48 PM
Malcolm, what are you doing?
And, yes, pardon my snarkiness.  ;)

What am I doing? - why simply examining the data that has been advanced to support the Nikumaroro hypothesis. What else is this forum for? If you want it to be simply unquestioning then I would assume that you are allowed to hold that view.

As for "These guys are two weeks away from doing something they have spent years working towards, don't rain on their parade. It borders on rudeness and cannot be excused with "but we are just doing archaeology". " they've been at it since 1989 IIRC. Oh and you might note that nowhere have I suggested that they should give up - and I have always expressed the view that they should produce some evidence that provides the incontestable proof they seek. To date they haven't, so lets hope this trip turns that up.
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Malcolm McKay on June 19, 2012, 08:37:13 PM
And the C/N tag on the engine bearer, if true, is just a coincidence?

Yes.

I doubt whether the testimony about the tag is true.

I doubt whether the testimony is verifiable (which is a separate issue).

I deny that you have made an objective case for either proposition.

If it is true and verifiable, then I would see it as a coincidence.  You have provided no evidence whatsoever that constructor numbers were used to identify engine bearers in the 1930s--or at any time in the history of aircraft production.

Proof of construction numbers - I think you should read back on this thread http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,648.15.html .

The rest are your doubts and unsupported by anything that I can see. Best leave it there for your own sake.
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: john a delsing on June 19, 2012, 11:43:37 PM
   I believe there are three major theories to why Lambrecht and crew did not see AE.
   1).   The Gary LaPook theory that AE and FN were never on Gardner island, that they crashed and sank some where else.
   2).    The TIGHAR theory that AE landed at Gardner, transmitted from Gardner, a storm, or high winds, or tidal actions, blew the plane off the beach or reef, AE ( and possibly FN ) were inland in thick ‘jungle like woods’ when Lambrecht flew over and could not get to an opening or beach in time to be spotted, or because of wind and wave sounds Lambrecht planes were not heard in time to get to an opening, or Lambrecht and crew were busy looking at other objects ( maybe recent habitations ) and just did not see them, or similar reasons. After the flight she or both migrated down to the seven site and survived for a few weeks, or possibly a few months.
   3).   My theory, John Delsing’s theory if you don’t mind. Yes, they certainly may have landed on Gardner, and transmitted from there, but if you believe this you might also want to believe that most of their transmits were real and truthful, and yes they were injured, just ask Betty or Mabel and after 5 days of 110 to 120 degree heat with injuries and little or no water or food and little or no survival training, they both were either dead or so near death that they could not answer the bell when Lambrecht flew over. ( I have no proof or manuals Martin, just my thoughts on how well they prepared for their radio communications, and how well they striped needed things from the plane for weight reasons ).
   Please note; if you accept some, or all of my theory then you will have to also accept the fact, as hard a it will be for some, that AE never visited, let alone survived at the seven site ( She may have, in her last hours, staggered down the beach till she could go no farther, and crawled up under the shade of a large wren tree and died ). Not very romantic or the ending that most of us would like, but to me much more logical than spending weeks ( or months ) at the seven site hunting and fishing and building fires in different places but never building a monument of some type, or placing stones or coconuts saying “AE 7-2-37” or using her knife blade to crave in a tree a similar msg, or similar. 
   We have spent trips, much money, and much, much time digging and then analyzing objects from the seven site, and have found not one item that we can say came from AE. Hindsight is always 20/20 and I don’t want to criticize our past decisions, I am sure at the time the evidence looked good, but if we would have spent just a small portion of that search effort searching the ‘brush’ near where most of us think the plane landed and where “we know” they had to have camped for 5 days, I think our odds of finding something would have been far greater. But that will probably be a good reason to launch a new expedition.
   I closing I know that as of now, none of the three theories can be proved, or disproved, However; I would like to go out on the limb and state that by this time next month we will be down to only two plausible theories.
I am causally optimistic that Ric will be calling in with pictures of an engine, or at least a propeller and theory 1, for most of us, will be just a ‘bad’ memory. For those members that made the Wash DC meeting and were thinking about buying an electronic pin to wear, I suggest you watch ebay in the coming weeks, I have a feeling that one that reads “CRASHED and SANK” will be coming available shortly.

Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Gary LaPook on June 20, 2012, 12:46:33 AM
   
I am causally optimistic that Ric will be calling in with pictures of an engine, or at least a propeller and theory 1, for most of us, will be just a ‘bad’ memory. For those members that made the Wash DC meeting and were thinking about buying an electronic pin to wear, I suggest you watch ebay in the coming weeks, I have a feeling that one that reads “CRASHED and SANK” will be coming available shortly.
I cut a deal with the manufacturer of the "CRASHED AND SANK" pins and I will be be taking order for them next month. They come packaged in blister packs that hold one, five, ten, and a hundred. They are also available by the bushel.

gl
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Jeff Victor Hayden on June 20, 2012, 04:39:18 AM
There will be wreckage found on the reef at Niku however, crash and sink pins may still be needed as a result. Hopefully not but if so I have always considered the Niku and crash and sink the top 2 scenarios. South West of Howland is my best guess, that's my pin in place. ;
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Jeff Victor Hayden on June 20, 2012, 07:01:52 AM
If I had found myself in the same situation as AE and FN on Gardner Island (assuming they made it there) then the place to leave evidence that you were there would be somewhere that would be easily found/discovered by future visitors.
From the previous history of Gardner Island the only place that would easily attract the attention of future visitors was the Norwich City survivors camp.
No use leaving evidence you were there on the ground though, you need to put it up high, eye level where it would be seen.
Markings carved into trees?
(trying to get thread back on topic)
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on June 20, 2012, 07:08:51 AM
Proof of construction numbers - I think you should read back on this thread http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,648.15.html (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,648.15.html) .

I've read that topic.   Here, apparently, is what you take as proof (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,648.msg12318.html#msg12318):

"The most interesting thing I find in the evidence quoted on the New Britain crash web site is the reference to the C/N tag found attached to the engine bearer of the wreck by the members of the Australian army patrol in 1945. Also interesting is that according to their lieutenant the USAAF said at the time that the aircraft was not a US military wreck. Now is the C/N tag a coincidence, is the wreck Japanese, a pre-war US civil aircraft or did the patrol make up the whole thing and quite by accident come up with that C/N tag number."


So you're taking the word of "the New Britain crash web site."

What objective evidence do they have from the Australian army patrol?

When was that evidence collected?

How good is the provenance of the evidence?

What is the chain-of-custody for this evidence?

How do you deal objectively with the physics of flight and of radio transmissions which place the Electra out of range of New Britain?  Please show your calculations.

Quote
The rest are your doubts and unsupported by anything that I can see. Best leave it there for your own sake.

If I'm not mistaken, I'm entitled to say, "Not proven" of the assertions you have made about the alleged C/N number on the alleged tag.  All you do is assert that these things happened.  Where is the physical object--New Britain's "Any Idiot Artifact"--that proves that the there is a match between a number on an engine mount and the C/N of the Electra? 

You have said that such evidence exists, but I don't think you've seen it yourself.  You certainly haven't shown it to us here.  I hope you aren't asking us to take everything you say without questioning it. 
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Jeff Victor Hayden on June 20, 2012, 07:18:19 AM
The C/N 'tag' in question is, according to the New Britain scenario a 'repair tag', not the manufacturers identification plate...

I have been in aircraft engineering for 48 years. I believe the Metal Tag, wired to the tubing on the detached engine and removed by the patrol Warrant Officer was a metal “Repair Tag”, which had been left on the engine mount truss after repair and re-installation. The leaving of repair tags on components does happen, even today. In 1937, the aircraft was repaired where it had been made and workers at the Lockheed factory at Burbank would identify all components removed during the repair as from the build number , “C/N1055", not as from “NRl6020", the civil registration of the aircraft. Items sent for a gas flame welding shop repair would get fireproof metal tags not card tags, just as they would do today.

http://www.electranewbritain.com/Interestbegins2.htm (http://www.electranewbritain.com/Interestbegins2.htm)
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Tom Swearengen on June 20, 2012, 07:36:34 AM
John---I actually DO buy in to your theory, although mine varies slightly. Injured (?), possibly mal-nurished, etc, I do have my own reservations reguarding the seven site. I certainly am open to seaarching there , and the rest of the island for more clues.
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Irvine John Donald on June 20, 2012, 08:13:16 AM
Can I suggest that the tag likely existed as it is unlikely the metal tag would have been "invented" as part of the story. If tags were never used then it could be interpretated as a fabrication but if they were used then it is likely. It falls into the "What was likely" category, I think. How would someone unfamiliar with aircraft processes know to fabricate the tag?  I think Jeff N is saying that tags have been used for many years exactly to make sure parts are tracked effectively.

I do agree with Marty that Malcolm, or someone, has to provide hard evidence to anything they attribute as a fact.  If we hold hard verifiable evidence as the standard for our facts then that's our standard. Not everyone agrees with that for some reason. But if someone wants to make claims then they must provide more than "I heard from a friend who heard from a friend, who's mother told him." to be taken seriously. Marty's request for verifiable proof to any part of the New England theory is a reasonable request. If it cannot be provided then it cannot be used to support that theory. Malcolm has been saying this all along.  We must have hard evidence to verify. Therefore he agrees with this standard. I think Malcolm has to provide the evidence to support what he believes in order for others to assess.  I'm sure he will either provide this evidence or let us know he can't. He understands the principle.
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Jeff Victor Hayden on June 20, 2012, 08:18:48 AM
The C/N 'tag' in question is, according to the New Britain scenario a 'repair tag', not the manufacturers identification plate...

I have been in aircraft engineering for 48 years. I believe the Metal Tag, wired to the tubing on the detached engine and removed by the patrol Warrant Officer was a metal “Repair Tag”, which had been left on the engine mount truss after repair and re-installation. The leaving of repair tags on components does happen, even today. In 1937, the aircraft was repaired where it had been made and workers at the Lockheed factory at Burbank would identify all components removed during the repair as from the build number , “C/N1055", not as from “NRl6020", the civil registration of the aircraft. Items sent for a gas flame welding shop repair would get fireproof metal tags not card tags, just as they would do today.

http://www.electranewbritain.com/Interestbegins2.htm (http://www.electranewbritain.com/Interestbegins2.htm)

That can be the case - which I have also spoken to before (although I've been in the industry a few less years - 35 or so).

It can also be the case that a mount (or similar component) intended for repair gets side-lined and a new or other repaired item gets installed on a given bird, then the original component finds its way onto yet another serial number... not uncommon.  In fact, sometimes parts with a given 'ship set' number may get diverted in original production to a ship of a different serial number - I see that commonly on items as significant as whole wing and tail assemblies even today.

That lends a great deal of doubt in my mind about such a tag lending credence to a major search, if such a tag ever existed in East New Britain.

LTM -
Spot on! Here's a mock up of the repair tags we used. They were thin brass with hole at one end for attcahing to component with twisted wire. The information from the aircraft constructors identification plate was stamped into the tag, model number, serial number, date of manufacture (not the aircraft registration number, they come and go). This informed the repair facility exactly which plane it came from. A new component was fitted if cost/time was an issue. Repaired component used on same model, same year, depending on modification notices regarding said component.



constructors I.D plate is image below repair tag
(http://)
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Leon R White on June 20, 2012, 11:17:15 AM
Jeff,
Regarding the power of weather on the atolls/islands.  Would it be possible for a plane to hang on the edge of the reef for 40 years?  I think we can all agree that that is highly unlikely - in fact - impossible. 

Given that, I have to report that just such a thing DID happen.  A japanese fighter was found underwater (0-125 ft) hanging off the edge of a reef by landing gear, intact.  Red paint still visible, cockpit open.  This was during a US government dive and not generally reported.  I know one of the divers, so if anyone want's to doubt the story, feel free. As a bonified member of Ric's "Camel in the Clouds Magic Thinking" club (thanks for the warmth), I'll say it's nothing more then that.

I mention this only as an example of what we are all pretty sure of, and like you, can't wait for real hard data of Gardiner dives.

Disclaimer: This post does not claim any evidence of anything anywhere anytime, nor any suggestion of evidence, proof, hypothesis, theory, claim or suggestion.  This post is not intended to influence anyone to think anything about anything ever, anywhere.  Void where prohibited by the scientific method. Some restictions certainly must apply by someone, somewhere. No socratic debate permitted -the only thing you get is a winner.


Leon

An optimist may see a light where there is none, but why must the pessimist always run to blow it out?
-Rene Descartes
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Tom Swearengen on June 20, 2012, 12:37:04 PM
Leon, I personally think not only is it possible, but might probably have happened just that way. We know from soundings that there is a second ledge around 800-900 feet down. "Could" have the electra gotten hung up there for a peiod of time? I think so. Just as I'm thinking it hung itself up at the 150 +- foot ledge. I'm not a diver---but I would thing that the deeper you go around the reef, the less current and underwater movements there is. So 'if' the Electra was at the 150 foot level, and is not at the 900 foot level, then something shifted it to make it move. Seismic activity is something to consider.
Disclaimer: I dont know the actual depths of these ledges, just what If gathered from the tables in the archives.
Tom
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Jeff Victor Hayden on June 20, 2012, 01:13:27 PM
The saving grace could in fact be that the bird (whichever one it is) is not in one piece. if it was there is the distinct possibility of it going over the edge into the abyss never to be seen again. In pieces there is the distinct possibility that at least one section will get hung up and stay put, no matter how small it may be. IMHO
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Gary LaPook on June 20, 2012, 04:28:07 PM
Leon, I personally think not only is it possible, but might probably have happened just that way. We know from soundings that there is a second ledge around 800-900 feet down. "Could" have the electra gotten hung up there for a peiod of time? I think so. Just as I'm thinking it hung itself up at the 150 +- foot ledge. I'm not a diver---but I would thing that the deeper you go around the reef, the less current and underwater movements there is. So 'if' the Electra was at the 150 foot level, and is not at the 900 foot level, then something shifted it to make it move. Seismic activity is something to consider.
Disclaimer: I dont know the actual depths of these ledges, just what If gathered from the tables in the archives.
Tom
Water movement drops off very fast with depth as any scuba diver can tell you. There can be a hurricane on the surface but 300 feet down it is calm, submariners will tell you that.

gl
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Walter Runck on June 20, 2012, 05:39:32 PM

What about the pilots from Lexington? The Lexington was not an SAR vessel either. Their job was not to spot the fall of shells from the great guns because Lexington had no great guns. Do you think that the pilots that would eventually be assigned to Lexington had different training at Pensacola than the pilots that eventually were assigned to Colorado? I think it more likely that all went through a standard naval aviator training program. Only after they received their assignments would they have gotten specific training for the type of plane that they would be flying. As for the cadets, don't you think they got some training on the way south from Hawaii on how to search and the pilots got the same training as a refresher from their prior training at Pensacola? Doens't this seem reasonable, and what we lawyers call, the standard of care?

Again, until someone comes with the complete syllabus of naval aviator training during the '30s, we are both just speculating.

Lex was laid down as a battle cruiser and finished as an aircraft carrier with eight 8 inch guns in four twin turrets which she retained until a few weeks before her loss at the Coral Sea.  Her final battle was the first in which the opposing ships did not sight or fire on each other and she was built to be able to slug it out on the surface if she had to, so her gunfire spotting requirements in 1937 were equivalent to a contemporary heavy cruiser, which carried the same type of float planes as a battleship like the Colorado .  Aircraft missions, types and pilot skill requirements were not as specialized then as they are now, so cross-training and/or transition from one squadron to another was more common.  That said, the Colorado pilots knew they were going to be landing on water alongside a ship while the carrier pilots were aiming for the 3 wire on the greasy end of the flight deck, so as always with Naval Aviation, the launch and recovery was the focus of a lot of the training. 

Note that at least some of the "Observers" on the Colorado search flights were Radiomen.  Taking the comms workload off the pilot was an early part of the job, an aspect of SAR crew management that lives on to this day. 

I'm not drawing any conclusions about aircrew training or skills or the POD of a particular search.  The point is that the people doing the searching were the best available for the task and like we say at the dragstrip, "you gotta run what you brung".

I'm inclined toward the Niku hypothesis, but this discussion of why they weren't seen by the Navy searchers has me wondering about something related.  If Nessie was there when Bevington came by, it must have been there when Lambrecht flew over.  One of the key elements of the Niku hypothesis is that the Electra disappeared cleanly enough that it was not spotted on the 9th. I had sort of accepted the idea of the plane getting washed over the edge in the days right after the radio transmissions stopped being heard, but having a mainmount ripped out argues against an intact plane going off the reef, particularly if we believe it served as a fountain of aircraft parts welling forth over the next few years.  I'm sure this was considered during discussion of the colonist's claims that there was a plane on the reef, but I have a hard time reconciling Nessie's existence in October and reports of visible aircraft debris from following years with negative search results, particularly around Norwich City.

I have no problem believing that the search produced a false negative.  I spend too much time looking for stuff I know is there not to believe people in small planes didn't see people in a jungle that they only thought might have been there.  Trying to put numbers on the odds is fun and there is some new CG SAR software that I am going to try to set up a scenario  and see what comes out of it.



Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Malcolm McKay on June 20, 2012, 09:56:23 PM
I think Malcolm has to provide the evidence to support what he believes in order for others to assess.  I'm sure he will either provide this evidence or let us know he can't. He understands the principle.

Actually you will discover if you read my posts on the subject that nowhere have I claimed that the New Britain hypothesis is based on any proven facts. In fact I have treated it with the same caution as I have the claims about what the Nikumaroro "evidence" demonstrate. In short all I have done is state that both have the same level of reliability based on what has been put forward as evidence to support them by their proponents. So don't blame me, blame the thinness of the supporting evidence. Frankly the only difference I see at the moment between the two hypotheses is that there are more "ice cream castles in the air" over Nikumaroro than New Britain - might be something to do with the climate  ;D .

As for Marty's lack of knowledge about the use of construction numbers by aircraft and other manufacturers' of similarly complex machines as the means to distinguish the resulting assemblies both during manufacture and afterwards. The explanation put simply is it is a means to properly identify these items both during manufacture to make sure hand fitted or tuned items are reunited with the parent equipment, or in later years, when the registration/identification numbers etc. allotted to them after they have left the factory are changed through resale etc. so that upgrades, identified faults that have emerged can be rectified etc. I can't offer any explanation for that peculiar gap in his understanding of engineering practice, suffice to say that the manufacturers developed the system to suit their and their customers' needs so perhaps he should dispute it with them.
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on June 20, 2012, 10:58:05 PM
Actually you will discover if you read my posts on the subject that nowhere have I claimed that the New Britain hypothesis is based on any proven facts.

This confirms my impression that you are doing fact-free believing when you say that the existence of the tag is interesting and that TIGHAR should help to fund research into how it ended up in New Britain.

Since you have no proven facts (such as that the tag existed and that it was marked with C/N 1055), it follows logically that your assertion that this is an interesting coincidence worth investigation is nothing but an act of faith, not an act of objective reasoning based on evidence.

Quote
As for Marty's lack of knowledge about the use of construction numbers by aircraft and other manufacturers' of similarly complex machines as the means to distinguish the resulting assemblies both during manufacture and afterwards. The explanation put simply is it is a means to properly identify these items both during manufacture to make sure hand fitted or tuned items are reunited with the parent equipment, or in later years, when the registration/identification numbers etc. allotted to them after they have left the factory are changed through resale etc.

If I considered you an authority on airframe repair, I'd take your word for it.

I don't consider you an authority.

I don't take your word for it.

I'd like to see some documentation.  How about some pictures of some 1930s repair tags?  Some Lockheed data plates with "C/N" on them?

I'm open to be persuaded by the evidence.  I'm not open to taking these things on your say-so.
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Greg Daspit on June 24, 2012, 09:56:16 AM
One of the first things that may have been done after the landing is to inspect the plane.

What abilities did they have to repair the belly antena?
edit: One of the articles about what Betty heard referenced a conversation AE may have had with someone else in Florida. (edited with reference below)
If they were having a conversation then did they need to repair the belly antenna?

Also, what capabilities did they have after the landing to take the rear wheel off so they clould change the angle of the plane and get more prop clearance to transmit longer? I see what looks like a a lift in some pictures. Would this have made much of a difference in clearance.
edit: Were the calcs on transmitting time assuming a flat on the front tires?
Edit:  The article that references somene possibly talking to AE is link below
http://tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/2000Vol_16/occult.pdf
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Lloyd Manley on July 01, 2013, 11:49:23 PM
My main fault it appears, is that I have not unequivocally accepted the Gardner Island hypothesis although as I recall I have never said that I don't accept it. All I have ever said is that it, like the others, remains unproven. If you find that hard to understand then there is no more I can say to make it clearer to you.
I think you are being reasonable on that score. But I do think it is clear that AE/FN were there. Where the mystery remains is why and how they got there and what became of them. They need a proper burial.
 
Concerning Betty's notebook. The problem with recollections of events so long after, even with the notes as an aide memoire is that these become embellished in our minds. Perhaps the panic Betty hears isn't panic but simply Noonan telling Earhart to stop fiddling with the radio and get out of the aircraft because if you stay here any longer you will be drowned. Noonan is not panicking but exercising his authority in the manner of a seasoned skipper. He knows that one good wave or a rising tide can float the aircraft off the reef.

Yes, except he was not the skipper.

Still I remain sceptical about the Betty diary - not that I am accusing her or others of fraud but that memories play tricks, especially with recollections of an unexpected and garbled radio message. The gist of the messages may be there but the interpretation could be amiss.

Well, I think this is obvious when we look at the probability curve of the odds of her hearing all that as the embellishment builds. Its nothing against the witness, but when you hear something like she did it’s hard not to embellish a little. But since we are not in a court of law or trying to establish character but rather trying to establish scientific fact, we must focus on what parts of her testimony can be corroborated. Some of it can be.

So in effect you arguing that the post-loss messages are genuine because they don't give a reliable indication of her position. Well that's one way of looking at it I'll grant you.
Funny

She was not a good navigator so she couldn't be allowed to undertake the flight solo so Noonan who was an accomplished navigator, seaman and a pilot himself was hired to be the navigator. He had already achieved a promising position in aviation circles –

So did Earhart.

If the goal is to garner public support and “sand” for future expeditions this kind of tone, which is common in the AE research realm for some reason  (I won’t go there), it is probably not a winning strategy to make these kinds of comments.

AE told them what frequency to use. She told them the schedule. She told them the time zone. She told them to communicate only by voice. She told them to DF on high frequency, which they promptly screwed up by burning up batteries and not securing a shore SSDG, she gave them triangulation dashes to send a shore party to Gardner, which they did not do; and on and on. They were under a direct order of the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces to support her mission. Period. I won't go into why I think some perceive her behavior as "ditzy", but I'll just note that I dissent.

You mentioned elsewhere (sorry, I’m catching up) that the debris fields recently discovered and the NC site need to be defined better. You made similar comments about Type I errors generally. In my opinion, your expectations are that this quest of discovery to resolve the disposition of AE and FN is a scientific field trip. But it is not. Thus, the bar you are placing is sufficient to ensure failure and sometimes in life you have to be willing to operate off of a hypothesis to gain faster resolution. Again, that’s just my opinion, but some of what you are saying borders on Type II errors.

Having said that, I agree that the shore evidence amassed so far doesn’t get us anywhere. I’m sorry to say that, but the moment the plane reached the “ground” the mystery resumes. The plane was there. But what AE and FN did after that is still unclear. I am not the least bit convinced they ever exited the plane at all, based largely on your arguments advanced here.

Jeff, you said… 
“What happened privately we'll never know” …

Egggzzzaccctly.



Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Gloria Walker Burger on July 16, 2013, 04:20:00 PM
Going back to Brad's original reason for the post, here is my scenario of what happened:

The Electra was south of Howland when AE said 'we must be on you'.
They flew north for a bit, then headed south still hoping to find Howland, but would be happy to see Baker, Winslow Reef, McKean, or Gardner.
They were about to head to the Gilberts (which was her plan, as she told Gene Vidal, if they couldn't find Howland) when they sighted Gardner Island, not knowing which island it was.
AE and FN decided that FN would go to the back of the plane for tail weight and had a somewhat rough landing.
FN injured his head badly on landing.
Not too rough for running the engine, they worked the radio for 6+ days, telling anyone who could hear that they were on an island with the wreck of the Norwich City (Betty), and that ship was on a reef south of the equator (Dana Randolph).
While sleeping inland, the plane started to move with the rising tide.
By the time they woke up the plane was headed for the edge of the reef and they weren't able to unload it.
The plane fell off the edge of the reef (every once and a while in the future flinging a part or two back over onto the reef).
On the day of the Lambrecht flyover FN was incapacitated and AE was inland banging a coconut trying to open it.
AE didn't hear the planes right away because of the noise she was making and the fact that her hearing was impaired from the long flight.
As quickly as she could, she got her kite and flew it off Nutiran (ground zero) where it was captured on a picture from someone in the Lambrecht plane who was looking elsewhere on the island when he snapped the shot, then flew away from the island.(had to put that in there :)
On the 10th, FN was in so much pain from the head injury, and knew he was dying. He walked into the lagoon and drowned himself to end the pain.
AE inspected the island and settled at the 7 site because of climate comfort, food access, and access to the beach for sighting rescue, as she didn't want to get caught too far inland as she was when on the northern end of the island during the Lambrecht flyover.
She kept a diary with pencil and paper in FN's sextant box, the paper was destroyed by the time Gallagher came along.
AE carved 'AE and FN' onto a Buka tree in the forest near the 7 site, not yet found.
On the 21st she succumbed to thirst and died with one of her shoes on and one of FN's shoes on because she injured her foot either on landing or on the coral.
Her bones are still on Fiji and may yet be found.
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Tim Mellon on July 16, 2013, 06:39:18 PM
Going back to Brad's original reason for the post, here is my scenario of what happened:

The Electra was south of Howland when AE said 'we must be on you'.
They flew north for a bit, then headed south still hoping to find Howland, but would be happy to see Baker, Winslow Reef, McKean, or Gardner.
They were about to head to the Gilberts (which was her plan, as she told Gene Vidal, if they couldn't find Howland) when they sighted Gardner Island, not knowing which island it was.
AE and FN decided that FN would go to the back of the plane for tail weight and had a somewhat rough landing.
FN injured his head badly on landing.
Not too rough for running the engine, they worked the radio for 6+ days, telling anyone who could hear that they were on an island with the wreck of the Norwich City (Betty), and that ship was on a reef south of the equator (Dana Randolph).
While sleeping inland, the plane started to move with the rising tide.
By the time they woke up the plane was headed for the edge of the reef and they weren't able to unload it.
The plane fell off the edge of the reef (every once and a while in the future flinging a part or two back over onto the reef).
On the day of the Lambrecht flyover FN was incapacitated and AE was inland banging a coconut trying to open it.
AE didn't hear the planes right away because of the noise she was making and the fact that her hearing was impaired from the long flight.
As quickly as she could, she got her kite and flew it off Nutiran (ground zero) where it was captured on a picture from someone in the Lambrecht plane who was looking elsewhere on the island when he snapped the shot, then flew away from the island.(had to put that in there :)
On the 10th, FN was in so much pain from the head injury, and knew he was dying. He walked into the lagoon and drowned himself to end the pain.
AE inspected the island and settled at the 7 site because of climate comfort, food access, and access to the beach for sighting rescue, as she didn't want to get caught too far inland as she was when on the northern end of the island during the Lambrecht flyover.
She kept a diary with pencil and paper in FN's sextant box, the paper was destroyed by the time Gallagher came along.
AE carved 'AE and FN' onto a Buka tree in the forest near the 7 site, not yet found.
On the 21st she succumbed to thirst and died with one of her shoes on and one of FN's shoes on because she injured her foot either on landing or on the coral.
Her bones are still on Fiji and may yet be found.

I respectfully disagree, Ms. Burger. IMHO both AE and FN went down with the ship, most of which lies in the vicinity of Site #1 (2012).
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Tim Mellon on July 16, 2013, 06:50:41 PM
And here is yet another point of view (http://kirkomrik.wordpress.com/).
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Chris Johnson on July 17, 2013, 01:35:23 AM
And here is yet another point of view (http://kirkomrik.wordpress.com/).

Working link would be good.
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Irvine John Donald on July 17, 2013, 02:33:02 AM
There is a working link Chris. I clicked on the words "another point of view" and it took me to the web link.
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Chris Johnson on July 17, 2013, 03:19:32 AM
There is a working link Chris. I clicked on the words "another point of view" and it took me to the web link.

I get this but it could be a work/filter issue :(

Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Chris Johnson on July 17, 2013, 09:11:33 AM
Got it through this Link (http://kirkomrik.wordpress.com/2013/07/02/amelia-earhart-and-the-meaning-of-irony/)

I wish I had Mr Mellons eyes and does some of the Navigation Stuff smack of Mr Van Asten?

How would you have evidence of blood? I'd like a scientific answer to that one with links please :)

So to recap what we have is crashed and floated to Niku, hit the reef edge and sank.  Crew made crude resperator to avoid drowning.  Que Clive Cussler.
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Ric Gillespie on July 17, 2013, 09:22:50 AM
There is a working link Chris. I clicked on the words "another point of view" and it took me to the web link.

Interesting blog. All the answers to the Earhart mystery, including a psychological evaluation of your obedient servant; a treatise about "advanced life" on Mars; ponderings on The Final World Order; a condemnation of "Bloody Neoliberal 'Democracy'; it gets better and better.  Don't miss the "About" page.

And you thought THIS forum was weird.
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: John Klier on July 17, 2013, 09:29:09 AM
I would like to see credible sources that show human remains surviving in that particular tropical, underwater environment for 70+ years.  By credible I mean a peer reviewed scientific paper.
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Chris Johnson on July 17, 2013, 09:33:19 AM
I would like to see credible sources that show human remains surviving in that particular tropical, underwater environment for 70+ years.  By credible I mean a peer reviewed scientific paper.

Though not peer review or scientific I remember as a young lad in the 1970's watching a Jac Cousteau (sp) documentary about Japanese wartime wrecks in the pacific and being fascinated by the bones etc but alas I can't tell you where that was.  I suppose I'm saying it may be possible but only in the right conditions.
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: John Klier on July 17, 2013, 09:43:04 AM
Yes, I've seen something similar and there are images all over the web of human remains underwater but I believe those conditions are very specific to preservation. While this is not my field of expertise I would say that based upon what I can see, the underwater environment that was photographed during the expedition is extremely dynamic and full of seemingly uncountable life forms. To say that something like human remains (a food source) would survive for 70+ years is not something I would be convinced of without credible proof. With my current knowledge of that system I would say near impossible.

I would like to see credible sources that show human remains surviving in that particular tropical, underwater environment for 70+ years.  By credible I mean a peer reviewed scientific paper.

Though not peer review or scientific I remember as a young lad in the 1970's watching a Jac Cousteau (sp) documentary about Japanese wartime wrecks in the pacific and being fascinated by the bones etc but alas I can't tell you where that was.  I suppose I'm saying it may be possible but only in the right conditions.
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Brano Lacika on July 17, 2013, 09:59:45 AM
I look into those pics attentively and honestly I don´t see those things as described. I will take a rest and try again. What I like most on Tim s page is a pic of beautiful Amelia aged 16 which I have never seen before...  :)
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Tim Mellon on July 17, 2013, 10:05:21 AM
And here is yet another point of view (http://kirkomrik.wordpress.com/).

REALLY

How about you should have researched Tighar before you give them one million in stock, That video has been available since 2010 and in all honesty the high res copy only confirms that it is only coral in the video that resembles aircraft parts as for seeing skeletons an banjo's an guitars etc "Really" for the money your paying to sue Tighar i would say Elvis was there too.

O an that sonar image u used was my interpretation of what i see not what Tighar see, So considering you used my image without my consent you owe me one million pound

Thanks

Richie, that was written by Lloyd Manley (a TIGHAR member), not by me. Please read more carefully before raising your pen in anger towards me.
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Monty Fowler on July 17, 2013, 10:21:27 AM

And you thought THIS forum was weird.

How could the TIGHAR forum possibly be regarded as weird, when one of the unstated and secret but absolutely vital criteria for membership is the ability to recite long passages from Monty Python and the Holy Grail from memory? Seems perfectly reasonable and normal to me.

LTM, who has the DVD,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 CER
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Lloyd Manley on July 17, 2013, 10:51:21 AM
... that was written by Lloyd Manley (a TIGHAR member), not by me. Please read more carefully before raising your pen in anger towards me.
All,
The article was written by me and frankly, given the passions on this subject, I fully expected wrath from every corner, including Mr. Mellon. So, no, you can be sure it was not written by Mr. Mellon, Mr. Gillespie or Elvis. I admire the following of principle so I try to say what I really think, unvarnished and as is. Sorry if it upsets anyone. Just my 2 cent opinion.

Tim,
I am not a TIGHAR member, unless you're just referring to having a posting account here?

Lloyd
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Joshua Doremire on July 17, 2013, 11:00:01 AM
And here is yet another point of view (http://kirkomrik.wordpress.com/).

This really needs it's own thread under "Alternatives to the Niku Hypothesis".

I'll give it credit for bringing up a couple ideas in the theory.

Now somewhere in this poorly organized rant a couple of good questions are brought up. The intro has one getting their tinfoil hat out. The personal analysis of Mr. Gillespie is irreverent to finding Amelia and to their points brought up. 'I must be correct because the other guy is a S.O.B.' What are they running for political office here? All that did was hurt the credibility of the author. It almost had me closing the page as a rant. But, I was board and read on.

The hardest thing is lack of cited sources one can look up for points of interest.

Schedule for radio being messed up is an interesting point. Of interest is why would she turn off the radio receiver as it did not appear to take that much power? The generator was current limited by a regulator. A fuse that would blow under full extended load makes no sense. A generator failure is an emergency with required instruments, lights for them, and other things like electric fuel pumps. More proof of the fuse and how it would blow via a link etc. would be useful. The transmitter taking way more power I could see the receiver being off. But why leave it off? Two generators may have helped eliminate the schedule issue some, but, you can't step on the other person transmitting and be heard. IMO from a power need, backup, and critical item standpoint a second generator on the other engine would have been smart to have. It is after all 1937 mechanical technology and even in the future, today, nothing works. Their compromise to keep weight down was the schedule. How far they took electric power saving is something to look into. After all it takes fuel to generate electric power.   

The navigation error puts them near Gardner island. Yet we have splashdown conclusion instead of landing there. As much credit is given to them including using the island as an alternate it has them falling short. Classic rant. Never mind the post loss transmissions...   Great theory, but, choked at the conclusion.
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Ric Gillespie on July 17, 2013, 11:31:42 AM
This really needs it's own thread under "Alternatives to the Niku Hypothesis".

I have no objection to such a thread.  I can think of no better way to bolster the Niku Hypothesis.  My only concern is the time and distraction it would take from genuine research to address the avalanche of factual errors in the ramblings of characters like Mr. Manley.  A thread about Advanced Life on Mars might be more fun.
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Ric Gillespie on July 17, 2013, 12:14:17 PM
What I like most on Tim s page is a pic of beautiful Amelia aged 16 which I have never seen before...  :)

The photo is in Carol Osborne's book, co-written with Muriel Morrissey, "Amelia, My Courageous Sister."  It's on page 39.  The photo was supposedly taken in St. Paul in 1914.  Amelia was born in 1897 so she would be 16 if the photo was taken before July 24 and 17 if taken after. 
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Chris Johnson on July 17, 2013, 01:56:02 PM
Timothy old chap, I fear the irony of Richie's posting flew over your head! Its probably a cultural thing as British humour is well known for failing when crossing west over the Atlantic. (apart from the great Monty Python)



And here is yet another point of view (http://kirkomrik.wordpress.com/).

REALLY

How about you should have researched Tighar before you give them one million in stock, That video has been available since 2010 and in all honesty the high res copy only confirms that it is only coral in the video that resembles aircraft parts as for seeing skeletons an banjo's an guitars etc "Really" for the money your paying to sue Tighar i would say Elvis was there too.

O an that sonar image u used was my interpretation of what i see not what Tighar see, So considering you used my image without my consent you owe me one million pound

Thanks

Richie, that was written by Lloyd Manley (a TIGHAR member), not by me. Please read more carefully before raising your pen in anger towards me.
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Greg Daspit on July 17, 2013, 03:23:19 PM
I liked the picture too. That one and the one with her sitting at a table are my favorites of her.

I agree this should go in alternate hypothesis starting with the link by Tim Mellon in reply 350.
Maybe in the "blank sheet of paper thread" or a new thread.

also
I didn't know there were any Monty Python requirements, though I used to quote that movie all the time.
Feel free to delete this post if this topic is moved
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Bruce Thomas on July 17, 2013, 03:57:58 PM
Lloyd,

where did you get your navigation information from?
Chris, I think a lot of the navigation information was filched from a topic here in the Celestial Choir portion of Forum, "Seeking Comments on New Date Line Theory (https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,291.msg2592.html#msg2592)," that was started by Liz Smith (who Lloyd cites) in 2011, and from Liz's own website, "The Date Line Theory (http://www.datelinetheory.com/)."
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Ric Gillespie on July 17, 2013, 06:00:24 PM
I didn't know there were any Monty Python requirements, though I used to quote that movie all the time.

There are no Monty Python requirements but you do get points for being able to answer some basic questions:
• Why do witches float?
• What else floats?
• What is your favorite color?
• What is the capital of Assyria?
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Greg Daspit on July 17, 2013, 06:22:43 PM
I didn't know there were any Monty Python requirements, though I used to quote that movie all the time.

There are no Monty Python requirements but you do get points for being able to answer some basic questions:
• Why do witches float?
• What else floats?
• What is your favorite color?
• What is the capital of Assyria?
They are made of wood
A duck
Blue..no?yellow ARHH
I don't know
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Tim Mellon on July 17, 2013, 06:32:51 PM
Timothy old chap, I fear the irony of Richie's posting flew over your head! Its probably a cultural thing as British humour is well known for failing when crossing west over the Atlantic. (apart from the great Monty Python)



And here is yet another point of view (http://kirkomrik.wordpress.com/).

REALLY

How about you should have researched Tighar before you give them one million in stock, That video has been available since 2010 and in all honesty the high res copy only confirms that it is only coral in the video that resembles aircraft parts as for seeing skeletons an banjo's an guitars etc "Really" for the money your paying to sue Tighar i would say Elvis was there too.

O an that sonar image u used was my interpretation of what i see not what Tighar see, So considering you used my image without my consent you owe me one million pound

Thanks

Richie, that was written by Lloyd Manley (a TIGHAR member), not by me. Please read more carefully before raising your pen in anger towards me.

"Basil, don't mention the War..."
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Irvine John Donald on July 17, 2013, 06:47:49 PM
Lloyd's hypothesis or theory is an interesting read but at the end of the day it is Lloyd's alternate theory and I believe he is willing to defend it. Clearly it has a lot of time invested in it. Tighar's website provides a lot of reference material just as other web sites offer. I am actually pleased to see that people are willing to provide alternates and to receive polite reviews. That's healthy for discussion. I believe that everyone benefits from these alternate ideas as it stimulates thought, makes us review sources and facts, and look for the true answer. Kudos to Lloyd and everyone else, including the Pythonites, for their ideas, comments, suggestions and, yes, the bravery to speak out on these pages.  My theory? Perhaps Amelia was a witch and floated home with Fred on her back.  :)

And sorry Tim. Your quote was from Fawlty Towers. A John Cleese production. Not Monty Python but definitely another excellent example of Pythonesque style humour.
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Tim Mellon on July 17, 2013, 07:08:34 PM
Lloyd's hypothesis or theory is an interesting read but at the end of the day it is Lloyd's alternate theory and I believe he is willing to defend it. Clearly it has a lot of time invested in it. Tighar's website provides a lot of reference material just as other web sites offer. I am actually pleased to see that people are willing to provide alternates and to receive polite reviews. That's healthy for discussion. I believe that everyone benefits from these alternate ideas as it stimulates thought, makes us review sources and facts, and look for the true answer. Kudos to Lloyd and everyone else, including the Pythonites, for their ideas, comments, suggestions and, yes, the bravery to speak out on these pages.  My theory? Perhaps Amelia was a witch and floated home with Fred on her back.  :)

And sorry Tim. Your quote was from Fawlty Towers. A John Cleese production. Not Monty Python but definitely another excellent example of Pythonesque style humour.

I know that, Irv. My mind doesn't work lock-step.
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Tim Mellon on July 17, 2013, 08:10:00 PM
Well the problem is that lots of people are assuming that because of the Betty radio message that on Nikumaroro, Amelia is OK and poor Fred is helpless. Now as there is nothing to support that hypothesis how about this one.

Earhart, not the greatest pilot on Earth as we are aware, bounces the Electra down on the reef, in the process breaking off one undercarriage leg, and finally wakes up to the fact that she has got both of them well and truly in the s**t. Noonan a man we all know of some experience in nautical and command matters finally tells her -

"Amelia, this your fault, the radio was working but you have stuffed it by not transmitting long enough at any time for anyone to get a fix and we get ourselves lost. I'm here because your husband was well aware you couldn't navigate to save your life and you would need an expert to get you across the ocean. Now stop fiddling with the radio - no one is listening. Let's get out of this tin can, its hot, a wreck and the next wave will probably drown us in it, and head for the shore."

Once ashore after a couple of acrimonious days Amelia well aware of her limitations, after being really made aware of them by Noonan, storms off to the south of the island and succumbs finally to thirst due to her usual inability to pay attention to detail.

Fred, thoroughly glad to see the end of her, stays near the shore of the north part of the island near the wreck and succumbs himself to thirst and hunger. Being near the shore his body is washed out to sea by a high tide or storm and then disappears.

Works for me.

And Malcolm, all along I assumed you were a scientist!
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Tim Mellon on July 17, 2013, 08:18:29 PM

Don't miss the "About" page.

And you thought THIS forum was weird.

Ric, do you think Kir is channelling:

   (A) Amelia
   (B) Elanor or
   (C) Hillary?
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Brano Lacika on July 18, 2013, 02:41:25 AM
I look into those pics attentively and honestly I don´t see those things as described. I will take a rest and try again. What I like most on Tim s page is a pic of beautiful Amelia aged 16 which I have never seen before...  :)

I´ve been looking into those pics again after having some rest ( and after I supported my imagination with a few glasses of Pinot Noir  :). Being not a Tighar member I´m trying to keep some independent view and this is what I see:
- the circular shaped object resembing something, what could possibly be an old aircraft tire. But it can also be a round shaped block of stone(coral), a big old coconut shell, or whatever else... I´m not saying that it is NOT a tire, but I would say that nobody can be certain (frome these pics) for sure, that it IS a tire. I´m trying to say, that it is not "clear and convincing".
- the object resembling the old style hiking boot. I´m having, however, the hard time when trying to imagine the shoe surviving in recognizable shape in the seawater for 70+ years. Or did they sew them of GORE-TEX in 30ies?
- the rope. it is almost certainly the rope, but it is never a big surpise to find a piece of rope on the sea bottom and this one does not look very old ( to me at least...). I don´t see any grommet and nothing else as the clue to recognize it to be the aircraft tie down rope.
- the other features as described below those pics I simply don´t see ( which of course does not mean they are not there... ). But overall speaking, these photographs are ( in my opinion) far from being clear and convincing to identify the Lockheed Electra wreckage pieces on them.
I apologize if mistakes of my English are too embarrasing, but I have only learned your language at school long time ago.
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Irvine John Donald on July 18, 2013, 05:15:44 PM
Well Brano. I think your English was just fine.  As I have said, many times, that the current videos do not prove anything. Everyone who looks at these pictures and videos sees something different. The only way to definitively identify the objects in the video is to go there and recover them.  That's will settle the question of are the man made objects. Not necessarily do the prove the Electra or AE were ever there. They may but they may not.
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: John Balderston on July 18, 2013, 08:18:19 PM
The only way to definitively identify the objects in the video is to go there and recover them.

I'm with you, Irv.  And while we're it, as Jeff Neville suggested in one of the ROV threads last year, structure investigations in each area where significant questions, leads or hypotheses exist - a well-planned, comprehensive expedition.   As you point out, identifying the aircraft only addresses one piece of the complete Gardner puzzle.  Plus, it's very hard to imagine anyone rushing to a display on the 2nd floor of the Smithsonian Air & Space, next to AE's "little red school bus" featuring image clips from the 2010 ROV video (benefactor's name goes here).
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Walt Holm on July 19, 2013, 08:21:07 PM
... that was written by Lloyd Manley (a TIGHAR member), not by me. Please read more carefully before raising your pen in anger towards me.
All,
The article was written by me and frankly, given the passions on this subject, I fully expected wrath from every corner, including Mr. Mellon. So, no, you can be sure it was not written by Mr. Mellon, Mr. Gillespie or Elvis. I admire the following of principle so I try to say what I really think, unvarnished and as is. Sorry if it upsets anyone. Just my 2 cent opinion.

Tim,
I am not a TIGHAR member, unless you're just referring to having a posting account here?

Lloyd


So I read through the article that Mr. Mellon linked to, and promptly got lost in the section on celestial navigation.  Looking over the comments section of the article, it appears that there's a running debate between Lloyd Manley (the author) and Gary LaPook over the accuracy of the celestial navigation information.  Given the easy availability of star calculation programs, it seems ridiculous that there's a running argument about this- just plug some test numbers into a program and see who is right, Gary or Lloyd.

http://aa.usno.navy.mil/data/docs/celnavtable.php (http://aa.usno.navy.mil/data/docs/celnavtable.php) is an online star position calculator from the US Naval Observatory.  For any given time and position on earth, it gives you data about the positions of common stars including the altitude (Hc) and azimuth (Zn) from the observer.  So I picked a spot on the equator (0 latitude) and a random West longitude for a given date at time 0.  Then I advanced the date by one day and advanced the position by 59.1 minutes of longitude.  The star positions were identical.  Or instead you can subtract one day and subtract 59.1 minutes of longitude.  The star positions are the same.

Next I tried to also move the latitude by 23 minutes (59.1nm*sin(23deg)), as suggested in the article, and get the same results.  I was unable to do so.  Given this, I have to conclude that Gary is correct.

I can't help but to wonder whether Mr. Manley has ever checked the celestial navigation portion of his hypothesis against any openly-available star calculation program.  If so, could you please share with us how to get the results that you claim in your article?  Thanks.

-Walt Holm
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Ric Gillespie on July 20, 2013, 07:52:55 AM
Re reading Lloyds theory and ignoring the puerile and rude comments of the blog owner I was wondering if there are any examples of Electra sized aircraft that have ditched in the ocean and remained afloat for up to 48 hours?

We know of only one Electra ditching.
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Ric Gillespie on July 20, 2013, 09:50:48 AM
8 minutes isn't a lot of time though of course it didn't have the additional fuel tanks that are claimed to add buoyancy.

Any other Electra sized examples I wonder,  am not enough of a plane fan to even know what models to search for.  Like cars I shouldn't imagine that planes are designed for a 48 hour cruise across the pacific.

NR16020 was a unique case due to the additional fuel tanks and there has been lots of speculation and proclamation on other threads about how long the plane would float.  Bob Brandenburg has done an exhaustive analysis of the plane's presumed empty weight versus the buoyancy provided by the various tanks and structures (the corrugations within the inboard wing structure would take some time to flood.)  The key to understanding the buoyancy question is the fact that the fuel tanks were vented at the top (beside the filler necks) and each tank had a strainer/drain on the bottom of the fuselage.  If the strainer/drain is compromised - for example, by the plane scraping along the reef on its belly - the tank quickly fills once the plane goes into the ocean. Bob will eventually write it all up as a paper but his general conclusion is:

"Bottom line:  when the plane left the reef, it would float for a while, with a small buoyancy margin, at a water level of about 36".  If fuel lines were ruptured, water would enter the cabin tanks, erasing the buoyancy margin in a matter of minutes -- each gallon of water entering reduces buoyancy by 8.55 lbs -- and sinking the plane.  If the fuel lines were intact, buoyancy could still be lost by compression or stress failure of the cabin tanks, thus sinking the plane in minutes.  If neither the fuel lines were ruptured, nor the cabin tanks deformed, the plane would weather vane into the -- prevailing east/northeast -- wind, and be driven against the reef edge, nose-on, by surf, causing the bottom to scrape on the edge, rupturing the fuel lines, causing the plane to sink." 
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Chris Johnson on July 20, 2013, 12:12:30 PM
I don't want to really ask this next question but bearing in mind the blog's hypothesis.......If the plane ditched into the sea would the same apply?
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: richie conroy on July 20, 2013, 12:51:30 PM
Also was the wheel bay sealed off from rest of wing ? I would imagine if it weren't one wing filling up would drag the plane off rocks an down the reef face.

Thanks Richie
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: richie conroy on July 20, 2013, 02:34:04 PM
Another thing is for water to reach top of extra tanks in cabin the wings and engine would have already been submerged , Also the side cockpit windows were sliding one's so if nose was facing waves it would have filled cockpit first in my opinion

Thank's Richie
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: tom howard on July 23, 2013, 08:52:54 PM
After reading Mr.Manley's rant on the failure of the Coast Guard on his website, I noticed this tidbit in bold, which is close
to a similar raving he has made here at Tighar in earlier posts. But with a new twist added, now he has Earhart telling the Coast Guard her backup plan was Gardner island, which they ignored of course.
Is this complete hogwash or what? I can find no reference to anywhere "in writing and before the flight" that Earhart
ever mentioned the name Gardner.


"AE, in writing and before the flight, told the USCG what frequencies to use. She told them what schedule to use for transmission and reception. She told them what time zone to use. She told them what her backup landing site was (Gardner),"
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on July 23, 2013, 10:29:09 PM
... now he has Earhart telling the Coast Guard her backup plan was Gardner island, which they ignored of course.
Is this complete hogwash or what? I can find no reference to anywhere "in writing and before the flight" that Earhart
ever mentioned the name Gardner.

That's my impression, too.

Randy Jacobson summarizes the communications made in preparation for the second attempt (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/ResearchPapers/Worldflight/2ndattemptcommo.html).  The summary is based on the Jacobson Databases (http://tighar.org/wiki/Jacobson_Databases) of all of the radio traffic that he could find related to the case.  There isn't a syllable that I can remember about any plan B, let alone one specifying Gardner Island.

I've heard it said that Doris Rich said that Gore Vidal said that Amelia said she would turn back to the Gilberts (http://tighar.org/wiki/Gilbert_and_Ellice_Islands_Colony) if the could not find Howland.  No one has been able to substantiate Rich's claim so far. 
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Ric Gillespie on July 24, 2013, 10:19:26 AM
Lloyd Manley's ramblings have come in for scathing criticism in postings that are too colorful to post on this forum.  Let it suffice to say that Mr. Manley is not credible.  Let's move on.
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Ric Gillespie on July 24, 2013, 10:26:51 AM
The Return-to-the-Gilberts (aka Plan B) has been debated ad nauseum.  Whether or not Earhart ever mentioned it as an alternative, it would be utterly unworkable; there is no evidence that she tried it; and there is primary source evidence (Itasca radio log: "We are on the line....") that she did something else.  Unless someone has new evidence to support that hypothesis, I don't think we need to spend time flogging that dead horse.
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Christine Schulte on July 24, 2013, 02:18:40 PM
I think that the remark about returning to the Gilberts (if AE really made such a remark - as has been noticed before, a third-hand account isn't really satusfactory evidence at all) should be considered in the light of how AE is known to have handled the risks involved in her previous flights. Her attitude seems to have been "all or nothing", and she never seems to have made any serious contingency planning. When she felt that her planes were too heavy, safety equipment was the first thing she discarded. Even on her transatlantic flight in 1932, she didn't carry a life raft. When friends asked her how she felt about the risks, she usually laughed them off. 
Also, she doesn't seem to have been very knowledgeable about the routes she flew. In 1932, she had someone else do the detailed planning for her, and stuck to a compass heading because she felt a great circle route was too difficult to handle. She seems to not really have known where she was when she landed. When she had a navigator with her, she seems to have been content to fly whatever course he set.
So even if she actually told Gore Vidal she'd head back to the Gilberts, I think  it's fair to assume she hadn't really thought it through.
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Gloria Walker Burger on July 24, 2013, 02:29:12 PM
Your turn to put it all together and write your own scenario. Try to keep it on topic, it's all theory and we are not trying to argue points or tear ideas apart. If you have a scenario of what happened after the last known radio call lets see it!

This thread was originally for fun to see forum members' ideas of their own scenario of what happened to Amelia and Fred--without "tearing ideas apart".

What's your scenario?
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Brano Lacika on July 24, 2013, 02:31:45 PM
I think that the remark about returning to the Gilberts (if AE really made such a remark - as has been noticed before, a third-hand account isn't really satusfactory evidence at all) should be considered in the light of how AE is known to have handled the risks involved in her previous flights. Her attitude seems to have been "all or nothing", and she never seems to have made any serious contingency planning. When she felt that her planes were too heavy, safety equipment was the first thing she discarded. Even on her transatlantic flight in 1932, she didn't carry a life raft. When friends asked her how she felt about the risks, she usually laughed them off. 
Also, she doesn't seem to have been very knowledgeable about the routes she flew. In 1932, she had someone else do the detailed planning for her, and stuck to a compass heading because she felt a great circle route was too difficult to handle. She seems to not really have known where she was when she landed. When she had a navigator with her, she seems to have been content to fly whatever course he set.
So even if she actually told Gore Vidal she'd head back to the Gilberts, I think  it's fair to assume she hadn't really thought it
through.

The question is also, if she would really interested in having the backup plan, what the best one could be. Gilbertese islands does not sound verz promising... if they could not find the howland it means, they do not know their position. Flying back from the unknown position does not sound very reasonably and flying upright (vertically) towards the chain of islands is just reallz only the count upon the good luck. Achieving the Howland LOP and the flying alongwith to south is much more promising.
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: David Deusenberry on August 02, 2013, 01:09:19 PM
Just a thought.
Ok, so Amelia was an alright pilot but Fred was a very good navigator. I’m positive he KNEW where they were. So why would they fly 400 miles past their target? Yes, I do believe they were on Gardener Island and that they died there. My question is why. One possible answer. Our government asks them to. “Hey, Gardner is bigger and has a great place to land. Once you are “lost” we will launch a search that will give us an opportunity to photograph the Japanese progress on neighboring islands and once we are finished we will “find” you and bring fuel so you can be on your way.” But something goes terribly wrong, an unusually high tide washes the Electra off the beach. When the rescue plane flies over a week or so later the Electra isn’t there. “OH CRAP! Let’s pull out and pretend this whole thing never happened.”
Any thoughts?
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Irvine John Donald on August 02, 2013, 01:25:43 PM
Ghost

Interesting. I don't believe the US military needed to be secretive about looking at all of these islands. Sending a major aircraft carrier to the area to search for her I do not believe required formal permission from any other country.  The fact that a runway was built on Howland for AE and never ever used was a colossal waste of money but if the US wanted a presence in the area they would have built it for AE but used it during the war. 

I think intentionally getting lost is interesting but I also believe AE would have rebelled at "getting lost" as it would be a mark on her professional reputation. She would have come up with something more creative I'm sure.  All IMHO.
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Matt Revington on August 02, 2013, 01:31:29 PM
While this is meant to be a speculative thread there are many dubious propositions in your post.

As far as I know there was no Japanese activity in or around the Phoenix group at that time so there was no reason to send AE and FN there.  There seemed to some competition between the British and Americans for the Phoenix group but I don't think there were any official restrictions to traveling there so sending them there in secretive manner does not make any sense to me .  Any Japanese activity was hundreds or thousands of miles to the northwest in the Gilberts or Marshalls.  It is extremely doubtful given the quality of maps available that the US government or anyone else was aware that there was a good strip of reef to land the Electra on at Gardner.  etc
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Stacy Galloway on August 02, 2013, 01:39:57 PM
Just a thought.
Ok, so Amelia was an alright pilot but Fred was a very good navigator. I’m positive he KNEW where they were. So why would they fly 400 miles past their target? Yes, I do believe they were on Gardener Island and that they died there. My question is why. One possible answer. Our government asks them to. “Hey, Gardner is bigger and has a great place to land. Once you are “lost” we will launch a search that will give us an opportunity to photograph the Japanese progress on neighboring islands and once we are finished we will “find” you and bring fuel so you can be on your way.” But something goes terribly wrong, an unusually high tide washes the Electra off the beach. When the rescue plane flies over a week or so later the Electra isn’t there. “OH CRAP! Let’s pull out and pretend this whole thing never happened.”
Any thoughts?

I believe if that were the case, then the government would not only do a quick flyover, but would also send a bunch of folks to the island to search for her on foot. They would not lose track of her and then not a do a full fledged search to find her.

But I do not believe this is a government conspiracy gone wrong. Sometimes things happen for no understandable reason- or at least no reason that we currently understand. The answers may or may not come, but if they do, I doubt a government cover-up is behind this disappearance.

LTM~ Who says accidents happen,
Stacy
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Bruce Thomas on August 02, 2013, 02:15:46 PM
Any thoughts?
Two words:  Occam's razor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor)
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Chris Johnson on August 02, 2013, 02:22:50 PM
Any thoughts?
Two words:  Occam's razor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor)

I prefer KISS - Keep It Simple St**** I can understand that :)
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: David Deusenberry on August 06, 2013, 09:09:02 AM
This scenario is purely fiction, loosely based on other theories that she was asked to fly off course and spy on Japanese movements in the area.
So here we go. LOL
She refused to become a spy but agreed to become “lost” to help her country out and let them do the spying.
A month or so before her arrival at Gardner the Coast Guard stops and sets up a water catchment device. (That has been found but is presumed from the colonial era.) 
They land on the beach safely and start making distress calls with a dual purpose. One to attract worldwide attention so the “spy mission” could be carried out in secret and the other to let the coast guard know she had arrived on Gardner.
They make their way to the 7 site near the water source and set up camp. Everything is going according to plan until a few days later when an unexpected high tide comes in and washes the Electra into deeper water. At this time she is upset about not finishing her flight but not yet panicked because they are going to be “found” soon. It’s not for several more days that they begin to panic. Without much rain their water source is running low and becomes contaminated from stagnation. Fred gets ill from drinking the water and Amelia realizes what caused it and empties a bottle to use for boiling the water. The bottle placed in the fire breaks from the heat. Fred is too weak to help much by this time so Amelia searches the beach and finds part of the rudder from the Electra as it breaks up in the surf. It has a short piece of cable attached so she uses it to hang another bottle above the fire to boil water and this works. She uses the knife blades attached to a branch for a spear and hunts food for both of them.
Fred dies a few days later and she is getting weak so she can only drag his body a little way from the camp, she strips it for anything useful. (Boots and a few other items that has also been found) and then buries him. (This is why his bones were not recovered with hers.) A few weeks pass and the water is gone. Too weak to gather food any longer she makes herself as comfortable as she can under a tree at the camp site and dies. The Electra is only accessible at low tide but the colonial children play on the wreck for a few years, bringing parts back to camp before it slips down the slope into deep water to be recovered by TIGHAR in 2014.
How’s that for and “After the landing” story?     
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Chris Johnson on August 06, 2013, 09:15:32 AM
Do the CG carry out a survey of the reef flat to determin if its safe to land?

 :P
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Ric Gillespie on August 06, 2013, 09:17:10 AM
So what's the point in engaging in "pure fiction" that is completely devoid of any factual support?
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Gloria Walker Burger on August 06, 2013, 02:22:06 PM
I love the part: "to be recovered by TIGHAR in 2014!!"
Responding to Dave Deusenberry's post.
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Gloria Walker Burger on August 06, 2013, 09:35:16 PM
So what's the point in engaging in "pure fiction" that is completely devoid of any factual support?

First of all, it's fun, and I'm sure you want us to have fun on this forum as well as contribute; it will help to bring us back.
Second of all, something may pop out that hasn't been thought of before or an idea may trigger another idea or a new place on Niku to search. You never know.
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: David Deusenberry on August 07, 2013, 06:41:52 AM
Based on the items recovered I’m 99.9% sure the Electra and its crew spent time on the island. My question is why.  Fred was one of the best navigators of his time and I’m confident he knew they were over Gardner so why not continue to fly in the area until they could spot it? It could be as simple as he was not at the controls and Amelia made the decision to continue on her last known heading and they spotted Gardner Island at some point. It wouldn’t be the first time she went against his advice.  We may never know why they ended up there even after the Electra is recovered.

As mentioned above this thread is supposed to be fun and you never know, someone might hit on a use of an item that has been found that wasn’t considered before and all the sudden a few more pieces of the puzzle fit.
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Charlie Chisholm on August 07, 2013, 10:10:26 AM
Fred was one of the best navigators of his time and I’m confident he knew they were over Gardner so why not continue to fly in the area until they could spot it?

Did you mean to say Howland? If so, it's because they were running low on reserve gas (they even said so in the radio messages to Itasca), and had already spent over an hour in the area trying to find Howland. At some point, they had to give up on Howland, and that point would be before they were too low on gas to make it to the Phoenix group. They stayed and looked as long as they possibly could.

It could be as simple as he was not at the controls and Amelia made the decision to continue on her last known heading and they spotted Gardner Island at some point. It wouldn’t be the first time she went against his advice.

They probably decided together to head for the Phoenix group on the LOP. Both of their lives were at stake. It may have even been Noonan who was insisting they do so - he was the navigator, and one of the best in the world - if he couldn't find Howland, Amelia certainly couldn't either.
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Greg Daspit on August 07, 2013, 10:49:42 AM
At some point, they had to give up on Howland,

They probably decided together to head for the Phoenix group on the LOP. Both of their lives were at stake. It may have even been Noonan who was insisting they do so - he was the navigator, and one of the best in the world - if he couldn't find Howland, Amelia certainly couldn't either.

I think flying on the line of position they were still hoping to find Howland and there was no decision to try for Gardner.
For a while I thought that maybe after some time they may have realized the odds of hitting Howland were diminishing and finding Gardner was more likely. However, after studying the Time and Tide article there is only a  2 hour window after the LOP transmission for a probable safe landing. They could have been well south of Howland before starting the LOP search pattern. Maybe even closer to Gardner than to Howland and therefore in looking for Howland found Gardner instead without ever making a decision regarding an alternate landing spot.
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Monty Fowler on August 07, 2013, 10:50:09 AM
Let's not forget one of the oft-overlooked factors - money. Amelia and George Putnam basically had to make this trip work in order to stay afloat financially. Ditching, and losing, the Electra was probably so far from Amelia's mind that she refused to even entertain the possibility. ANYTHING she could do to possibly save the aircraft would have been Choice No. 1.

LTM, who likes multiple choice questions,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 CER
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: manjeet aujla on August 07, 2013, 12:06:55 PM
One of the articles of a while ago (I think possibly by Ric), mentions that evidence points to offset navigation having not been used, on the approach. But there is evidence that a direct approach was ("we must be on you..."). So when they reached the 137/ LOP, and did not see Howland, the most rational thing to do was to fly a little distance north in the hopes of spotting Howland, and then turn south, to a known set of islands, thus ending up on Niku. This sounds very plausible as a reason they ended up at Niku. 

I also agree that Fred got a fix on their location after landing. Betty seems to indicate Fred was injured, but seemed to be yelling (where AE was trying to calm him). If he was strong enough to yell, he was maybe strong enough to get himself up to take some fixes on location.

It is also highly likely, I say close to certain, that Fred knew it was Gardner. He was an experienced seaman, and the whole marine community of his time knew about the Norwich City disaster, and where she had run aground. So if he saw the shipwreck, he must have instantly realized he was on Gardner. Indeed even before landing the plane, they must have seen the wreck, and Fred would have told AE..."Hey that is Norwich City, she ran aground on Gardner...so this is Gardner Island."
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: David Deusenberry on August 07, 2013, 01:14:06 PM
If I’m not mistaken the navigators station was near the rear of the Electra behind a large fuel tank. He passed notes attached to a piece of bamboo to Amelia in fight so his yelling could have just been to be heard over the engines not that he was hurt. I’m sure they were both pretty shaken up after the landing and their voices were both frantic.
How many items from the Norwich City wreck have been found at the seven site? I would think to a castaway that the wreck would have been a treasure trove of survival items. Would it have been possible to board the ship? A resent wreck would also have a huge fresh water tank on board if it hadn’t been contaminated by sea water. 
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Jeff Victor Hayden on August 07, 2013, 01:47:49 PM
It is also highly likely, I say close to certain, that Fred knew it was Gardner. He was an experienced seaman, and the whole marine community of his time knew about the Norwich City disaster, and where she had run aground. So if he saw the shipwreck, he must have instantly realized he was on Gardner. Indeed even before landing the plane, they must have seen the wreck, and Fred would have told AE..."Hey that is Norwich City, she ran aground on Gardner...so this is Gardner Island."

Good reasoning Manjeet. It may well have been the case that FN, through his close association with the sea going fraternity and his 22 years sea-going experience, was aware of a ship having gone aground in the Phoenix islands in 1929. Perhaps the name of the ship and the island escaped his memory but, ship run aground in the Phoenix islands didn't. So, not being 100% sure of the name of the island or the ship send, Phoenix islands and, not being a native of the UK he might recall the name of the ship as being the NY city instead of Norwich City?
Whatever was sent and received made no difference to the outcome but, it's just a thought.
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Dan Swift on August 07, 2013, 03:55:43 PM
Monty, that is right on!  Not the first time she ended up in the wrong place.  And I am sure she is thinking, just bring the fuel to me so I can get out of here and finish.  Of course a banged up Electra may have changed that a bit, but ditching and removing any chance of completing the trip, out of the question. 
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: manjeet aujla on August 12, 2013, 11:45:47 AM
Jeff, it is true that, as you say, it did not make any difference. However reasonings like this help to put another brick into our edifice of understanding of what was going on then, and may be useful to keep in mind, later, ... or not...lol.

In that vein, an argument can be made that Fred did know it was Gardner - he was a longtime seaman (sea-captain?), and would know and remember details about recent maritime disasters, much more than the general public, just as people in the aviation  community today remember recent air disaster details more than the general public.  Anyway, you do seem to agree that he would at least remember that the wreck had happened in the P Islands, and so they knew they were in the P Islands somewhere.

On the other hand, if he knew they were on Gardner, then why did they not just transmit "Gardner" over and over again, for all they were worth?  I am not an expert on the post-crash transmissions, but that seems to have not happened. Yes, Betty records 'Ny City' (which is surely meant to have been Norwich City), but that is just part of a larger transmission of other things. I would transmit just one word over and over again - "Gardner", especially given they were newbies in morse keying, and keying off of a mic.

Anyway, it was a thought experiment on my part, and I am sure it has been discussed in some forum here sometime. At this time it does not seem particularly significant.

To the post on Fred passing notes on a bamboo pole to AE as their communication method, while they were flying, that is also my understanding.

Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on August 12, 2013, 12:02:32 PM
To the post on Fred passing notes on a bamboo pole to AE as their communication method, while they were flying, that is also my understanding.

I am very tempted to make newcomers pass an entrance exam before we allow them to post on the Forum.

Everybody is welcome to their personal opinions, but not to their personal "facts."

The bamboo pole was used on the first attempt to fly around the world, when there were four souls on board: Earhart, Mantz, Mnning, and Noonan.

On the second world attempt, Fred could sit next to AE whenever he wished.  So far as I know, we have no information on how he may have split his time between the workstation and the cockpit, or whether he used the bamboo pole.  He had options.
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Jeff Victor Hayden on August 12, 2013, 01:19:35 PM
At this time it does not seem particularly significant.

True Manjeet but, sometime in the future it may well become significant, only time will tell. It helps to have new angles and thoughts on particular subjects and theories. Doesn't mean they are proven or true but, you never know. Good input Manjeet!
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Ric Gillespie on August 13, 2013, 12:27:45 PM
Is that what you had in mind when you started this thread?   

Actually, no.  All threads on this forum invite good research and informed speculation that may inspire further research.  Long rambling fact-free fantasies just waste everyone's time.  And if you really want to get in trouble around here keep using expressions like "Chick E Babe," "honey," and referring to a 39 year old woman as "the girl". 
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Stacy Galloway on August 13, 2013, 01:46:46 PM
So, Ian, you're imagining this woman- who flew the plane and shunned female norms- landed on Niku and proceeded to fan herself and gripe about the heat while sitting in the shade of a coconut tree using freckle cream watching her man do the hunting and gathering? Really? Perhaps she ate bon-bons while loosening her corset and adjusting her skirts. My goodness- why did she even leave the kitchen?

And then she withered away and died because her man didn't bring her any more food... how, ummm, interesting.

I never thought of putting Amelia into a Victorian romance novel. For me, I'll leave her where she is- a forward-thinking woman who lived her dreams.

LTM~ Who doesn't see Amelia in Gone with the Wind,
Stacy
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Dan Swift on August 13, 2013, 01:47:30 PM
Ditto Ric! 
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Brad Beeching on August 13, 2013, 04:46:18 PM
Well, Ian... ahhhh... that certainly is an interesting.... ummm.....ahhh... post. As Ric pointed out, and as I said when I originally threw this thread up in the wind, I was hoping that speculation as to what may have happened after the landing would generate some good old fashioned skull sweat. Maybe take folks down avenues they may not have thought of before in trying to identify areas where our intrepid duo may have camped, wandered or searched. Your ahhh.... story is certainly entertaining but do you really think what you posted could have happened? If I may point out a couple of things. Have you ever worked around any machinery designed and built in the last century? Usually, machinery (Cars, toasters, pogo-sticks, Airplanes) tended to be more robust in construction than things you see today. I believe the current theory is that they made a good landing on the reef. I tend to think that they bent the plane somewhat, but I have nothing to prove that , just a gut instinct. If they were injured, I don't believe they could have salvaged the bird to the extent you postulate. So what would they have done Ian? it's 110 f. they are banged up, most probably in shock, the plane is banged up and the radio may work, but you cant even be sure it is doing anything. As for marks in the sand.... Ric told me there is NO sand on Niku, what you see is coral rubble... still wanna run your toezies thru the sand? You have a good imagination, study the information you find here, then just like a detective, put two and two together, look over your post and then revise what you wrote to reflect what you have learned from your study. This was actually meant to be a somewhat serious discussion. Oh, and Ian..... Welcome to the forum

Brad
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Stacy Galloway on August 13, 2013, 05:56:15 PM
So, Ian, you're imagining this woman- who flew the plane and shunned female norms- landed on Niku and proceeded to fan herself and gripe about the heat while sitting in the shade of a coconut tree using freckle cream watching her man do the hunting and gathering? Really? Perhaps she ate bon-bons while loosening her corset and adjusting her skirts. My goodness- why did she even leave the kitchen?

And then she withered away and died because her man didn't bring her any more food... how, ummm, interesting.

I never thought of putting Amelia into a Victorian romance novel. For me, I'll leave her where she is- a forward-thinking woman who lived her dreams.

LTM~ Who doesn't see Amelia in Gone with the Wind,
Stacy

Ric warned him...  ;D

What's the old saw?  Hell hath no fury... and no, whatever all she was, AE was no pushover or wall flower.

Welcome aboard, Stacy, glad to see you posting.

Thank you, Jeff, for the warm welcome :) I do enjoy being part of TIGHAR.

I find Ian's post quite humorous. Where to start? The ham sandwich? Crying about sand in  her shoes? Or perhaps nagging about the distress signal... So much to choose from... And it reads like a romance novel. I was expecting the "she fell passionately into his arms" scene, but alas it wasn't there. Maybe next time :)

And Jeff, I always find your posts quite informative and relevant- thank you for everything you do!

LTM~ Who's wondering where the sand came from,
Stacy

Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Ric Gillespie on August 13, 2013, 06:36:21 PM
To be clear, there's plenty of sand on Niku but not on the beach behind the Bevington Object location.  That's all coral rubble.
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Monty Fowler on August 13, 2013, 08:04:48 PM
... So much to choose from... And it reads like a romance novel. I was expecting the "she fell passionately into his arms" scene, but alas it wasn't there. Maybe next time :)

Stacy, if your really want to go down that road, there's always I was Amelia Earhart. And no, I didn't read it, I just ... know these things ... *cough*

LTM, who tries to keep straight what he doesn't know,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 CER
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Stacy Galloway on August 13, 2013, 09:23:56 PM
... So much to choose from... And it reads like a romance novel. I was expecting the "she fell passionately into his arms" scene, but alas it wasn't there. Maybe next time :)

Stacy, if your really want to go down that road, there's always I was Amelia Earhart. And no, I didn't read it, I just ... know these things ... *cough*

LTM, who tries to keep straight what he doesn't know,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 CER

That is hilarious :) I'll do that. Surely, there can be a few of us running around. I'd just have to be careful not to come across the *other* Amelia Earhart... It might create some weird time vortex thing and who know where we would all end up :)

LTM~ Who's trying not to get sucked into the 5th dimension,
Stacy
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Brano Lacika on August 14, 2013, 03:49:00 AM
So, Ian, you're imagining this woman- who flew the plane and shunned female norms- landed on Niku and proceeded to fan herself and gripe about the heat while sitting in the shade of a coconut tree using freckle cream watching her man do the hunting and gathering? Really? Perhaps she ate bon-bons while loosening her corset and adjusting her skirts. My goodness- why did she even leave the kitchen?

And then she withered away and died because her man didn't bring her any more food... how, ummm, interesting.

I never thought of putting Amelia into a Victorian romance novel. For me, I'll leave her where she is- a forward-thinking woman who lived her dreams.

LTM~ Who doesn't see Amelia in Gone with the Wind,
Stacy

Ric warned him...  ;D

What's the old saw?  Hell hath no fury... and no, whatever all she was, AE was no pushover or wall flower.

Welcome aboard, Stacy, glad to see you posting.

Thank you, Jeff, for the warm welcome :) I do enjoy being part of TIGHAR.

I find Ian's post quite humorous. Where to start? The ham sandwich? Crying about sand in  her shoes? Or perhaps nagging about the distress signal... So much to choose from... And it reads like a romance novel. I was expecting the "she fell passionately into his arms" scene, but alas it wasn't there. Maybe next time :)

And Jeff, I always find your posts quite informative and relevant- thank you for everything you do!

LTM~ Who's wondering where the sand came from,
Stacy

Humorous? Are you sure? Hm... I still have the problem with English, but if I uderstood it well, that post is a quite offensive towards Amelia. Perhaps it´s only a foreign language misunderstanding, but...
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Victor Russell on August 14, 2013, 07:49:51 AM

To the post on Fred passing notes on a bamboo pole to AE as their communication method, while they were flying, that is also my understanding.

I am very tempted to make newcomers pass an entrance exam before we allow them to post on the Forum.

Everybody is welcome to their personal opinions, but not to their personal "facts."

The bamboo pole was used on the first attempt to fly around the world, when there were four souls on board: Earhart, Mantz, Mnning, and Noonan.

On the second world attempt, Fred could sit next to AE whenever he wished.  So far as I know, we have no information on how he may have split his time between the workstation and the cockpit, or whether he used the bamboo pole.  He had options.


Marty,

As a relative newcomer who has nevertheless read as much as possible on the forums, Ameliapedia, bulletin archives, etc., I'm curious what syllabus you'd recommend for this hypothetical entrance exam. Short of "read everything on the site", is there a more systematic approach?

As for the bamboo pole question that seems to have provoked this recent consternation, can you point us to where we'd find the relevant info that you think Manjeet should have been aware of? The only entry I can find in the Ameliapedia (http://tighar.org/wiki/Air_Navigation:_State_of_the_Art_in_1937 (http://tighar.org/wiki/Air_Navigation:_State_of_the_Art_in_1937)) seems to support his assertion and does not make any distinction between the first and second around-the-world attempts. I'm not saying what you write isn't true, but I can't find any source for that info in the forum archives or the Ameliapedia and you do not provide any citation in your message.

Best,
Victor
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Matt Revington on August 14, 2013, 08:23:50 AM
On this thread Gary Lapook shows that FN was moving between the cockpit and the back during the dakar leg of the flight

http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,383.msg5083.html#msg5083
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: John Balderston on August 14, 2013, 08:28:37 AM
I'm curious what syllabus you'd recommend for this hypothetical entrance exam. Short of "read everything on the site", is there a more systematic approach?

Hi Victor, one great resource is the book by none other than TIGHAR's executive director Ric Gillespie - "Finding Amelia: The True Story of the Earhart Disappearance" by Ric Gillespie, Naval Institute Press, 2009.  A great read!  The book is available in all bookstores in in TIGHAR's store.  Amazon has a Kindle edition, but it doesn't come with the DVD of source material provided in the paper copy. 

Best regards, John
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Ric Gillespie on August 14, 2013, 08:42:44 AM
On this thread Gary Lapook shows that FN was moving between the cockpit and the back during the dakar leg of the flight

http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,383.msg5083.html#msg5083

It's simpler than that.  In "Last Flight" Earhart makes frequent references to Fred being with her in the cockpit. For example, she writes about a bag of peanuts they got in Dakar.  "Subsequently as we munched them Fred and I might as well have been in the bleachers of a ball-game back home, instead of in the cockpit of a plane spanning remote deserts."
 
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Stacy Galloway on August 14, 2013, 09:52:09 AM
So, Ian, you're imagining this woman- who flew the plane and shunned female norms- landed on Niku and proceeded to fan herself and gripe about the heat while sitting in the shade of a coconut tree using freckle cream watching her man do the hunting and gathering? Really? Perhaps she ate bon-bons while loosening her corset and adjusting her skirts. My goodness- why did she even leave the kitchen?

And then she withered away and died because her man didn't bring her any more food... how, ummm, interesting.

I never thought of putting Amelia into a Victorian romance novel. For me, I'll leave her where she is- a forward-thinking woman who lived her dreams.

LTM~ Who doesn't see Amelia in Gone with the Wind,
Stacy
Thank you, Jeff, for the warm welcome :) I do enjoy being part of TIGHAR.

I find Ian's post quite humorous. Where to start? The ham sandwich? Crying about sand in  her shoes? Or perhaps nagging about the distress signal... So much to choose from... And it reads like a romance novel. I was expecting the "she fell passionately into his arms" scene, but alas it wasn't there. Maybe next time :)

And Jeff, I always find your posts quite informative and relevant- thank you for everything you do!

LTM~ Who's wondering where the sand came from,
Stacy

Humorous? Are you sure? Hm... I still have the problem with English, but if I uderstood it well, that post is a quite offensive towards Amelia. Perhaps it´s only a foreign language misunderstanding, but...

Can't speak for Stacy, but I took that to mean despite any affront she has a great sense of humor.  Maybe 'Ian' does too - we simply don't know him too well... so far as we can tell for certain.  Perhaps we'll hear more.

Thank you, Jeff! Once again your answer is perfect! :)
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on August 14, 2013, 09:59:18 AM
I'm not saying what you write isn't true, but I can't find any source for that info in the forum archives or the Ameliapedia and you do not provide any citation in your message.

My apologies.

I've been reading the Forum since 2000.

Some day I will make an entry for "bamboo pole" in the Ameliapedia.

For now, here is a Google search (https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Atighar.org+%22bamboo+pole%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-beta) that turns up some of the material on the website.  If you substitute "navigator's station" for "bamboo pole," that may bring up some other hits.

Here is an outline of articles in the Ameliapedia (http://tighar.org/wiki/Earhart_Project#Background_Information) that should give a newcomer a good orientation.
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: David Deusenberry on August 14, 2013, 10:27:10 AM
The bamboo pole was my mistake. I seemed to have confused the different flights.  Sorry
The only point I was trying to make was that FN might not have been gravely injured in the landing and the “Yelling” that was heard by Betty could have been him yelling from his station in the rear of the Electra as he went over maps and charts trying to pin point their location and relay the information to AE. With the engines running to power the radio it would have been very noisy inside. I’m sure from what Betty heard he was injured but to what extent remains unknown.
 
I’m also wondering if a forensic analysis on the fish and bird bones has been performed to try to match marks left on them that could be matched to one of the improvised cutting tools found. I’m not sure if that information would be useful other than proving the castaway (s) used the item  for that purpose
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Ric Gillespie on August 14, 2013, 10:39:52 AM
I’m also wondering if a forensic analysis on the fish and bird bones has been performed to try to match marks left on them that could be matched to one of the improvised cutting tools found. I’m not sure if that information would be useful other than proving the castaway (s) used the item  for that purpose

No, we haven't done that but it I doubt that anything conclusive would come of it.
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: David Deusenberry on August 14, 2013, 12:06:42 PM
I'm not sure even if it was a possitive match it would prove anything. I highly doubt the locals would have used a broken jar from the 30s to clean fish. Just thought if it could be linked to a "castaway" that the great minds here might be able to use that information to establish a definitive timeline or something. It was just a thought.
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Ian_Withnall on August 14, 2013, 07:09:53 PM
Hi,

Sorry if I offended anyone. Call me inspired by an incredible story!

And yes it was meant to be light entertainment only. Always good to give the brainiaks around some fodder to quote to I suppose.   

To clarify, I think Amelia is quite fantastic, exceptionally brave and you just don't get to within 7000 miles of a round the world trip in 1938 without some incredible persoanl clout and ability at the controls. 
 
I think the idea of them being trapped on that island waiting for rescue very sad and and a great tragedy. Alternatively I think them clinging to sinking wreckage in the middle of the Pacific pretty raw too. But I just don't see that happening. Either way.

I also think FN was more than likely a gentleman who would never ask a lady wrestle and then slit the throat of a passing sea turtle. But when you find the diary I'll be happy to be proved wrong.

So apologies if I upset anyone. Not my intent.

I watched the aerial tour video of Niku...; Gives a good perspective on the difficulties you all face.

Regards

Ian
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Stacy Galloway on August 14, 2013, 08:43:11 PM
Hi,

Sorry if I offended anyone. Call me inspired by an incredible story!

And yes it was meant to be light entertainment only. Always good to give the brainiaks around some fodder to quote to I suppose.   

To clarify, I think Amelia is quite fantastic, exceptionally brave and you just don't get to within 7000 miles of a round the world trip in 1938 without some incredible persoanl clout and ability at the controls. 
 
I think the idea of them being trapped on that island waiting for rescue very sad and and a great tragedy. Alternatively I think them clinging to sinking wreckage in the middle of the Pacific pretty raw too. But I just don't see that happening. Either way.

I also think FN was more than likely a gentleman who would never ask a lady wrestle and then slit the throat of a passing sea turtle. But when you find the diary I'll be happy to be proved wrong.

So apologies if I upset anyone. Not my intent.

I watched the aerial tour video of Niku...; Gives a good perspective on the difficulties you all face.

Regards

Ian

No offense taken :) Like you, I don't see their demise as them clinging to a sinking plane in the middle of the Pacific.

TIGHAR has loads of valuable information the Niku theory. I, and others greater than I, have been impressed enough to throw our support behind this theory. Whether it be research, financial, moral or a combination all of the above, most of us are here in support of TIGHAR's goal.

Welcome aboard, Ian :) It may be a bumpy ride, but TIGHAR will find Amelia and Fred one way or another.

LTM~ Who didn't crash and sink in the Pacific,
Stacy
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Victor Russell on August 14, 2013, 10:19:22 PM
My apologies.

I've been reading the Forum since 2000.

Some day I will make an entry for "bamboo pole" in the Ameliapedia.

For now, here is a Google search (https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Atighar.org+%22bamboo+pole%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-beta) that turns up some of the material on the website.  If you substitute "navigator's station" for "bamboo pole," that may bring up some other hits.

Here is an outline of articles in the Ameliapedia (http://tighar.org/wiki/Earhart_Project#Background_Information) that should give a newcomer a good orientation.


Marty, Ric, Matt, John -

Thanks for the quick replies; I appreciate the added context and info. Thanks as well for being a "living repository" of collected knowledge that the site can only approximate. Marty, I recognize how much effort goes into adding content to the site and keeping things effectively tagged, indexed, and -- in the case of the Ameliapedia -- curated. It's an amazing resource and the effort is appreciated.

To John's suggestion, I have already read Ric's book -- I bought and read it more than a year ago when I first became aware of TIGHAR's work. Since then I've been staying up with the latest forum postings while trying to systematically backfill from archived postings, archived content like the research bulletins, and the Ameliapedia articles.

The biggest challenge for me, no doubt familiar to most here, is accurately tracing the evolving nature of the explorations, hypotheses, and evidentiary trails. For those who have been a part of things for 20+ years, that history has been lived, but for those of us coming to the mystery and TIGHAR's work more recently, we're confronted with an ever-growing documentary archive that often records the various stages of investigation and refined/updated interpretation, but the full chronology and latest positions are not always immediately apparent. For example, early on in my review of the site I somehow came across and was intrigued by the early reports of Bruce Yoho's recollections regarding the engine supposedly airlifted from Niku to Canton (http://tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/13_1/cantonengine.html (http://tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/13_1/cantonengine.html)), but only later did I see the brief epilogue in the Ameliapedia and a link to a later Tighar Tracks that reported on the story being deemed apocryphal, or at least the Niku part of it.

That all just reinforces Marty's frequent (and well-intentioned!) admonitions to newcomers to read, read, read before posting. I take that to heart, but expect I speak for many others when I say that given the dynamic nature of TIGHAR's work and discovery and the inability of any textual archive to completely tie all those threads together in a foolproof way, there are likely to be many more slips and oversights to come. Thankfully there's a big community here to catch and correct.

Best,
Victor
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Ian_Withnall on August 20, 2013, 02:00:05 AM
Don't flame me but this is where I spent family holidays....

http://www.ozatwar.com/nt08.htm

I'm posting it as an account of people landing on a mud/sand/coral flat.... it has a brief but personal and colourful account of what one might do in a distressed aircraft with a non functioning radio while at sea. 

I think the following points are of note.

In particular the mention of a sighting of tree tops. I think that's pretty important.
The initial response to the crash and the assumption that they realised they may need to spend at least some time there imediately. 
The use of fire and a mirror to attract attention.
That the plane had its' wheels up. I don't know why they did but is it common practice?
Only 30 years later we never found the machine guns they had dropped  ;D.

In 1975 we used to catch fish off it at high tide from a canoe and try to pull bullets out of it at low tide. The bullets were cemented into the plane with oysters. Apart from that, everything on the plane was pretty much useless as a recyclable object. Even to small boys!

I think this image was taken in 1979
http://www.pacificwrecks.com/aircraft/vengeance/A27-208/vengence-beach4.html#axzz2cUYlDrfy

It has brief relevance to the hypothesis for the reasons mentioned.

Read below.

Cheers.

Ian

At 1500 hours on 23 May 1943, Vultee Vengeance A27-208 of 12 Squadron RAAF, made a force landing on Dum In Mirrie Island, Port Patterson, after an electrical fire on board. The crew was Sergeant John Sheehan and Sergeant Williams. The aircraft was not recovered.

It was one of 15 Vultee Vengeances that took off from Batchelor to participate in a Fighter Interception Test. They headed over Melville Island and then Darwin where they did a dummy "bombing run" of the town. They were intercepted by Spitfires who followed them as far as Coomallie Creek.

While transiting to Melville Island, A27-208 had left the formation when pilot John Sheehan had to throw his Vengeance into a steep right hand turn to head for the coast when he discovered an electrical fire on board. His radio was not functioning, so he was unable to advise his flight leader of his predicament.

Sheehan had been flying in shoes and socks rather than the issue flying boots and molten electrical insulation was dripping onto his ankles. The fire in the fuse box was adjacent to a 17 gallon fuel trap tank. Sgt. Sheehan decided to take a risk and continue flying towards the coast.

Finally through the heat haze Sgt. Sheehan saw some tree tops on a low, flat island. He then spotted a long section of level sand at the front of the island. He made a wheels up forced landing on the sand. John Sheehan flew out of the aircraft, well before Williams, whipped off his shoes and socks, and headed for the tidal pools to cool off his burnt ankles.

They grabbed all that they could carry from the aircraft and headed across the tidal flat to the island. Unfortunately, the tide started to come in at a great speed. Darwin tides typically rise and fall 20 to 30 feet twice a day. They quickly dropped the machine gun and ammunition to lighten the load. Other goodies were also dropped in the race to shore.

They built a mosquito net tent from their parachutes in readiness for a night on the island. The lit a fire the next morning to attract the attention of a Vengeance on its daily anti-submarine patrol. Later on that morning, they increased the size of the fire, and by using a signal mirror and Verey flare they were eventually able to attract the attention of another Vengeance that was searching for them. They were subsequently rescued by a Seagull flying boat a few hours later.

 
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: pilotart on October 21, 2013, 10:04:37 AM
Thanks Ric,

8 minutes isn't a lot of time though of course it didn't have the additional fuel tanks that are claimed to add buoyancy.

Any other Electra sized examples I wonder,  am not enough of a plane fan to even know what models to search for.  Like cars I shouldn't imagine that planes are designed for a 48 hour cruise across the pacific.
'Miracle on the Hudson' comes to mind first, plenty of time to safely evacuate and it never really sank.  This is despite the fact that the Airbus has a special "Ditch-Switch" that seals outflow valves and intakes, but was never activated by the crew, a complete load of fuel that did not spill and a passenger panic rear door opening flooding that caused it to float tail low.  You will notice that passenger briefing cards now include a note about not opening exits after a ditching unless instructed by the Crew.

Another 'Miracle Landing' from the Pre-Jet Airline era was an emergency Mid-Pacific Ditching with All Passengers Saved and the Coast Guard had to later sink that Plane with gunfire. 

A lot depends upon the sea-state and skill of the pilot to ditch with minimal deformity of the airframe.  Aircraft are always much lighter for their volume than automobiles so they usually don't sink so quickly, but original VW's were sealed so completely that they would float like corks.
Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Steve Lyle Gunderson on November 22, 2013, 10:51:13 PM
"Yes, I've seen something similar and there are images all over the web of human remains underwater but I believe those conditions are very specific to preservation. While this is not my field of expertise I would say that based upon what I can see, the underwater environment that was photographed during the expedition is extremely dynamic and full of seemingly uncountable life forms. To say that something like human remains (a food source) would survive for 70+ years is not something I would be convinced of without credible proof. With my current knowledge of that system I would say near impossible."


I found the following information today regarding the remains of a German submarine crew  (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/22/nazi-submarine-found-java-sea-wwii_n_4320031.html?icid=maing-grid7%7Cmaing14%7Cdl20%7Csec1_lnk3%26pLid%3D410259) from 1944. Thought I would share for general interest.

Title: Re: After the Landing
Post by: Chris Johnson on November 23, 2013, 01:43:13 AM
Cheers Steve I could only find German sites.  I think its a case of the remains being still inside the sub.  If you've ever read Shadow Divers about the Sub U-Who you will find that they also found remains, most prominently skulls in the wreck.