Print

[Jerry Germann]

Dr Ford,
              Would you identify the six post loss messages used in this study? Did you consider using in flight radio messages, such as low on fuel, and we are circling, we must be on you, but cannot see you, etc? Some state earhart near the end of her transmissions was nearly shouting/crying/etc...since these are somewhat verified post loss transmissions, some may disagree,...what would they score? Curious,....when analyzing a diary, how does one assign a value to those written words, for sometimes only the author knows in the manner they are expressed...Oh, if for public consumption,he does his best to try to enable the reader to grasp his emotion...but, as mentioned before by others, was wondering about the use of diaries to score the authors real emotions. In earhart's case, she made mention to some that she rated her chance of success on her world flight attempt,at about 50/50....another instance she made out a will, in the event that she did not succeed.....can these be used as bases for scoring her purported post loss messages? for by them ,she seemed to ready herself in the event of failure.....would this frame of mind, affect score values in any subsequent post loss messages?
In grief loss five steps, one goes through during and following the loss are recognized ....denial, anger, bargaining, depression, acceptance....From your paper= ( Desperation language, the language of urging rescuers to hurry, about being unable to go on, struggle, prayer, sensing the coming of death, and finally wishing for death itself.) You mentioned that the message " All's Well" is regarded as bogus....if acceptance is considered the final step in dealing with loss,..why is that message so readily dismissed as bogus?

[Jeff Scott]

Granted I work in the hard sciences and soft sciences often abide by a different set of rules, but this analysis seems to rely on a great deal of subjectivity and assumptions. Among them are:

- Deriving a baseline from direct written words yet comparing these to second- or third-hand reports of what Amelia or Fred might have said. The reports of post-loss messages remain highly controversial and debatable considering they are fragmentary, garbled, often incomprehensible, and always someone else's impression rather than a direct recording of her words. How can one have any confidence in the comparison results when there is so little confidence in her words themselves?

- There is inherent subjectivity in what defines objective, subjective, and desperate language.  In many of the messages used to define the baseline, only a single word is used to classify that entry in one category or another.  These assessments seem arbitrary.  Also, adding to the first point and Jerry German's post above, consider the arbitrariness of the listener's interpretation of her tone and how this may influence what they thought she said.  Case in point is some aboard Itasca who listened to Earhart's final transmissions described them as calm and professional while others considered the same messages panicky and hysterical.

- The analysis hinges on the assumption that a person in distress will make the same kinds of statements over a radio for everyone to hear as he would write in a private diary. Is there any evidence to support such a belief?

- The section attempting to use this psychological analysis and Brandenburg's analysis to prove each other is very convoluted logic. The statement "It is the author's scientific opinion that the empirical evidence–Brandenburg's DF findings and Ford's ALBT matching results–strongly confirms the proposition that Amelia Earhart and Fred Noonan were, post lost, in a life-threatening situation called Gardner Island" is especially flawed. If the psychological analysis showed Earhart was not in a life-threatening situation, does that mean she wasn't on Gardner Island? Of course not--the two issues are unrelated. It sounds as logical as "The fact that the weather is cold and that ice cream is cold strongly confirms the proposition that it is cold today because I ate ice cream."

The general concept of this analysis may have some value, but I don't see how it can ever be convincing evidence. Whether Earhart and Noonan ended up on Gardner, the bottom of the ocean, New Britain, or involuntary guests of the emperor, the only evidence that will prove it is to find the plane. If the Electra is one day found off the shore of Nikumaroro, items like this study may provide insight into the pair's last days. But it will never be the "confirmation" of TIGHAR's hypothesis that the title claims it to be.

[Monty Fowler]

I view Dr. Ford's paper as an intellectually interesting exercise, but frankly I don't see how it can ever be anything more than that due to the extremely subjective nature of the items that are being analyzed and held up as examples and proof.

It's fun to speculate, but as far as advancing the Nikumaroro hypothesis, not at this time. Maybe at some point in the future. Maybe never. That is the nature of true science.

Still, I applaud Dr. Ford for a novel way of looking at tragedies, and air tragedies in particular.

LTM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 EC

[Jerry Germann]

I agree Monty....
Concerning post loss messages; I align myself with the statement by Earhart " We must be on you but cannot see you" as their starting point. Along with what Jeff Scott mentioned;

Granted I work in the hard sciences and soft sciences often abide by a different set of rules, but this analysis seems to rely on a great deal of subjectivity and assumptions. Among them are:

- Deriving a baseline from direct written words yet comparing these to second- or third-hand reports of what Amelia or Fred might have said. The reports of post-loss messages remain highly controversial and debatable considering they are fragmentary, garbled, often incomprehensible, and always someone else's impression rather than a direct recording of her words. How can one have any confidence in the comparison results when there is so little confidence in her words themselves?

It seems confusion and disagreement about correct wording abound, even in these early transmissions .....drifting? listening,(circling)?......low on fuel ( sez she only has 1/2 left) ....
How does one arrive at conclusive test results, if the content, context of the material is in question?

[jgf1944]

Granted I work in the hard sciences and soft sciences often abide by a different set of rules...

"Different set of rules." Hmm. Jeff, I'd appreciate a couple of references per that declaration. Thanx.

Deriving a baseline from direct written words yet comparing these to second- or third-hand reports of what Amelia or Fred might have said. The reports of post-loss messages remain highly controversial and debatable considering they are fragmentary, garbled, often incomprehensible, and always someone else's impression rather than a direct recording of her words. How can one have any confidence in the comparison results when there is so little confidence in her words themselves?

Had the credible reports of AE putative post-lost language not been transcriptions, I would not have conducted this study, Jeff. I refer you to Appendix 3, and therein to the appearance of quotation signs bracketing what ostensibly are AE's exact words--the exception being the paraphrased material in the 2 July report.

There is inherent subjectivity in what defines objective, subjective, and desperate language.  In many of the messages used to define the baseline, only a single word is used to classify that entry in one category or another.  These assessments seem arbitrary

Well, I presume there was plenty of subjectivity (reflection and thinking) when the meter was defined as one ten millions of a quarter of a meridian. Yes, I did score some language units on the basis of a single word, however one word can convey lots of subjective meaning. For example, if you asked what your very despondent friend was thinking and he or she said, "suicide," that single word says enough to spur you into some serious action, yes?

The analysis hinges on the assumption that a person in distress will make the same kinds of statements over a radio for everyone to hear as he would write in a private diary. Is there any evidence to support such a belief?

That is a solid methodological question, Jeff. I am not aware of research exactly aligned with all the variables at play here. When i designed the study this was my thinking on the point you are raising. The Lady Be Good diarists wrote about desperation in various ways: struggling, feel very weak,  praying and wishing for death. I figured AE would not radio to the world that she was praying nor wishing to die; that public sharing just does not, IMO, fit AE's personality and self-image. Even this ole soft scientist saw that that would load the odds against him finding positive (matching) results, and so it was OK to proceed even if the public/private factor might be a significant consideration.

The section attempting to use this psychological analysis and Brandenburg's analysis to prove each other is very convoluted logic. The statement "It is the author's scientific opinion that the empirical evidence–Brandenburg's DF findings and Ford's ALBT matching results–strongly confirms the proposition that Amelia Earhart and Fred Noonan were, post lost, in a life-threatening situation called Gardner Island" is especially flawed. If the psychological analysis showed Earhart was not in a life-threatening situation, does that mean she wasn't on Gardner Island? Of course not--the two issues are unrelated.

Ford's logic is "especially flawed." Hmm. Seemed rather syllogistic to me. Brandenburg empirically showed a zone wherein voice transmissions were made by a woman saying she was AE; the zone included Gardner and McKean islands. However, investigation of McKean McKean Data showed no sign of AE, and so logically that leaves Gardner as the possible location of the radio transmitter used the the woman saying she was AE. Independent of Brandenburg's DF data, Ford showed AE may have produced language in a life-threatening situation, which Ford assumed describes Gardner Island. That appears, to me, as the overlap of two Venns: Gardner with transmitter used by woman saying she was AE, and lift-threatening place AE putatively transmitted from. The overlap looks to me to be the entity, "Amelia Earhart." I had fun thinking about your reference to me fnding negative results--AE did not match ALBT baseline. Well for sure I would not have called Ric to tell him to shut down the Earhart Project because AE was never on Gardner Island and I have data to prove it. I shudder just typing those words; heaven knows how I will react seeing them on the TIGHAR Forum! What I would have done with negative results is to conclude that the life-threatening situation as per the LBG and Lancaster scores, which was the Sahara desert, was not sufficiently comparable to Gardner Island, and/or that I had overemphasized in my mind that the island was a life-threatening situation. Realistically, I would have probably abandoned the language-matching idea altogether…but then I would have missed getting to know Forum readers, like you Jeff; and I would have missed feeling that even though only a tiny gear, I am part of the TIGHAR effort to "find Amelia."

The general concept of this analysis may have some value, but I don't see how it can ever be convincing evidence. Whether Earhart and Noonan ended up on Gardner, the bottom of the ocean, New Britain, or involuntary guests of the emperor, the only evidence that will prove it is to find the plane. If the Electra is one day found off the shore of Nikumaroro, items like this study may provide insight into thehttps://tighar.org/smf/Themes/core/images/bbc/unformat.gif pair's last days. But it will never be the "confirmation" of TIGHAR's hypothesis that the title claims it to be.

I hear you. And, BTW, I agree that there is nothing like an identifiable piece of NR16020 in the domain of Earhart evidence. Your reaction to "confirmation" brings a LOL that I think you'll enjoy. I tested the AE data on the ALBT baseline after the nightly news, at about 10:45; I remember my wife had drifted off when I turned off the TV. The AE scores matching the ALBT was for me an Eureka! moment, and I said to my wife, loud enough to wake her, "Honey, I have found Amelia Earhart!" Wife: "That's nice Guthrie, but your language project alone will not be enough; let's talk it in the morning. Goodnight!" So I now officially own that my paper is not the "smoking gun," and I will pull back my language to say that Ford's language matching data are in line with the Nikumararo hypothesis that AE landed on the reefing encircling a south central Pacific atoll that appears to be Nikumararo (nee Gardner) Island.
   I appreciate all of your comments, Jeff….er, um, well maybe not so much your whack at "soft" sciences. Your words do show that you apparently read closely and thought about my work, and no better reward can a reader give a writer.
 LTM, Guthrie

[jgf1944]

Would you identify the six post loss messages used in this study?

Hi Jerry. The messages are in the credible reports given in Appendix 3.

Did you consider using in flight radio messages, such as low on fuel, and we are circling but cannot see you, etc? Some state earhart near the end of her transmissions was nearly shouting/crying/etc...since these are somewhat verified post loss transmissions, some may disagree,...what would they score?

I did not consider using AE's "airborne" language because there was nothing comparable in the sources (Appendices 1,2) I used for the ALBT baseline.

Curious,....when analyzing a diary, how does one assign a value to those written words, for sometimes only the author knows in the manner they are expressed. You have struck a major chord in psychological science, and that is how to measure quantitatively behaviors like emotional words. ...Oh, if for public consumption,he does his best to try to enable the reader to grasp his emotion...but, as mentioned before by others, was wondering about the use of diaries to score the authors real emotions. In earhart's case, she made mention to some that she rated her chance of success on her world flight attempt,at about 50/50....another instance she made out a will, in the event that she did not succeed.....can these be used as bases for scoring her purported post loss messages? for by them ,she seemed to ready herself in the event of failure.....would this frame of mind, affect score values in any subsequent post loss messages?

Whoa, Jerry; you covered a lot of ground here. You've raised some issues that psychological researchers think about a lot; for instance, how does one measure the intensity of emotion in expressions like "I was afraid" or "We were ecstatic." After all, what might be very intense for one person might be felt less intensely by another. I refer you to an intro psychology text, therein check out the "method" chapter or perhaps "psychological scales." In the research we are discussing, I will be alarmed if a perponderance of readers, after learning the scoring protocol on page 6, say that they would have scored the languages in the appendices differently than how I did. If that feedback, and explanations thereto, do not appear, then we can use consensus as a way to give validity to the measurement of subjective states expressed by words.
  Regarding the "all's well" issue, check out the "all's well" usage in App. 4, 5 July. There is no hint that this a grief scenario. Thanks for your attention to my work.
Guthrie

[jgf1944]

I view Dr. Ford's paper as an intellectually interesting exercise, but frankly I don't see how it can ever be anything more than that due to the extremely subjective nature of the items that are being analyzed and held up as examples and proof.

You can please all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time; but you cannot please all of the people all of the time.
   Thanks, Monty, for associating my name with "intellectually." That coming from you, and I am serious here, is in my book a reinforcer. LTM, Guthrie

[Joshua Doremire]

I find this a very interesting angle and topic. I encourage you to expand the paper itself and I share my point of view specifically to better understand how you are or are not reaching an audience. I feel like this was an executive summery and I would love to see a different depth/approach to it.

I think you did an good job of presenting the Post-Loss Language theory itself. 

I got lost in the stories of the aviators used in your study that were thrown in the Appendix. I really disliked the Appendix approach used like that. I am not 100% familiar with the stories of the aviators used and even those who are could use a better outline and comparison of how you applied your methods to them. I would suggest one accident/survival situation at a time flushed out from start to finish with the language scores in it. Specifically complete summery of the accident/survival situation then note examples available from it like diaries, then specific quoted material as you used with scores, remaining accident/survival situations, and then compare them. IMO this would make it easier to follow rather than jumping around so much. I am not sure in the paper who is associated with what accident/survival situation as you are discussing them.

The main reason for my post was the following text:
"The author strove to complement Brandenburg's work by showing that the chances are excellent that Gardner is where the post-lost transmissions originated, and chances are also excellent that Amelia Earhart made those transmissions." After sleeping on it I still feel this shows bias in the paper that you don't or shouldn't intend. Specifically working backwards from a foregone conclusion. May I suggest that you introduce TIGHAR in the introduction and state your research is evaluating the Post-Loss Language from known transmissions specific to Brandenburg's work? Further mention of TIGHAR is a distraction and shouldn't be necessary rather you could be presenting your Post-Loss Language theory in context of the introduction that already mentioned TIGHAR's and others work. In short I gather your paper is discussing the theory that Post-Loss Language from known Amelia Earhart radio transmissions match that of other Post-Loss Language accident/survival situations and therefore add credibility that they were real rather than hoaxes.
       
Again just my perspective of reading the paper itself and request that the accident/survival situation stories are presented better. After all who doesn't like revisiting the complete story and then seeing how your work is applied to the stories.

Above all thanks for the enjoyment of a new angle.

[Ric Gillespie]

You guys are sure giving Guthrie a run for his money. That's good.  I'll weigh in and hope that I can match his tactful and scholarly restraint.

Guthrie's paper asked a simple question.  Does the language people use to describe their situation become increasingly emotional the more distressing and frightening their situation becomes?  He confined his study to a narrow set of specific examples and the answer was "yes," but the basic premise could be easily, albeit sadistically, demonstrated on any member of this forum. It's pretty much a no-brainer.  The ingenious thing about Guthrie's approach is his simple method of characterizing and categorizing the language in his examples so that it can be compared to the language in the alleged Earhart post-loss radio messages.  He found that the language in the otherwise credible post-loss messages tracks well with the examples of known language used by people in similar situations.  The language in messages otherwise judged to be hoaxes does not.  Does Guthrie's paper "confirm" the Niku hypothesis?  Of course not.  Is it a fascinating observation that adds support to the authenticity of the post-loss messages?  You betcha.

[Ric Gillespie]

Concerning post loss messages; I align myself with the statement by Earhart " We must be on you but cannot see you" as their starting point.

How you align yourself is up to you, but TIGHAR's study defines a "post-loss" signal as one that was received after the aircraft had to be down, i.e. roughly noontime on July 2. We use that definition because the authenticity of the in-flight transmissions is not in question. If even one post-loss transmission was genuine the airplane did not go down at sea. 

It seems confusion and disagreement about correct wording abound, even in these early transmissions .....drifting? listening,(circling)?......low on fuel ( sez she only has 1/2 left) ....
How does one arrive at conclusive test results, if the content, context of the material is in question?

It isn't.  Both the "drifting" and the "1/2 hour gas left" issues have been thoroughly addressed.

[Ric Gillespie]

Whether Earhart and Noonan ended up on Gardner, the bottom of the ocean, New Britain, or involuntary guests of the emperor, the only evidence that will prove it is to find the plane.

Does anyone imagine for a moment that finding the wreckage of the Earhart plane at Nikumaroro would end controversy about how it got there?  From what I've seen in the course of 27 years of debating the evidence in the Earhart case,  the evidence many people accept as convincing and the evidence they reject has more to do with their own world view than anything else.  I could start a huge fight by citing examples of other mysteries and issues that remain controversial despite being thoroughly settled - but I won't. :-)

[Jerry Germann]

Would you identify the six post loss messages used in this study?

Hi Jerry. The messages are in the credible reports given in Appendix 3.

  Regarding the "all's well" issue, check out the "all's well" usage in App. 4, 5 July. There is no hint that this a grief scenario. Thanks for your attention to my work.
Guthrie

Thank You, Dr Ford
 I admit , I fell short of reading your entire work, and skipped over the appendix section, you gave me too much credit. If in any classroom,... I could imagine a scenario, in which upon asking this question of my instructor, concerning the sources used, I would expect a scolding for not doing my homework, and rightly so....thank you, for responding in the  polite manner you did. It would have been a pleasure to be in your classroom.
And that answers another statement for me as well..now referring to the appendix section of your work, I see the timeline argument against the message " All's well" ...it seems to be mid stream...and agree, it doesn't seem to fit in with any acceptance of fate declaration.

[jgf1944]

Thank You, Dr Ford

Wow. One of my fondest memories of teaching is when I chatted with students on this certain bench at the end of a beautiful lawn opposite the university library. I got to tell you, Jerry, that when I read your words they took me back to that bench and the many enjoyable exchanges I had there. Thanks. Professor Ford!

[Jerry Germann]

You are most welcome....In my profession ,I am surrounded by, and interact with teachers on a daily basis,...I see the efforts they put forth to try to reach young minds, hearts, and souls, and feel they deserve praise/credit for their efforts.
Ok, some more questions.......In the study, is the position of a presumed credible message of utmost importance , in regard to how it is therefore deemed credible? I note that Betty's notebook is given an entry date of July 5th, some 3 days after the first post loss message...It is given an OD rating....I believe it was stated by Betty she didn't know the exact date she heard the message, and if memory serves me, I believe Ric stated he felt that the notebook read like a 911 call,... forum discussion on the notebook, I believe by several members seemed to give an impression that this radio message may have been first day....very soon after earhart's last in-flight message. Do you feel the Betty message is in the proper order, and would the rating or credence given it , be subject to change if it's position were to be changed to number one?
Respectfully,
Jerry

[jgf1944]

forum discussion on the [Betty's] notebook, I believe by several members seemed to give an impression that this radio message may have been first day....very soon after earhart's last in-flight message. Do you feel the Betty message is in the proper order, and would the rating or credence given it , be subject to change if that were to happen?

Jerry, for Betty's Notebook I went with the 5 July day as per what appears in the Signal Catalog. The accompanying note in the catalog indicates 5 July is the best choice because of Radio propagation analysis. Other evidence for the 5 July was gathered from an interesting Forensic analysis.
    I am not quite clear what you mean by rating or credence relative to, I presume, Betty's Notebook having the first post-lost day date of 2 July. The language score given the notebook, given any language unit, was absolutely unrelated of its date; a score reflects only the presence or absence of the Objective, Subjective, Desperation score categories. If the notebook had had the 2 July date, which it did not, then its OD score would have been a major mismatch with the ALBT baseline; indeed, that result might have caused me to re-evaluate my language-mathcing idea. Guthrie