Advanced search  
Pages: [1] 2 3 4   Go Down

Author Topic: BBC Broadcast Amelia Earhart  (Read 38365 times)

Chris Johnson

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1069
  • Trying to give a fig but would settle for $100,000
BBC Broadcast Amelia Earhart
« on: August 31, 2011, 02:18:51 PM »

This is on the facebook site but just for those who don't do it here is a link to the show about Women in aviation aired on the BBC Radio show Womans hour

Now not sure if the content is available outside of the UK but if it is scroll down the page and Ric's bit is in chapter two of the show.

Ric pitches TIGHARS hypothysis against the sceptasism of Dr Tom Crouch, Senior Curator in Aeronautics at the Smithsonian Institution.
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 5519
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: BBC Broadcast Amelia Earhart
« Reply #1 on: August 31, 2011, 06:06:29 PM »

It was a fun interview.  Tom Crouch and I are old friends/adversaries on the issue of what happened to AE.  He thinks we've been blinded by our own bias.  I think he and his colleagues at the Smithsonian National Air & Space Museum are blinded by institutional prejudice. 
Logged

Chris Johnson

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1069
  • Trying to give a fig but would settle for $100,000
Re: BBC Broadcast Amelia Earhart
« Reply #2 on: September 01, 2011, 02:25:21 AM »

Interesting that Tom says around about 20mins 10 seconds into the interview "impossible to know whether the bones are in fact those of a white female" taken from the Anthropologists report.

That’s made me re read the reference of the TIGHAR site as I had it set in my mind that the report said otherwise.  How the mind works tricks on you!
The report actually suggests

Quote
(1) More likely female than male
(2) More likely white than Polynesian or other Pacific Islander
(3) Most likely between 5´5˝ and 5´9˝ in height
Logged

Tom Swearengen

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 818
  • earhart monument, Hawaii
Re: BBC Broadcast Amelia Earhart
« Reply #3 on: September 01, 2011, 06:18:13 AM »

So the Smithsonian doesnt buy the hypothesis of AE being on Niku? Well, I would say, in order to so who's right, and who may be wrong, have them pony some funds and see if the Electra is there. I know---another high profile organisation that is hard to deal with. But, they have the connections to get a well funded expedition done.
Tom Swearengen TIGHAR # 3297
 
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 5519
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: BBC Broadcast Amelia Earhart
« Reply #4 on: September 01, 2011, 06:59:52 AM »

I know---another high profile organisation that is hard to deal with. But, they have the connections to get a well funded expedition done.

I wish that was true but the Smithsonian scrambles for funding to keep the doors open - just like we do. 
Logged

h.a.c. van asten

  • T4
  • ****
  • Posts: 322
Re: BBC Broadcast Amelia Earhart
« Reply #5 on: September 01, 2011, 01:09:57 PM »

Wouldn´t it be for TIGHAR  a wise step to leave the Gardner hypothesis for what it is , and join other research enterprisies to find what happened to the Earhart-Noonan crew , p.e. those making sonar images of the sea floor about Howland , for the part having not yet been under investigation ?  The chance to thereby find NR 16020 parts is by far greater than for Nikumaroro , with all its currency already invested and the real results nill .
Logged

Mona Kendrick

  • T2
  • **
  • Posts: 71
Re: BBC Broadcast Amelia Earhart
« Reply #6 on: September 01, 2011, 01:46:37 PM »

Wouldn´t it be for TIGHAR  a wise step to leave the Gardner hypothesis for what it is , and join other research enterprisies to find what happened to the Earhart-Noonan crew , p.e. those making sonar images of the sea floor about Howland , for the part having not yet been under investigation ?  The chance to thereby find NR 16020 parts is by far greater than for Nikumaroro , with all its currency already invested and the real results nill .

 Depends on what assumptions you use to calculate the probabilities.  But just for the sake of argument, let's say that today someone finds NR16020 on the ocean bottom off Howland.  That would still leave unanswered the question of what happened on Nikumaroro.  TIGHAR has accumulated lots of evidence that something strange involving a castaway and an airplane occurred there.  I think it would be worthwhile for TIGHAR to continue its archaeological research even if  "crashed and sank" were proven.  Curious minds would like to know who died on Niku and why.
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 5519
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: BBC Broadcast Amelia Earhart
« Reply #7 on: September 01, 2011, 02:17:05 PM »

Wouldn´t it be for TIGHAR  a wise step to leave the Gardner hypothesis for what it is , and join other research enterprisies to find what happened to the Earhart-Noonan crew , p.e. those making sonar images of the sea floor about Howland , for the part having not yet been under investigation ?

Enlighten me.  What research enterprises are currently making sonar images of the sea floor near Howland or have announced any plans to do so?  I'm aware of four deep-water search expeditions that have invested orders of magnitude more currency than TIGHAR in testing the Crashed & Sank hypothesis and have found absolutely nothing.   

The chance to thereby find NR 16020 parts is by far greater than for Nikumaroro , with all its currency already invested and the real results nill .

Exercising all the diplomatic restraint I can muster  ... let me ask you whether there is anything we could find, short of the conclusively identifiable wreckage of NR16020, that you would consider to be "real results."  Why would we undertake testing a hypothesis for which, despite repeated attempts, there the results are truly nil and abandon one for which there are abundant clues?   If the Electra did land on the reef at Gardner Island, and if it was subsequently washed over the edge into deep water, and if AE and FN did ultimately die as castaways on Gardner Island what, in your opinion, should we have found that we have not found?
Logged

Harry Howe, Jr.

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 576
  • Nuclear Physicist(Ret) Pilot(Ret) Scuba(Ret)
Re: BBC Broadcast Amelia Earhart
« Reply #8 on: September 01, 2011, 04:00:31 PM »



Ric
Your diplomatic restraint is admirable and well beyond any that I could muster.

When faced with "my mind is made up don't confuse me with the facts" types, we can only turn the page and labor on. 
No Worries Mates
LTM   Harry (TIGHAR #3244R)
 
Logged

Mark Petersen

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 125
Re: BBC Broadcast Amelia Earhart
« Reply #9 on: September 01, 2011, 09:00:28 PM »

Wouldn´t it be for TIGHAR  a wise step to leave the Gardner hypothesis for what it is , and join other research enterprisies to find what happened to the Earhart-Noonan crew , p.e. those making sonar images of the sea floor about Howland , for the part having not yet been under investigation ?  The chance to thereby find NR 16020 parts is by far greater than for Nikumaroro , with all its currency already invested and the real results nill .

One of the things that I like about the Nuku hypothesis is that it testable.  The more that Tighar has tested the theory, the larger the body of supporting information has become.  Usually invalid theories work the other way around and just a little poking around will quickly deflate the theory. 

To say that the real results are nil, completely dismisses the fine work that Tighar has done at uncovering the large amount of supporting data that has been found so far (bones research, post loss radio messages, etc.). 

Quote from: Ric Gillespie
If the Electra did land on the reef at Gardner Island, and if it was subsequently washed over the edge into deep water, and if AE and FN did ultimately die as castaways on Gardner Island what, in your opinion, should we have found that we have not found?

I think that Tighar should be applauded for what they have found so far.  Such an ephemeral event would not leave much of a footprint, but I do believe that the smoking gun is still out there.  Finding it may end up requiring a large amount of blind luck and serendipity in addition to all of the hard work that Tighar has invested (research, planning, fund raising, expeditions, etc.).   Who knows, on the next expedition to Niku, validating the theory may just be a simple case of someone stumbling onto the Wheel of Fortune... 
Logged

h.a.c. van asten

  • T4
  • ****
  • Posts: 322
Re: BBC Broadcast Amelia Earhart
« Reply #10 on: September 02, 2011, 12:20:13 AM »

Yes , that is a remainder of the old hunting instinct : behind which tree will the food be ? . Btw , do you (probably) know that "romantic" and "mystic"  literature is for 95% plus bought & read by women ? .
Logged

h.a.c. van asten

  • T4
  • ****
  • Posts: 322
Re: BBC Broadcast Amelia Earhart
« Reply #11 on: September 02, 2011, 03:31:36 AM »

Agreed , the theoretical chance for the outcome of two occurrences is for this case 50% for each : yes or no . For practice the outcome of the theory containing the most (in number) reasonable inputs gains probability against the theory with the smaller amount of input . This rule depends on the s.c. Rule of Bays , who introduced "likeliness" between prior and posterior results . The "alighted at sea" theory has several : although fuel was low between 1912 & 2015 GMT , the crew did not announce to undertake evasive action ; several potential emergency landing grounds were closer than Gardner : Winslow 210 mls , McKean 350 , Baker nearby , (Kanton 410) , for a same chance to having been set course for . Declaring "fuel low" if at least 11% (120 galls) of the initial quantity of 1,100 remains  , would be too much cabaret for a pilot in distress . Usually in practice , the computed chance by Baysian statistics is greater than by flat addition of partial possibilities . The criterion for having landed @ Gardner is in itself not of navigational nature , it is of physical character : was the fuel supply sufficient ? All available information answers negatively at this point , therefore the quantified chance to ever find anything having belonged to the Earhart crew on Gardner or any other island is of a so extremely small figure that continued research is hardly or not worth the trouble. The Musem btw , has changed 180 degrees course : they once invited F.Goerner for a lecture on his well known book , wherein he finds "the" electric generator ,  "certainly of NR 16020" . Only ,  it later showed to be of Japanese manufacture , Goerner exit .
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 5519
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: BBC Broadcast Amelia Earhart
« Reply #12 on: September 02, 2011, 09:02:26 AM »

Agreed ,

Agreed?  Agreed to what?  You didn't answer my questions.  I'll ask them again.
-  Is anything we could find, short of the conclusively identifiable wreckage of NR16020, that you would consider to be "real results?"
- Why would we undertake testing a hypothesis for which, despite repeated attempts, there the results are truly nil and abandon one for which there are abundant clues?
- If the Electra did land on the reef at Gardner Island, and if it was subsequently washed over the edge into deep water, and if AE and FN did ultimately die as castaways on Gardner Island what, in your opinion, should we have found that we have not found?

...the theoretical chance for the outcome of two occurrences is for this case 50% for each : yes or no .

No, it's not.  There is evidence to support the Gardner hypothesis.  The Crashed & Sank hypothesis is negated by the post-loss radio signals.

For practice the outcome of the theory containing the most (in number) reasonable inputs gains probability against the theory with the smaller amount of input .

That's just a convoluted way of saying that the theory with the most supporting is evidence is most likely to be correct. DUH.

This rule depends on the s.c. Rule of Bays , who introduced "likeliness" between prior and posterior results .

You seem to be referring to Bayes' Theorem . If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with BS.

The "alighted at sea" theory has several : although fuel was low between 1912 & 2015 GMT , the crew did not announce to undertake evasive action ;

Evasive action???  What are you talking about??

 
several potential emergency landing grounds were closer than Gardner : Winslow 210 mls , McKean 350 , Baker nearby , (Kanton 410) , for a same chance to having been set course for .

How many times do I need to say that we don't think AE and FN ever "set course" for anywhere but Howland?

Declaring "fuel low" if at least 11% (120 galls) of the initial quantity of 1,100 remains  , would be too much cabaret for a pilot in distress .

According to USAC Lt. Daniel Cooper's report "20% fuel reserve is usually required" on such long distance flights.  The flight from Lae to Howland was expected to take 18 hours.  Using Kelly Johnson's recommendations for the Oakland-Honolulu flight, 1,100 gallons should have given her about 24 hours of fuel - a 6 hour (33%) reserve.  In fact, it was a little over 19 hours before she got to where she thought Howland should be.  She's in the middle of the Pacific with five hours of gas left. Her destination has not appeared where it was supposed to be and she has been unable to establish radio contact with the only people who can help her. Gas is, most certainly, "running low."

Usually in practice , the computed chance by Baysian statistics is greater than by flat addition of partial possibilities . The criterion for having landed @ Gardner is in itself not of navigational nature , it is of physical character : was the fuel supply sufficient ? All available information answers negatively at this point

No it does not.  Your calculations have repeatedly been shown to be based on inaccurate data and unwarranted assumptions.

  , therefore the quantified chance to ever find anything having belonged to the Earhart crew on Gardner or any other island is of a so extremely small figure that continued research is hardly or not worth the trouble.

So all you're able to say is that it doesn't matter how much evidence we find that she was on Gardner because you've convinced yourself that she didn't have enough gas to get there.  I don't think there's anything we can do to help you.
Logged

Dan Swift

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 347
Re: BBC Broadcast Amelia Earhart
« Reply #13 on: September 02, 2011, 10:43:20 AM »

I am a very open minded person.  I do not care what the answer to the mystery ends up to be, but that there is an undisputable answer.  The evidence gathered by Tighar is overwhelming and seems very much on target.  It is just a case of "case not closed".....yet.  These artifacts didn't just fall out of the sky and happen to land on a location that just happened to be on the LOP.  They don't float either so they weren't washed ashore from a ditching.  No other hypothesis has anywhere close to the number of positive elements as the Niku.  And the radio signals.  Even if Betty is completely wrong....there were enough signal picked up pointing to Niku. 
Yes, Ric, your diplomacy is as overwhelming as your evidence...thusfar.  It's only going to take one or two more pieces of strong evidence to push this investigation over the top.  I can't wait! 
TIGHAR Member #4154
 
Logged

Mona Kendrick

  • T2
  • **
  • Posts: 71
Re: BBC Broadcast Amelia Earhart
« Reply #14 on: September 02, 2011, 10:58:44 AM »

Btw , do you (probably) know that "romantic" and "mystic"  literature is for 95% plus bought & read by women ? .

   And your point is . . . .?

Mona
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 4   Go Up
 

Copyright 2019 by TIGHAR, a non-profit foundation. No portion of the TIGHAR Website may be reproduced by xerographic, photographic, digital or any other means for any purpose. No portion of the TIGHAR Website may be stored in a retrieval system, copied, transmitted or transferred in any form or by any means, whether electronic, mechanical, digital, photographic, magnetic or otherwise, for any purpose without the express, written permission of TIGHAR. All rights reserved.

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

Powered by MySQL SMF 2.0.15 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines Powered by PHP