Advanced search  
Pages: [1] 2 3   Go Down

Author Topic: Critics' Corner  (Read 12273 times)

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 2870
Critics' Corner
« on: July 10, 2014, 07:48:21 AM »

This thread began life under another name.

Several people objected to the title of the topic.

One suggested that no new topic was needed, since there are other threads in this board that would cover the theories proposed by critics of the Niku Hypothesis.

Perhaps this thread will prove a failure and will disappear altogether in due course.

For the time being, while it is available, we ask all who post to it to abide by our standard guidelines for civil discourse.

If you would please remember that you are guests in TIGHAR's home, that would be most helpful in maintaining civility.

TIGHAR is a moderated forum, and this thread will be moderated by the moderation team.

If our policies or the implementation of them is too much for you to bear, we encourage you to find or build a better Earhart website or forum that is more to your taste.  You may advertise such websites in the appropriate thread.
LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
« Last Edit: September 14, 2015, 02:01:47 PM by Martin X. Moleski, SJ »
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 5167
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: Critics' Corner
« Reply #1 on: September 12, 2015, 10:53:47 AM »

Does criticizing the very experienced Long for 'wanting' just the right thing when TIGHAR should perhaps seek to better support its own suppositions, such as the veracity of the post-loss messages? 

We spent twelve years researching the veracity of the post-loss messages.  There are no fewer than 27 research papers and documents on the TIGHAR website dealing with the post-loss signals.  Your attempt to trivialize the results of that research as "suppositions" merely shows how unfamiliar you are with that body of evidence. 

  Cannot those things stand on their own merits without taking Long down as abandoning aviation reason?

They do stand on their own merits.  That's the point.  It is only because some like yourself cling to antiquated and disproven theories like Crashed & Sank that prompts me to point out that Long did not "abandon aviation reasoning," he abandoned the scientific method.  He decided what happened and then backed into numbers that support his opinion by stating his opinions as facts.  All you need to do is look at the first words in "Chapter 15 Examining the Evidence" of his book Amelia Earhart; The Mystery Solved. 
"We know more today about the tragic disappearance of Amelia Earhart than anyone in 1937.  To begin, we know that Earhart ran out of fuel."
No we don't.  Of course we don't.  Not even you would say that we know that Earhart ran out of fuel. 

Noonan may well have gotten them close - good point, Bill; but I think it is far from a certainty that they had plenty of fuel to go beyond, as you state.  I too agree that it would have been luck if they did find Gardner (and I'm not against the idea - so not sure I fit the 'Crashed and Sank proponent' label, even if I do consider it a very possible outcome).

I don't blame you for not wanting to be tarred with that brush but you're the one who said you lean that way.

Much doubt - I'll grant you all that; much unprovable, no matter your view - until the airplane is or may be found.

I don't share your view that there can be no progress in an investigation unless and until final physical proof is found.  Theories can be eliminated through sound research. 

Logged

JNev

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 778
  • It's a GOOD thing to be in the cornfield...
Re: Critics' Corner
« Reply #2 on: September 12, 2015, 04:04:50 PM »

I am very familiar with your 12 years of research.  Yes it stands on its own merits.  You have what you have and no where did I say there's no value in research.  Yours has simply come up dry in terms of proving Earhart's fate, that's all.  Your preponderance may vary, of course - but that's mine.

I don't really care how you insist on labeling me or others or dramatize non-essential points so as to then pierce them, actually - I just think it demeans your effort to be credible in the wider field when you do.

In the end there will be no substitute for physical evidence - that's just the way of these things.  If twenty-something years of effort have proven anything to me it is that very thing.  Until Edison got the light bulb to work well he didn't have much going for him either...
- Jeff Neville

Former Member 3074R
 
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 5167
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: Critics' Corner
« Reply #3 on: September 13, 2015, 09:21:54 AM »

I am very familiar with your 12 years of research.

Coulda fooled me.

  Yes it stands on its own merits.  You have what you have and no where did I say there's no value in research.  Yours has simply come up dry in terms of proving Earhart's fate, that's all.  Your preponderance may vary, of course - but that's mine.

For someone who claims to be very familiar with our 12 years of research you don't even know what it's about. We've never said that the post-loss signals prove Earhart's fate.  They eliminate one possible fate.

Everybody likes to talk about Dana Randolph and Betty Klenck and the other non-professionals who reported hearing intelligible messages. Their stories are fascinating and compelling but they often overshadow the multiple credible professional operators (ITASCA, the radio operators on Howland and Baker, Coast Guard Radio Honolulu, the radio operator on Nauru, HMNZS ACHILLES, Pan Am radio operators on Oahu, Midway and Wake, U.S. Navy Radio Wailupe, to name a few) whose reports document that certain electromagnetic events occurred that could not have occurred if the aircraft went down at sea. Earhart landed somewhere and sent distress calls.  That much is proven.  Did she land somewhere in the Gilberts?  Mili?  New Britain?
Abundant circumstantial evidence strongly suggests, but does not prove, where that somewhere was.

In the end there will be no substitute for physical evidence - that's just the way of these things.  If twenty-something years of effort have proven anything to me it is that very thing.

An odd statement coming from someone who published a report that draws conclusions about comparing 2-2-V-1 to the Miami Patch and the Earhart Electra without having access to the physical patch or to NR16020.
Logged

JNev

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 778
  • It's a GOOD thing to be in the cornfield...
Re: Critics' Corner
« Reply #4 on: September 13, 2015, 01:41:58 PM »

You forgot - I did have physical access to the patch in Dayton, intimately so.

I won't dignify the rest of your statement by further response except to note the obvious - it defies reason.
- Jeff Neville

Former Member 3074R
 
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 5167
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: Critics' Corner
« Reply #5 on: September 13, 2015, 02:30:56 PM »

You forgot - I did have physical access to the patch in Dayton, intimately so.

I say again:
"An odd statement coming from someone who published a report that draws conclusions about comparing 2-2-V-1 to the Miami Patch and the Earhart Electra without having access to the physical patch or to NR16020."

and again:
"....without having access to the physical patch or to NR16020."

How can you make a conclusive comparison of one thing to another thing unless you have both things? In this case you had only one of three things needed.
 
I won't dignify the rest of your statement by further response except to note the obvious - it defies reason.

Fine.
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 5167
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: Critics' Corner
« Reply #6 on: September 13, 2015, 04:12:15 PM »

Ric/Jeff

Why don't you both take this matter between you off forum!

Ted Campbell

Ted got a point, it doesn't look very professional for an 'International research Forum'

I feel your pain.  I have no interest in debating Jeff Neville privately and I won't ban him from the Forum unless and until he breaks the rules but, because he is now a Crashed & Sanker or maybe an It's-Impossible-to-Know-Anythinger, his postings clearly belong in Alternatives to the Niku Hypothesis.  We'll move his future postings to that section and even give him his own topic, "Neville's  Notions."  I may or may not reply to him but if you don't want to be bothered with whatever we have to say to each other you can just check "unnotify" on that thread.
We now return to our regularly scheduled Forum.
Logged

Eddie Rose

  • T1
  • *
  • Posts: 19
Re: Critics' Corner
« Reply #7 on: September 13, 2015, 06:46:25 PM »

I feel your pain.  I have no interest in debating Jeff Neville privately and I won't ban him from the Forum unless and until he breaks the rules but, because he is now a Crashed & Sanker or maybe an It's-Impossible-to-Know-Anythinger, his postings clearly belong in Alternatives to the Niku Hypothesis.  We'll move his future postings to that section and even give him his own topic, "Neville's  Notions."  I may or may not reply to him but if you don't want to be bothered with whatever we have to say to each other you can just check "unnotify" on that thread.
We now return to our regularly scheduled Forum.

I didn't realize it was a Holy War between believers and non-believers.

What happened to the pursuit of "science"?
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 5167
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: Critics' Corner
« Reply #8 on: September 13, 2015, 06:54:59 PM »


I didn't realize it was a Holy War between believers and non-believers.

What happened to the pursuit of "science"?

Nothing is more common in the pursuit of science than Holy War.  Want to talk about climate change?
Logged

Eddie Rose

  • T1
  • *
  • Posts: 19
Re: Critics' Corner
« Reply #9 on: September 13, 2015, 07:07:42 PM »

Real science is self-evident and requires no persuasion or salesmanship.

Most real scientists that I know are quite comfortable and collegial with those who hold differing views or approaches to research.
Logged

Neff Jacobs

  • T2
  • **
  • Posts: 54
Re: Critics' Corner
« Reply #10 on: September 13, 2015, 07:48:59 PM »

Welcome to Hell  one and all.   Let the record show I am Hell's first volunteer.

That said I classify myself a moderate crashed and sanker.    I lean toward crashed and sank in the vicinity of Howland based on my interpretation of the available data.   However I am willing to listen to any idea someone has.  I've no need to prove them right or wrong. I may choose to question or debate but in the end what you choose to believe is your business.  So chime in with you favorite theory,  sain, organized, crazy, one off, with or without logical proof.   I'll be happy to listen, question and debate. 
Neff
« Last Edit: September 14, 2015, 01:04:00 PM by Ric Gillespie »
Logged

Neff Jacobs

  • T2
  • **
  • Posts: 54
Re: Critics' Corner
« Reply #11 on: September 13, 2015, 08:00:48 PM »

Ted,
I hope you take no offense.  I offer none.   If Ric takes this down I will take no offense but I thought it might be nice to have a rather free forum down here and be able to toss around ideas we are not able to openly discuss in the world above.  My suggestion is we are all equal here, with the obvious exception Ric can close Hell any time he wants.  I much like the idea of having a place to discuss theories without having to compete with an almost 30 year old hypothesis or be concerned about the effect on funding if someone has an off the wall idea that gains the acceptance or 4-5 other denizens of Hell.
Whatever the outcome my kind regards,
Neff
« Last Edit: September 14, 2015, 01:04:24 PM by Ric Gillespie »
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 5167
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: Critics' Corner
« Reply #12 on: September 13, 2015, 08:42:39 PM »

Real science is self-evident and requires no persuasion or salesmanship.

Most real scientists that I know are quite comfortable and collegial with those who hold differing views or approaches to research.

If real science is self-evident why do scientists hold differing views? 
Logged

JNev

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 778
  • It's a GOOD thing to be in the cornfield...
Re: Critics' Corner
« Reply #13 on: September 13, 2015, 09:45:09 PM »

You forgot - I did have physical access to the patch in Dayton, intimately so.

I say again:
"An odd statement coming from someone who published a report that draws conclusions about comparing 2-2-V-1 to the Miami Patch and the Earhart Electra without having access to the physical patch or to NR16020."

and again:
"....without having access to the physical patch or to NR16020."

How can you make a conclusive comparison of one thing to another thing unless you have both things? In this case you had only one of three things needed.


My error - I had access to 22V1, not "the patch".

It seems you also had access to only one of three things needed for your own "95%" conclusion then, by your own standard: NR16020 AND the "Miami patch" remain out of reach.
- Jeff Neville

Former Member 3074R
 
« Last Edit: September 13, 2015, 09:47:19 PM by Jeffrey Neville »
Logged

Neff Jacobs

  • T2
  • **
  • Posts: 54
Re: Critics' Corner
« Reply #14 on: September 14, 2015, 09:27:13 AM »

Most forums moderate by consisus and by ignoring and/or condemning  post that are simply attacks.

If this becomes the "Tighar is wrong because  _______" spot then the wind you feel will be me leaving.

On the other hand, for starters:   For a long time Jeff N was a tremendous supporter of 22V1 as The Patch.   Considering, 22V1 had already been proposed and disqualified as a belly patch  I would love to hear what properties convinced Jeff 22V1 was the window patch.

DR navigation is another interesting topic, to me as is Moon and Sun fixes available until almost noon Itasca time.

Speed/fuel consumption is another one.  Both Noonan and Williams laid out their navigation charts at 150 mph although they being navigators used 130 knots.   I think it  worth pursuit to assume Earhart flew an IAS intended to yield  a true airspeed of 150 mp.  In at least the Darwin to Lea case  is to a degree testable.  We know she bought 436 US Gallon in Darwin and flew for a total of 8.2 hours arriving in Lea after 7.7 hours at 156 mph and had 315 gallons left. 

The same game can be played with 52 GPH.   52 GPH for 8.2 hours comes to 426 gallons.

A more complex version of this can be played with the Darkar run.  In that case we have Noonan's fixes and a
pretty good idea of the wind.  Is there a speed/fuel consumption that matches reality?  Maybe.

This is science as I understand it.   I hypothesize All girls have green eyes.  The first brown eyed girl I meet proves me wrong but I have learned something in the process. 

In some cases of fuel and speed all we ever may be able to say is it falls within the realm of possible or it requires and unmentioned 50 knot headwind to work.

In any event I hope this becomes a place to explore, to make an assumption, to test ideas among peers.
Neff
« Last Edit: September 14, 2015, 01:05:22 PM by Ric Gillespie »
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3   Go Up
 

Copyright 2017 by TIGHAR, a non-profit foundation. No portion of the TIGHAR Website may be reproduced by xerographic, photographic, digital or any other means for any purpose. No portion of the TIGHAR Website may be stored in a retrieval system, copied, transmitted or transferred in any form or by any means, whether electronic, mechanical, digital, photographic, magnetic or otherwise, for any purpose without the express, written permission of TIGHAR. All rights reserved.

Contact us at: info@tighar.org • Phone: 610-467-1937 • Membership formwebmaster@tighar.org

Powered by MySQL SMF 2.0.14 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines Powered by PHP