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

Author Topic: BBC Broadcast Amelia Earhart  (Read 38366 times)

Mark Petersen

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 125
Re: BBC Broadcast Amelia Earhart
« Reply #15 on: September 02, 2011, 11:33:44 AM »

several potential emergency landing grounds were closer than Gardner : Winslow 210 mls , McKean 350 , Baker nearby , (Kanton 410)

Yes, but it's impossible to set a course to any of those islands if a person doesn't know where on the line that they are.  Traveling down the LOP once it's been reached on the other hand raises the possibility of raising land at either Gardner or McKean, with Gardner being the closer and more likely option...

Logged

Mona Kendrick

  • T2
  • **
  • Posts: 71
Re: BBC Broadcast Amelia Earhart
« Reply #16 on: September 02, 2011, 11:49:08 AM »

Agreed ,

Agreed?  Agreed to what? 

     I think Mr. van Asten was responding to my Sept. 1 reply to him, which begins:

 Depends on what assumptions you use to calculate the probabilities.
« Last Edit: September 02, 2011, 11:53:48 AM by Mona Kendrick »
Logged

h.a.c. van asten

  • T4
  • ****
  • Posts: 322
Re: BBC Broadcast Amelia Earhart
« Reply #17 on: September 02, 2011, 02:28:47 PM »

A real result would be an identifiable part of the aircraft , a sign on paper or wood "FN & AE were here" , inventory of A/c , etc. There are possibly clues considered abundant , but one good artifact would be sufficient and form evidence from itself , independent of journalistic description . It is true that deep sea investigations acquired no results so far , but the probability that they will once be succesful is by far greater than finding anything , entire aircraft or other hard evidence , on Nikumaroro . Mr. Noonan , from 950 galls gas for 2,750 mls  , accounted for 10 1/2  % reserve ex the weather forecast given , arriving @ 1,050 galls for the journey ; add 50 galls special avgas and with 1,100 galls the tanks except one were full , no further storage volume was available . The 10.5% depends on the s.c. wind regression factor which averaged 0.905 for the actual flight , its reciprocal giving 1.105 . In report 487 no remark is found about continuous headwinds asking for 13% more propeller thrust , factor 1.13 , giving  (1.13)^3 x 100% = 144% more chemical energy demand , this probably is the flaw of report 487 concerning the ferry range , there given 4,000 mls plus , but for actual flight circumstances about 2,750 mls . These figures are from serious recomputations by professional methods , so : don´t kill the messenger .
Logged

h.a.c. van asten

  • T4
  • ****
  • Posts: 322
Re: BBC Broadcast Amelia Earhart
« Reply #18 on: September 02, 2011, 02:32:14 PM »

The point is that finding truth is different from writing or reading novels
Logged

Mona Kendrick

  • T2
  • **
  • Posts: 71
Re: BBC Broadcast Amelia Earhart
« Reply #19 on: September 02, 2011, 02:51:01 PM »

The point is that finding truth is different from writing or reading novels

   Setting aside for the moment your insupportable equation of TIGHAR's empirical research with romantic fiction, what does gender have to do with it?  Quote: Btw, do you (probably) know that "romantic" and "mystic" literature is for 95% plus bought and read by women.

Mona
Logged

Mark Petersen

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 125
Re: BBC Broadcast Amelia Earhart
« Reply #20 on: September 02, 2011, 03:01:06 PM »

The point is that finding truth is different from writing or reading novels

If you feel that way then you should really like the research that Tighar has been doing...   The only other thing that one could classify as research is the deep water search that the Waitt Institute and I assume others have done.  But as Ric has pointed out the deep water searches have all come up empty and don't reconcile with the post-loss radio messages. With that in mind, the only ongoing research into "truth" is what Tighar is doing.  Everyone else seems to be writing books, articles, etc. about bogus theories such as "captured by the Japanese".
Logged

William G Torgerson

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 8
  • Peace!
Re: BBC Broadcast Amelia Earhart
« Reply #21 on: September 02, 2011, 03:16:43 PM »

There are possibly clues considered abundant , but one good artifact would be sufficient and form evidence from itself , independent of journalistic description .
The crux of the matter, it seems to me, are the post-loss radio messages.  If you accept that these messages originated with AE/FN
then you have your proof.  If you do not believe the messages came from NR16202, and you have an acceptable alternative source,
then I guess you are free to believe what you will.  I have not seen any credible source for these messages, and until someone can account for them it seems to me you have to accept them at face value. Against all odds 'stuff' happens.

William Torgerson
« Last Edit: September 02, 2011, 09:38:08 PM by Martin X. Moleski, SJ »
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 #22 on: September 02, 2011, 05:58:30 PM »

The crux of the matter, it seems to me, are the post-loss radio messages.

Yes and, to be fair, people have not yet had a chance to evaluate the entire body of data.  We have the catalog of reported post-loss messages nearly ready to be put up on the TIGHAR website. I still need to go through it one last time and Bob Brandenburg needs to review any changes I make.  This is the 32nd version we've complied and we think we finally have it right.
Logged

h.a.c. van asten

  • T4
  • ****
  • Posts: 322
Re: BBC Broadcast Amelia Earhart
« Reply #23 on: September 02, 2011, 10:09:57 PM »

Not a direct question of gender I suppose , but a question of other fields of interest . The 95% is from publisher´s statistics .
Logged

h.a.c. van asten

  • T4
  • ****
  • Posts: 322
Re: BBC Broadcast Amelia Earhart
« Reply #24 on: September 02, 2011, 10:27:15 PM »

´Post loss´ messages have been extensively investigated after Juli 1937 ; they came from amateurs , cross-over signals from Itasca with USCG and other authorities ,  hoaxes , etc. No post loss signals attributed to AE/FN contain information of their coordinates which could be easily reduced from observation by Noonan ,  the very first he would have done .
Logged

h.a.c. van asten

  • T4
  • ****
  • Posts: 322
Re: BBC Broadcast Amelia Earhart
« Reply #25 on: September 02, 2011, 11:50:32 PM »

Hence : a "deep water" investigation would deliver the "final solution" , the complication being that Nikumaroro is surrounded by shallow waters only . @ the northwestern shores the depth reaches 26 m only @ 0.4 nm , 740 m off the shoreline @ zero m . From this frontier the inclination increases , to reach the - 400 m level @ 1 nm , 1,800 m off coast . From the depth of 26 m the  - 100 m   level is first reached . This situation is similar for the entire island´s perimeter . If the AE/FN aircraft landed here on firm ground or on the beaches , it would be there until today´s day like the remnants of Norwich City , or , if drifted seawards , it can be easily located by plain diving from a small vessel , no intricacies needed .
Logged

h.a.c. van asten

  • T4
  • ****
  • Posts: 322
Re: BBC Broadcast Amelia Earhart
« Reply #26 on: September 03, 2011, 12:05:26 AM »

Low cost fund needed : Nikumaroro has no deep waters in the perimeter , there are no cliffs or reefs by which A/c could be toppled over , waters shallow until 0.5 nm from coast line , only civilian divers from small vessel needed .
Logged

Chris Johnson

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1069
  • Trying to give a fig but would settle for $100,000
Re: BBC Broadcast Amelia Earhart
« Reply #27 on: September 03, 2011, 01:33:31 AM »

Low cost fund needed : Nikumaroro has no deep waters in the perimeter , there are no cliffs or reefs by which A/c could be toppled over , waters shallow until 0.5 nm from coast line , only civilian divers from small vessel needed .

They've been and done that Harry! The problem is that the reef face slopes quite steeply Reef Profile thats why they need a bigger boat :)

« Last Edit: September 03, 2011, 09:45:01 AM by Martin X. Moleski, SJ »
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 #28 on: September 03, 2011, 07:10:15 AM »

´Post loss´ messages have been extensively investigated after Juli 1937 ; they came from amateurs , cross-over signals from Itasca with USCG and other authorities ,  hoaxes , etc.

Really?  Cite your sources. Name one comprehensive study.  Just one.
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 #29 on: September 03, 2011, 07:33:27 AM »

A real result would be an identifiable part of the aircraft , a sign on paper or wood "FN & AE were here" , inventory of A/c , etc.

So what you're saying is that the only "real result" in an investigation is a single unequivocally conclusive piece of evidence. By your own standards, therefore, your convoluted calculations and statements about what did and did not happen are meaningless.

There are possibly clues considered abundant , but one good artifact would be sufficient and form evidence from itself , independent of journalistic description .

Agreed. Such an artifact would not be a "clue," it would be "proof."  What we have so far are clues.  We think they're rather good clues.

It is true that deep sea investigations acquired no results so far , but the probability that they will once be succesful is by far greater than finding anything , entire aircraft or other hard evidence , on Nikumaroro .

Something is lost.  You look for it in one place and find nothing.  You look for it in another place and find many clues that it might be there.  So you go back and look some more in the place where you found nothing???

Mr. Noonan , from 950 galls gas for 2,750 mls  , accounted for 10 1/2  % reserve ex the weather forecast given , arriving @ 1,050 galls for the journey ; add 50 galls special avgas and with 1,100 galls the tanks except one were full , no further storage volume was available . The 10.5% depends on the s.c. wind regression factor which averaged 0.905 for the actual flight , its reciprocal giving 1.105 . In report 487 no remark is found about continuous headwinds asking for 13% more propeller thrust , factor 1.13 , giving  (1.13)^3 x 100% = 144% more chemical energy demand , this probably is the flaw of report 487 concerning the ferry range , there given 4,000 mls plus , but for actual flight circumstances about 2,750 mls . These figures are from serious recomputations by professional methods , so : don´t kill the messenger .

We've been over this ad nauseum.  Your numbers are based upon numerous unwarranted assumptions and, by your standards for "real results," they are of no value.
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