Advanced search  
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 28   Go Down

Author Topic: After the Landing  (Read 277271 times)

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 2951
Re: After the Landing
« Reply #30 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.
LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
Logged

Malcolm McKay

  • Read-only
  • *
  • Posts: 551
Re: After the Landing
« Reply #31 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.
Logged

Gary LaPook

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1624
Re: After the Landing
« Reply #32 on: April 12, 2012, 12:15:07 AM »



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.

See POINT OF NO RETURN thread.

gl
Logged

Gary LaPook

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1624
Re: After the Landing
« Reply #33 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. 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 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
« Last Edit: April 12, 2012, 02:45:50 AM by Gary LaPook »
Logged

Malcolm McKay

  • Read-only
  • *
  • Posts: 551
Re: After the Landing
« Reply #34 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. 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 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.
Logged

Brad Beeching

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 158
Re: After the Landing
« Reply #35 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
Brad

#4327R
 
« Last Edit: April 12, 2012, 06:38:33 AM by Martin X. Moleski, SJ »
Logged

JNev

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 778
  • It's a GOOD thing to be in the cornfield...
Re: After the Landing
« Reply #36 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...
- Jeff Neville

Former Member 3074R
 
Logged

Malcolm McKay

  • Read-only
  • *
  • Posts: 551
Re: After the Landing
« Reply #37 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.
Logged

Malcolm McKay

  • Read-only
  • *
  • Posts: 551
Re: After the Landing
« Reply #38 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.
Logged

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 2951
Re: After the Landing
« Reply #39 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 second-guessed Hoodless.

She did so as a forensic anthropologist.

She wrote the Forensic Anthropology Training Manual.

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

Here is the Pearson paper that provided the formulas used by Hoodless. 

Here is the explanation of how Burns et al. re-analyzed the data collected by Hoodless.

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.
LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
Logged

Malcolm McKay

  • Read-only
  • *
  • Posts: 551
Re: After the Landing
« Reply #40 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. 
Logged

Jeff Victor Hayden

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1387
Re: After the Landing
« Reply #41 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
This must be the place
 
Logged

Bill Mangus

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 327
Re: After the Landing
« Reply #42 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.
Bill Mangus
Researcher #3054SP
 
Logged

Tom Swearengen

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 818
  • earhart monument, Hawaii
Re: After the Landing
« Reply #43 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
Tom Swearengen TIGHAR # 3297
 
Logged

Jeff Victor Hayden

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1387
Re: After the Landing
« Reply #44 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.
This must be the place
 
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 28   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