Date:         Thu, 7 Jul 2005 10:18:50
From:         Pat Thrasher
Subject:      We're baaaacccckkkk

And on line again. We had a lovely time and Scotland is still Scotland.

Pat
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 7 Jul 2005 10:19:50
From:         Gary LaPook
Subject:      Re: The professor and the navigator

In fact they would be near 5¡ south not 7¡ since they took off from Lae which is only 6¡ 44' itself and proceeded east northeast from there.

 From 5¡ south with the sun's declination being 23¡ north the altitude measured by Noonan at noon (if that point could be accurately determined) would have been 62¡, not straight up.

This illustrates the simplicity of the traditional noon sight for latitude. Here is how it works. You measure the sun's altitude, say 62¡ in this example, and then subtract it from 90¡ leaving 28¡.  This tells you that you must be either 28¡ directly north or south of the sun's position at that point, "noon." We know that we are south because we would be looking north when taking the sight (duh.) We look in the almanac and determine that the sun's latitude called "declination" at that time is, say 23¡ north. We then know that we are 28¡ south of a position that is itself  23¡ north of the equator. We can count down on the chart 28¡ from that and find we must 5¡ south. We actually just subtract 23 from 28 and the remainder is 5 so we must be 5¡ on the other side of the equator from the sun so we must be at 5¡ south.

So the formula is 90 minus the measured altitude. Then subtract the sun's declination from this number and the result is the latitude at noon. (If we were on the same side of the equator as the sun we would add the declination of the sun instead of subtracting it.) Note, only addition and subtraction, no trigonometry!

But you must be able to determine the exact instant of "noon" which is easy on an essentially stationary ship but very difficult from a rapidly moving plane. From a plane you can measure the sun's altitude at any time, including near noon, and plot a LOP using the normal trig calculations that every flight navigator uses for every other sight and which take only about 3 minutes to accomplish using HO 208, the tables used by Noonan.

Gary LaPook

>From Jack Clark.
>
> Re Noon Latitude Shots.
>
> I believe the suns declination at the time was around 23¡ N AE/FN were
> (in my contention) around 7¡ S. Would this not enable Fred to take a
> sun shot from the port side window amidships ? The sun would be at
> it's highest point at noon on that meridian but not I think overhead.
>
> If it was overhead then of course my whole opinion is sunk because
> there was no astrodome on that aircraft.
>
> Jack Clark  #2564.
======================================================================== 

Date:         Thu, 7 Jul 2005 10:20:53
From:         Gary LaPool
Subject:      Re: The professor and the navigator

It was actually the invention of telegraphic time signals. Many harbors had a ball set up to drop at noon which was determined from a telegraph signal from the naval observatory. This was before radio was available to transmit accurate time signals. The ball was located were it was visible to ships in the harbor and navigators would wait for it at noon and compare their chronometer so as to be able to determine the correction necessary to their ship's chronometers.

Gary LaPook

> From Dan Postellon
>
> Is this where they got the idea for "dropping the ball" at midnight ,
> New Years, in Time Square?
>
>> Let me add an amusing anecdote. When longitude was "invented", noon was
>> indicated by a metal ball falling down a mast on the rooftop of the Maritime
>> Academy at Greenwich. All ship captains watched the ball to set their
>> clocks. Today there are no more ships sailing from London and captains have
>> much more reliable time signals by radio. But the ball stills falls (not at
>> noon but at 1 p.m.) to amuse tourists. When it does a gun is fired from the
>> sailing ship "Cutty Sark" nearby, also to please tourists. I'm not
>> suggesting that airplane pilots ever set their watches on the falling
>> of the ball at Greenwich!
======================================================================== 

Date:         Thu, 7 Jul 2005 10:21:25
From:         Gary LaPook
Subject:      Re: The professor and the navigator

PS to my previous message,

A list of the references I consulted is available here:
http://www.geocities.com/fredienoonan/library.html along with excerpts. Included is Mattingly.

Gary LaPook
======================================================================== 

Date:         Thu, 7 Jul 2005 10:25:57
From:         Paige Miller
Subject:      Re: Betty's notebook and the post-loss messages

Herman De Wulf tries to explain further:

> It's my guess that Betty didn't hear the Z, only the vowel E. This has
> nothing to do with neither of them being British. It why the radio alphabet
> was invented later. In today's phraseology airmen would say ZULU. That
> would be a lot less confusing.

But this explains nothing, Herman. You didn't answer my question: what is the significance of Betty hearing EE, as you said the other day, rather than what she wrote down which was "391 065 Z or E". What part of an interpretation of the situation changes if AE said Z or AE said E? Why would that make a difference to anyone?

It also doesn't explain why you think there was a Z that you claim Betty didn't hear, and then she wrote down Z anyway.

Walk me through your theory, step by step. slowly. What did AE say, what did Betty hear, and why is it important?

> As for the transmission in which Amelia Earhart would have said something
> about a stranded ship, this was also posted on this forum. Whether it is
> true or not, I don't  know. But these are things that need to be looked
> into.

Until such time as this is a confirmed piece of information, that AE did say something about a stranded ship, then I consider it to be unconfirmed and not a valid part of any theory. If it was posted in this forum, please provide a date and the poster's name so we can all evaluate the evidence put forth.

--
Paige Miller
pmiller5@rochester.rr.com
http://paiges-page.net

It's nothing until I call it -- Bill Klem, NL Umpire
If you get the choice to sit it out or dance,
   I hope you dance -- Lee Ann Womack
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 7 Jul 2005 10:27:37
From:         Gary LaPook
Subject:      Location of Lae

I believe someone asked for the location of the Lae airport as it was listed in 1937. According to the Notice To Airmen, No. 20/1935 published by the Australian Department of Defense, Civil Aviation Branch the location was 6¡ 48' S, 147¡ 2' E. A copy of this chart is found on page 197 of World Flight, Pellegreno, 1971 and it is shown courtesy of Jim Collopy.

Gary LaPook
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 7 Jul 2005 10:40:47
From:         Scott White
Subject:      Various bits and pieces

I've been catching up on posts these couple of weeks, and wanted to chime in as the list comes back on-line.

1. I don't see why one "can't navigate from an unknown point to a known point," unless there is a hair-splitting semantic point. Someone who is lost should have at least a vague idea of their location. If they can navigate to a linear feature (river, coastline, highway, sun line) and then follow that to a known location, then they have successfully navigated to a known point. As I understand it, that's what navigators do all the time, and what AE and FN attempted in the Tighar hypothesis.

2. I'm confused about this "pattern" thing and the post-loss messages. I see no reason why there can't be 148 hoaxes. For that matter, I see no reason why there can't be 148,000 hoax messages. I also see plenty of non-hoax explanations for the various post-loss messages (mis-transcriptions, wishful thinking, etc.).

I agree completely that no one message can ever be "proven" legitimate. But, if the post-loss message analysis is to hold any water, then there needs to be at least one message that holds water by itself. It needs to carry some information that a hoaxer wouldn't have known and it needs to come on a frequency that AE could have transmitted on. From the talk here on the list, it seems that the "Betty" message may be the best candidate. But, of course, it has its drawbacks (receiver so far from alleged source; not received by any other station) that need plausible explanations. And *likely* explanations would be far better than merely *plausible* ones. For what it's worth, I haven't (yet) read the recent Tighar article, but I'll get to it soon.

3. I hate to be such a wet blanket all the time, but I get frustrated by the decidedly non-scientific attitude sometimes exhibited here. On the whole, Tighar manages to stick to a careful scientific examination of its hypothesis. But many of the posts on this list take a fundamentalist viewpoint, instead. The holy scripture tells us that AE and FN landed on Gardner Island, so we accept that as a matter of faith.

No, no, a thousand times no. Science works by designing experiments to *refute* hypotheses. If AE and FN actually landed on Gardner Isl., then there should be some unambiguous physical evidence remaining on the island. If a thorough search of the island (and surrounding sea) turn up no such evidence, then the hypothesis should be abandoned. I won't pretend to know what constitutes a "thorough search." But, for now, the Tighar hypothesis lacks solid tangible supporting evidence. When list members complain that the list is all about "proving" that AE and FN landed at Gardner, they are off-base. Even if the Gardner hypothsis is true, it can't be proven. But, given some solid evidence, it might turn out to be the best explanation. If the hypothesis is to survive, it needs to stand up to criticism. If I criticize the hypothesis, I am giving it the opportunity to stand up on its own. If it fails, then it wasn't worthy. If it survives, then it still must face further challenges from better-qualified critics than me.

If Tighar is willing to examine its hypothesis in scientific terms, then it must test it by attempting to falsify it. Flaws in the evidence and in the hypothesis itself need to be carefully scrutinized. Contrary evidence needs to be examined thoroughly. Sorry, but that's how science works.

4. All this talk about radio communications. Recent books by Rollin Reineck and Elgen Long both discussed radio communications at length. I understand that RR's book presents an (ahem) unlikely conspiracy explanation, and that there are some real problems with Long's analysis and conclusions too. Nevertheless, the books are worth reading for their respective versions of AE's radio equipment, her skills with it, and so forth.

5. I was really troubled by conclusions in a recent article about dados in the newsletter. Tighar went to considerable effort to look at dados in a modified Electra crashed in some remote site in Alaska, hoping to find parts to match those collected at Gardner Isl. To its credit, Tighar examined parts from the crash very carefully and concluded that they don't support the Gardner Isl. hypothesis. But the article concluded with a bizarre speculation, suggesting that the Gardner Isl. dados were part of AE's plane, custom built, to function for something never documented for her plane or any other. Really, guys, if we're going to make up reasons to machine special parts that just "happen" to match unknown parts found on the island, then we need to at least provide a good reason why similar parts wouldn't have been found on the airplane we *know* was on the island.

Sorry for the skeptical rant, but this article reminded me of all those reports we see of Jesus's image in tortillas and grilled cheese sandwiches. If a true believer decides what to find ahead of time, then he will never find anything contrary. But science won't accept this kind of reasoning.

Best,
-SW
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 7 Jul 2005 11:16:53
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      Re: Betty's notebook and the post-loss messages

For Paige Miller

OK. I only wrote what I wrote and nothing more. If we try to understand what Betty jotted down and if it doesn't seem to make sense to us, it just could be that she didn't hear the Z but did hear the vowel E and wrote down just that. It explains what she wrote in her notebook, not necessarily what the exact coordinates were of the spot where AE landed the Electra. Let's not forget Betty was not familiar with navigation and the way it pilots and navigators write down their figures. She just wrote down what she thought she had heard. All I tried to explain was the confusion, both in Betty's head and ours.

LTM Herman
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 7 Jul 2005 11:25:58
From:         Amanda Dunham
Subject:      Re: Betty's notebook and the post-loss messages

> From Paige Miller
>
> Until such time as this is a confirmed piece of information, that AE
> did say something about a stranded ship, then I consider it to be
> unconfirmed and not a valid part of any theory. If it was posted in
> this forum, please provide a date and the poster's name so we can all
> evaluate the evidence put forth.

I believe what's being referred to here is Betty writing out "NY NY" (or something very similar).  Wondering whether this was Betty's shorthand for AE saying "New York City" led a couple of us to wonder if AE wasn't saying "Norwich City."  (A spine tingling moment of speculation!)

What followed was a lot of discussion on whether the name of that vessel was visible on the hull anywhere.  (Further speculation:  The ship's name might have been on some of the supplies in the cache left by the survivors?)

Anyway, back to our story.
LTM, who's getting brain cramps
--
Amanda Dunham
#2418CE
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 7 Jul 2005 12:48:02
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      Conclusions

One of the dangers lurking behind every corner on this forum is that some are trying to explain events that happened on 2 July 1937 by relying on anecdotal accounts and wishful thinking that in their eyes prove one theory right and others wrong. There is nothing wrong with critical thinking (on the contrary, it has to be encouraged) as long as the forum remains critical to distinguish between theory and fact and between fact and fiction. It has to be remembered all the time that facts have to be proven before they can be judged credible.

Some ideas, although they may look a bit farfetched at first, may eventually lead to the truth. That is where I would like to put Betty's notes. To me they hold no proof. Yet they seem to hold information that might be reliable after all. If they hold any truth they could lead to the solving of the AE 1937 problem.

But one has to move very carefully. One example of how dangerous it is to jump to conclusions based on "facts" is the following:

1. There were two TIGHAR members in Scotland (and very prominent ones) when street fighting broke out in Edinburgh between anti-globalist activists and police at the time of the G8 meeting. To some this might be indication that TIGHAR "could somehow have been involved" in the riots...

2. There was another member of TIGHAR (myself) in London the day before the bombings which lead to absolute mayhem the next day, the closing of the subway system and the break down of all bus services in the biggest city of Europe.

In fifty years from now some will wonder if this could be a coincidence and whether this was not "proof of TIGHAR involvement" in the riots and the bombings...

When Amelia Earhart and Fred Noonan disappeared in the Pacific on 2 July 1937 there were indications that:

1.	they crashed and sank
2.	they did not crash and sink but diverted to the Phoenix Islands and landed, probably on Gardner Island
3.	they landed elsewhere
4.	they were picked up by a Japanese submarine
5.	they were saved by aliens from outer space

Let's be careful when formulating ideas.

LTM
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 7 Jul 2005 21:46:25
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: The professor and the navigator

> In fact  they would be near 5¡ south not 7¡ since they took off from
> Lae which is  only 6¡44' itself and proceeded east northeast from there.

Gary, why do you say that when AE reported at 7.3 S?

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 7 Jul 2005 21:47:11
From:         Jack Clark
Subject:      Re: The professor and the navigator

To Gary La Pook.

Gary, re your statement that AE/FN proceeded East North East from Lae. On what information do you base this ? J A Collopy's letter describing the take off says in part: "and had not climbed to more than 100 feet before it disappeared from sight." The runway was oriented to the SE so when last sighted they were heading SE. What is the info indicating they went ENE.?  Visibility was apparently poor.      My contention is that they continued on that heading to keep clear of the coast in bad visibility until gaining sufficient hight to take the noon sighting to enable them to get back on course for Howland. Have I missed something ?
Jack Clark.   #2564
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 8 Jul 2005 08:07:35
From:         Chuck Buzbee
Subject:      Evidence

Sometime back when I was a part of the free read group, the question of what degree of evidence existed. In civil law it is the preponderance of evidence. That is no more is required than 51% favoring one proposition over the opposing one. This has no relevance in this discussion. Criminal law requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt. That point has not been met. At this time, all we have is circumstantial evidence and not enough of that. The rule of circumstantial evidence is that when all of the known circumstances are taken in totality that they lead to one conclusion excluding all others. Direct evidence could have been the bones supposedly collected in the forties and lost at sea. Another could be the positive identification of one of the aluminum parts as having come from the plane. The shoe heal can only be circumstantial evidence.

  From the postings that I have read, FN probably knew their geodetic position to within a few miles. The accuracy of his calculations would be dependant not only having accurate time, which he probably had to a few seconds, but mostly on knowing their true altitude. They would have no way to ascertain the true baromatic pressure for altimeter corrections. If FN knew the time and their altitude then he could have determined their longitude with precise accuracy at sunup. To fly North until they were North of the lattitude of Howland then South would have been the wise method. To have continued South to the Phoenix Islands is speculation but logical.

Several years ago I had an occasion to make numerous flights to Meuller Airport that was located well within the city of Austin, Texas. This airport was extremely hard to see in mornings approaching from the west. Mueller was larger than Howland. It would have been entirely possible to have been close to Howland but unable to see it. This I know from personal experience.

C. A. "Chuck" Buzbee
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 8 Jul 2005 08:08:04
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: The professor and the navigator

Jack we don't have to speculate on where they went after take off. AE gave two position reports with coordinates. 150.7 E (or 157 E) 7.3 S and thence to 159.7 E 4.33 S.

That route requires a slightly south of due east course.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 8 Jul 2005 10:18:49
From:         Paige Miller
Subject:      Re: Betty's notebook and the post-loss messages

Scott White says:

> I'm confused about this "pattern" thing and the post-loss messages. I
> see no reason why there can't be 148 hoaxes. For that matter, I see no
> reason why there can't be 148,000 hoax messages. I also see plenty of
> non-hoax explanations for the various post-loss messages
> (mis-transcriptions, wishful thinking, etc.).

Wow! "... no reason there can't be 148 hoaxes." That a pretty strong statement. Don't you think that 148 or 148,000 hoaxes is extremely unlikely? So unlikely that we don't even need to consider that there were 148 hoaxes?

But then Scott says:

> And *likely* explanations would be far better than merely *plausible*
> ones.

Seems like two inconsistent statements and I hope you could clarify how these can be consistent. But you seem to miss the entire point of what I think Ric is trying to do with his analysis of the post-loss messages. He is trying to show that the most likely conclusion is that the messages did come from AE and that everything else -- hoaxes, mis-identified messages from other sources, mis-transcriptions, wishful thinking, etc. -- are extremely unlikely or impossible explanations to fit the entire mass of data.

> Science works by designing experiments to *refute* hypotheses.

Oh? That's news to me. I thought that scientists design experiments which *confirm* their hypothesis. I have read zillions of scientific articles where this is done. Furthermore, historical sciences rarely can work by experimentation.

> If AE and FN actually landed on Gardner Isl., then there should be
> some unambiguous physical evidence remaining on the island. If a
> thorough search of the island (and surrounding sea) turn up no such
> evidence, then the hypothesis should be abandoned.

Even with no unambiguous physical evidence, one can still make the claim that there is more circumstantial evidence for the TIGHAR hypothesis than any other hypothesis, so I see no reason why the hypothesis should then be abandoned. It may be that it will never be proven with unambiguous physical evidence, but that's no reason to abandon it. We are not faced with two mutually exclusive choices here: unambiguous physical evidence or abandonment of the theory. We can remain in the middle. By the way, I also happen to follow the historical debate over what island was Columbus's first landfall in the new world. The people who put forth those theories will never have an unambiguous physical evidence (or physical evidence of any kind), yet it still is a subject of robust discussion and scholarly debate.

> If Tighar is willing to examine its hypothesis in scientific terms,
> then it must test it by attempting to falsify it.

It is the responsibility of people who put forth hypothesis to provide compelling evidence in favor of their hypothesis. They test the hypothesis by showing that the evidence is consistent with the hypothesis. There is no such requirement that they also attempt to falsify it. That is not required of any scientific investigation. If someone wishes to falsify the hypothesis, they can search the bottom of the Pacific Ocean where Elgen Long says AE's airplane is located, or falsify it in some other way. TIGHAR has no such responsibility. Perhaps you are confused by the fact that hypotheses must be falsifiable ... a different condition than trying to falsify an hypothesis.

--
Paige Miller #2565
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 8 Jul 2005 10:51:02
From:         Alfred Hendrickson
Subject:      What's a hypothesis?

Paige, your posting in reply to Scott White is thought-provoking. Specifically, I refer to the requirements you indicate as related to hypotheses. Last month, Alan posted some definitions here on theory, hypothesis, supposition and conjecture. I asked him about the source for the definitions, but he indicated that he did not wish to "get into a back and forth". I remain interested in the full, specific definition of the word hypothesis and, by extension, the attendant requirements.

I've understood that we have a hypothesis, which we are testing. I'd say we are not trying to prove it or disprove it. By that, I mean we are not driving towards a particular outcome. If we are to strictly adhere to the scientific method, we want answers, but we do not want to be wed to a notion, and have our thought process lead us in that direction. Rather, we want to remain objective.

You write "If someone wishes to falsify the hypothesis, they can search the bottom of the Pacific Ocean where Elgen Long says AE's airplane is located, or falsify it in some other way. TIGHAR has no such responsibility."

I follow this okay. If soemone conjures up an alternate hypothesis, and produces evidence supporting it, it could be said that they have falsified our hypothesis.

You write: "Perhaps you are confused by the fact that hypotheses must be falsifiable ... a different condition than trying to falsify an hypothesis."

Where'd this come from, Paige? I've not ever heard this. Is it accepted in the scientific community that a hypothesis must be falsifiable?

LTM,
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 8 Jul 2005 11:45:27
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: What is a hypothesis?

The basic premise of the scientific method is to have an hypothesis. The hypothesis can be used to speculate or anticipate new results based upon the hypothesis that can be verified by experimentation or additional observations.  Each new set of data or observations can be used to adjust the hypothesis.

When does the hypothesis need to be discarded?  When there are data that are incompatible with the hypothesis, or another hypothesis is able to explain all available data.  Some data in all observations may contain errors, which complicate matters.

Another method of discarding an hypothesis is to demonstrate that the hypothesis is false via observations or demonstration of the failure of some new anticipated result.  Often times, it is easier to disprove an hypothesis early in its development than later.  Both positive and negative aspects of hypothesis testing are accepted in the scientific community, but the key to each is that there be testable conclusions or predicted results derived from the base hypothesis.

Hope this helps...

BTW, I am a "certified" scientist with those funny lettered degrees.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 8 Jul 2005 12:07:07
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Evidence

Chuck Buzbee wrote:

> ... preponderance
> of evidence. That is no more is required than 51%  favoring one
> proposition over the opposing one. This has no relevance in  this
> discussion. Criminal law requires proof beyond a reasonable ...

Chuck, you are absolutely correct about seeing Mueller from the West in the morning. This is my home area and also my 50 years of flying experience over the  Atlantic and Pacific confirm the difficulty of finding islands.

The problem with your legal comments are that there is no precise definition for Preponderance or reasonable doubt and so you cannot use them to determine the quality of evidence in the Earhart mystery which is neither a civil or criminal case. To one person there is sufficient evidence and to another there is not. Circumstantial evidence may or may not exclude all other possibilities and in most cases does not. That gets back to the term "reasonable" again.

As to Noonan not knowing the precise altitude I see that as a non issue.  The altimeter IS a barometric device of sorts and setting 29.92 over water if he had no other information would have got him close enough. Precise altitude is not critical to celestial navigation. Time IS.

We have no conclusive evidence or even reasonable speculation on how close or far off Noonan was at Howland but I think the consensus is that it is POSSIBLE he could have been quite close and still not have seen the island or  have been heard by the folks on the ground.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 8 Jul 2005 13:28:07
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      What's a hypothesis?

Alfred  Hendrickson wrote:

> Last  month, Alan posted some definitions here on theory, hypothesis,
> supposition  and conjecture. I asked him about the source for the
> definitions, but he indicated that he did not wish to "get into a back
> and forth". I remain interested in the full, specific definition of
> the word hypothesis and, by extension, the attendant requirements.

That's correct, Alfred. There are several reasons I didn't want to get into that discussion. One, the definitions vary but are easily found on the Internet  and I didn't have the time or inclination to find them for anyone. Secondly, although we are trying to generally pursue our inquiry in somewhat of  a scientific manner we are not a scientific study group nor can all of us be remotely considered scientists. Thus the expressions we use have common easily understood meanings and do not need to be nitpicked. We all know what we mean whether we use hypothesis, speculation, theory or what. Finally, for the previous reasons the "full, specific definition of the word hypothesis and, by extension, the attendant requirements......does not apply to what we are doing.

> I've understood that we have a hypothesis, which we are testing. I'd say we
> are not trying to prove it or disprove it. By that, I mean we are not driving
> towards a particular outcome.

I think you have misconstrued what TIGHAR is about, Alfred. We are NOT testing all possible theories or hypotheses. We are ONLY dealing with the idea  our heroes went to Gardner and we ARE trying to prove that. We certainly are not trying to disprove the Gardner idea or any other idea. But we ARE driving toward  a particular outcome..........that they flew to Gardner. That doesn't mean we  cook the evidence or ignore evidence that might disprove the Gardner hypothesis.  It DOES mean we are not searching on the bottom of the ocean wherever Elgin  believes the plane is or in the Marshall's or in the Gilbert's or anywhere  else.

This is an important point than so many here can't quite come to grips with who don't seem to understand why we are not dealing with other theories. That's  someone else's job not ours.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 8 Jul 2005 13:28:51
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: What is a hypothesis?

Randy writes:

> BTW,  I am a "certified" scientist with those funny lettered  degrees.

Randy when I said, "nor can all of us be remotely considered scientists...." I certainly did not mean NONE of us are. As a matter of fact we  have quite a few and thank goodness you guys are a central part of the group. We would be floundering without you. I, in particular, would be rowing  futilely around in the middle of the Winslow Reefs. <G>

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 8 Jul 2005 14:13:07
From:         Alfred Hendrickson
Subject:      Terminology

Alan, no disrespect intended, but I think it is you who are doing the misconstruing. I say we are testing our hypothesis, and you reply to me "We are NOT testing all possible theories or hypotheses." Where'd you come up with that? I suggested no such thing. I understand clearly that we (TIGHAR) are dealing with one single hypothesis.

If we have a hypothesis, and we set out to prove it, we run the risk of leaning ourselves towards proving it. But if we have a hypothesis, and we set out to TEST it, then we are more likely remain objective. That is my point. Is this just a fine point? I don't think so. I think it is an important point and I think it goes to the heart of the scientific method.

You say "That doesn't mean we cook the evidence or ignore evidence that might disprove the Gardner hypothesis" I agree. We sure don't want to cook the evidence. You say "we are not dealing with other theories. That's someone else's job not ours." I agree. If someone wants to hypothesize something else, they are free to do it. You say "We are ONLY dealing with the idea our heroes went to Gardner and we ARE trying to prove that." I'm not sure I agree with this. I, again, say that we are testing this. We are remaining objective and we are testing.

Now, on the other hand, I think there may be some people who hypothesize that our heroes did NOT make it to Gardner. That is a pretty vague hypothesis. How they'd test that one, I'm not sure. :-|

LTM,

Alfred Hendrickson #2583
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 8 Jul 2005 19:37:45
From:         Alfred Hendrickson
Subject:      Questions

Paige, in my post this morning, I asked you where the statement "hypotheses must be falsifiable" comes from. Yeesh, what a dumb question. I'm retracting it. Chalk it up to me having a slow start this morning. :-)

LTM,

Alfred Hendrickson #2583
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 8 Jul 2005 19:38:19
From:         Chuck Buzbee
Subject:      Re: Evidence

To Alan Caldwell

Come on Alan, we are both a couple of old wore out argumentative cussses. Your only problem is that you need to be reasonable and accept my way of thinking. Surely you don't think that it would be reasonable for me to accept your line of reasoning. Oh well, to the meat of your questions and statements.

You took umbrage at my definitions of evidence. Preponderance should be self explanitory, superiority in weight, force, importance or influence. That comes after the 50% point is reached. As to reasonable doubt, suppose you are walking down the sidewalk and come to an intersection. As you step off the curb to cross the street you notice a car coming at a high rate of speed. You step back on the curb because you doubt that you will have time to cross the street before the car crosses you. You have just exercised reasonable doubt. However, if the car is way back and you have plenty of time to cross the street and you don't then you have doubt but not reasonable doubt. What is reasonable can vary from person to person. If one of the post messages can be authenticated beyond a reasonable doubt then there is reaonable doubt of the crashed and sank theory. There, is that confusing enough.

You are right, this is not a civil case which I have already stated. It is a criminal case if they were shot as is one theory (you will have to look that one up yourself. I'm not giving out any more definitions.). What it is and has always been is a missing person case. The same identical methods are used to invistigate missing person cases as criminal cases.

This is a forensic investigation not a scientific one. Scientific methods have been used to formulate certain tools that have been and will be used in the collection and evaluation of evidence in this matter.

Altitude does make a difference as to when the sun is observed on the horizon. Setting an altimeter at 29.92 inches will give you the pressure altitude not altitude above MSL and can vary considerable between high and low pressure areas. But as you said, any altitude error they would have probably would not amount to over a couple of miles anyway.

Alan, I have been reading the posts on this forum for a long time, but have just got on the write list. It is a pleasure to come head to head with you. As contrary as we are, we might hit on something.

Chuck
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 9 Jul 2005 08:04:40
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Evidence

For what it's worth, I agree entirely with Alfred, and have tried very hard, in "Amelia Earhart's Shoes" and in my presentations on the project, to always say -- and mean -- that we're TESTING the Niku Hypothesis, not that we're trying to "prove" it.  Of course, one way to test an hypothesis  is to ask yourself what the evidence would look like if it's true, and then go look to see if the evidence is there -- which is what we're doing.  That's  not as clean and rigorous as conducting entirely objective experiments to verify  or disverify the hypothesis, but it's the best we can usually do in the sloppy  social sciences and humanities.

LTM (who tolerates sloppiness in a good cause)
Tom
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 9 Jul 2005 08:05:47
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Evidence

Chuck Buzbee wrote:

> Your  only problem is that you need to be reasonable and accept my way
> of thinking.

Chuck I would like to do that if only to give you a nice welcome you to the fray but as a lawyer for the last 22 years I know better. I've participated in these same "definition" arguments in court for years. Both reasonable doubt and  preponderance of the evidence are only in the eye of the beholder. Neither can  be quantified and that fact has dominated the legal system since God made little  green apples. I stand by my statements.

I do welcome you and you may well be right our discussions might possibly come up with something of value but I am afraid that is unlikely. If you will make a list of the known facts you will see there is little to argue about. Virtually nothing significant is known. Almost everything is speculation. Arguing about speculation is as close to tilting at windmills as one can get. 

I liked your reference to this being a forensic investigation. I think you may have a good point there as our efforts ARE closer to forensic. It is NOT a scientific investigation but we try to approach issues that way. Our definition,  though, I suppose. <G>

I just wish we had more stuff to "forense."

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 9 Jul 2005 09:06:09
From:         Paige Miller
Subject:      Re: evidence

Alfred H says:

> You write: "Perhaps you are confused by the fact that hypotheses must be
> falsifiable ... a different condition than trying to falsify an
> hypothesis."
>
> Where'd this come from, Paige? I've not ever heard this. Is it accepted in
> the scientific community that a hypothesis must be falsifiable?

It is one of the requirements put forth to make something scientific. I first saw it in the Creationism trial in Arkansas in 1982 
(http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mclean-v-arkansas.html). It means that one must be able to conceive of potentially finding evidence that would show the hypothesis to be untrue. If you cannot conceive of such evidence that would make the hypothesis untrue, then the hypothesis is not falsifiable and hence unscientific.

If your hypothesis is that the "grand supreme baker" of the universe made everything, then this is not falsifiable, because there is no possible evidence that could show the hypothesis to be untrue. Hence the "grand supreme baker" hypothesis is not scientific. Much debate exists over whether or not SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) is falsifiable and therefore, the question remains: is this a scientific enterprise. If your hypothesis is that NR16020 made it to Gardner, this clearly is falsifiable -- for example, if the airplane is found in the bottom of the Pacific ocean near Howland, this would falsify the hypothesis.

--
Paige Miller #2565
LTM
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 9 Jul 2005 09:49:18
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Evidence

The current thread is interesting. We have no new evidence to examine so we are examining the semantics of what we are doing. I wonder to what end? I think  not one everyone would agree on.

For example Chuck's evidence quantifying thread. Some see a reasonable doubt our heroes survived. Others see a reasonable doubt they DIDN'T survive.........all on the same evidence.

As to the evidence itself do we have 51% or more one way or the other? I don't know how one would make a pro and con list when some see no evidence at all. Some can't even agree on what evidence means.

Are we testing or proving? Yes, I see the difference in the terms but look at the sheet metal artifact. We tested it to prove where it came from. We tried to prove it came from an Electra or from perhaps a B-24 or from whatever. The terms blur in their usage.

As to the question of whether the Electra flew to Gardner that's what some of us believe and so we are trying to prove we are right. Others may not be all that much convinced and so they are a bit more cautious and are "testing" the theory. Still others are trying to prove we are wrong.

Having mentioned the term "theory" you can see we don't even know whether this is a theory, a hypothesis, and idea, a speculation, good guess or what. Does it make any difference what we call it? Unless we are writing and submitting a scientific paper I think not. No matter what we call it we plod  along just the same.

All of this does nothing other than provide posting fodder while we await something substantive to get our teeth into........or fingers into or..............oops. Here we go again. <G>

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 9 Jul 2005 11:09:35
From:         Larry Turner
Subject:      Hypothesis proven

Some one said that it could never be proven what land or island Columbus landed at. Well, while we are on that thread.  I had a hypothesis that sailing on wooden ships for more than one week at a time is always fatal to humans.  To test this hypotheses I spent two years researching 3 different ships manifests.  I concluded the hypothesis is correct, because each and ever person that sailed on the Pinta, the Ni–a, and the Santa Mar’a are all now dead. Hypothesis proven.  :-)

LTM:  figures don't lie, but liars figure

Larry Turner
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 9 Jul 2005 14:48:03
From:         David Jeane
Subject:      Re: evidence

For what it is worth.........
	I think we are all BORED!!!!!!!

LTM who is drinking Pina Coladas as we speak......

David R. Jeane
#2498
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 9 Jul 2005 14:48:26
From:         Jackie Tharp
Subject:      Re: Hypothesis proven

Larry:

Good point.  I like the way you think..  :):)

It really doesn't matter that we can't seem to agree on the proper definitions of hypothesis, theory, scientific verses forensic, etc.  I do agree that this is more of a forensic question, but that doesn't mean it isn't a scientific one, also.

But after reading this forum for a few years, I've come to the conclusion (or hypothesis, maybe) that it all boils down to what each of us individually believe in.  We are creatures of our own beliefs, prejudices, and opinions, and all that really matters is that we are open to discussion and debate about the possibilities.

This forum has some of the most interesting and humorous ways of looking at things that it doesn't matter what the subject of debate is.  There are always thought provoking idea's put forth, and I for one enjoy all of it.

This whole project is fascinating, and I just wish someone would find that "smoking gun".  I don't really care which theory is right or wrong, I've  just gotta know what really happened that fateful day back in 1937.

LTM who thought patience meant folks in a hospital.
Jackie #2440
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 10 Jul 2005 08:38:37
From:         Tom Strang
Subject:      Lae departure time?

For:  Randy Jacobson

Being that Ric is busy else where, maybe you can answer the following question.

At what time did Itasca officially become informed of NR16020's time of departure from Lae?

Respectfully:
Tom Strang   # 2559
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 10 Jul 2005 08:39:22
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      Re: Hypothesis proven

For Larry Turner

Larry;

I can't remember someone on this forum said that it could never be proven what land or island Columbus landed at. As far as Columbus is concerned, it is taught in schools that he landed on an island he called Hispaniola and today that is the Dominican Republic.

It also took him a bit longer than the week you mention. In fact it took him three months to cross the Atlantic. Columbus was dependent on the wind. History has it that for a period of time his ships did not make any progress because they got stuck in the center of a high pressure area where there was no wind and had to wait for the high to move before they got underway again.

LTM (who always keeps an eye on the sail)
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 10 Jul 2005 08:39:48
From:         Paige Miller
Subject:      Re: evidence

Alan C says:

> I liked your reference to this being a forensic investigation. I think you
> may have a good point there as our efforts ARE closer to forensic. It is NOT a
> scientific investigation but we try to approach issues that way. Our
> definition,  though, I suppose. <G>

In the July/August 2005 edition of Skeptical Inquirer magazine, Massimo Pigliucci argues that the historical sciences are indeed science.

--
Paige Miller #2565
LTM (who never understood science in the first place)
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 10 Jul 2005 09:18:38
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Lae departure time

Tom, the real question is not when Itasca found out when the Electra left Lae but at what time DID it leave Lae. We have three times. 10:00 AM local, 10:20 AM local and 12:00 ??

The 1200 is clearly a confusion with GMT and I think disregarded.

Lae was a cargo and passenger field and such operations used block out time not take off time. Block out in this case is the time AE taxied out. I have no idea which Lae reported in regard to the Electra departure but block out was the way it was done there.

In addition the Electra Model 10 operating manual specifically says to use block out time.

From where the plane was sitting it is reasonable that it would have taken 20 minutes to taxi down to the end of the runway, do the run up and check the runway head wind then start take off roll. If you will remember AE was concerned about the winds down the runway for take off.

Significance? Over a 20 hour flight not much.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 10 Jul 2005 10:02:54
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: Lae departure time

Depends upon what you mean by "officially".  The first accurate message was delivered from Lae to Richard Black, with a sent time of 01xx GMT July 2nd, and was received on the Itasca 1955 GMT.  The Coast Guard sent a message at 0550 GMT that AE left Lae at noon (not clear if Lae local time or Itasca local time!), and was received at 0600 GMT on July 2nd.  A confirmation by the Coast Guard was sent about 1.5 hours later to the Itasca.  The exact text of the CG original message is: UNITED PRESS REPORTS EARHART TOOK OFF AT NOON LAE TIME
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 11 Jul 2005 08:29:48
From:         Gary LaPook
Subject:      Re: The professor and the navigator

I only looked at the course from Lae to Howland which is 078¡ true. There is no high terrain along that direct course. A deviation of only 20 NM south for the first 250 NM will avoid all terrain of any height.

The direct course crosses Bougainvillea island at a low point and that after about 460 NM. Even assuming that they were concerned that they would have to cross that island over the highest point of 9000 feet they would certainly have been able to climb that high in 460 NM. In this case it also would not make any sense to divert to the south of course since that leads to high terrain but a deviation to the north slightly would avoid any over flight of Bougainvillea. Look at the chart available at:
http://www.geocities.com/phinneasbluster/gnc-20-0.JPG to see for yourself.

Gary LaPook
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 11 Jul 2005 08:30:28
From:         Gary LaPook
Subject:      Re: The professor and the navigator

But if she actually reported that she was 7.3 South then we must go along with that. I am not familiar with that message, is there any reason to think that it was garbled?

Gary LaPook
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 11 Jul 2005 08:31:57
From:         Scott White
Subject:      Re: Betty's notebook and the post-loss messages

Replying to Paige Miller:

(there were other posts following Paige's on these various points, but I think Paige identified the central questions. My apologies for not replying to the other posts raising similar questions)

> Wow! "... no reason there can't be 148 hoaxes." That a pretty strong
> statement. Don't you think that 148 or 148,000 hoaxes is extremely
> unlikely? So unlikely that we don't even need to consider that there
> were 148 hoaxes?

Not really. Hoaxes are easy for anyone with a radio that can transmit on the right band. It just takes a few seconds of holding down the microphone key and a little breath to transmit a hoax. If it can happen once, it can easily happen 148 times or 148,000 times.

> But then Scott says:
> "And *likely* explanations would be far better than merely *plausible*
> ones."

Right there, I was talking about the "Betty's notebook" thing. But I still think the 148 hoaxes idea is perfectly likely. If one hoax is likely (and it is), then 148 are just as easy to transmit. 148 just is not a very big number. I could transmit 148 phony AE messages this evening if I had the right radio. Then, if people started replying to them, listeners might hear many more than 148 messages talking about AE.

> But you seem to miss the entire point of what I think Ric is trying to
> do with his analysis of the post-loss messages. He is trying to show
> that the most likely conclusion is that the messages did come from AE
> and that everything else -- hoaxes, mis-identified messages from other
> sources, mis-transcriptions, wishful thinking, etc. -- are extremely
> unlikely or impossible explanations to fit the entire mass of data.

I don't mean to bog the discussion down in semantics, but I think it's important to note that it doesn't matter what Ric is "trying" to show. What matters is whether or not he successfully shows it. I haven't read Ric's work yet, though I look forward to it. Well, what I really look forward to is having enough time to sit down and read for pleasure. I can't claim it's at the top of my reading list, but it's near the top of the stack. My mind isn't made up on this, and I will give Ric's article an honest read. Just haven't done it yet.

> Oh? That's news to me  {designing experiments to refute hypotheses]. I
> thought that scientists design experiments which *confirm* their
> hypothesis. I have read zillions of scientific articles where this is
> done. Furthermore, historical sciences rarely can work by
> experimentation.

This is another way of talking about "falsifiability." The "refuting the hypothesis thing goes back to Karl Popper in (I think) the 1920s. His work has very strongly influenced science and experimental design for many years. The central point is that (1) a worthy hypothesis should make some predictions; (2) if those predictions are shown false, then the hypothesis fails. The whole point of testing a hypothesis is to look for its weak points and find out if there are fatal flaws. There is no point in giving the hypothesis an easy test that it is bound to pass. An exeriment designed to confirm a hypothesis is no experiment. It's science's version of the softball question in journalism ("Mr. Blair, Mr. Blair! Uh, are terrorists bad?").

>  We are not faced with two mutually exclusive choices here:
> unambiguous physical evidence or abandonment of the theory.

Not so far. But don't forget about the circumstantial evidence for crashed/sank: The ocean is vast and the plane was tiny.

> It is the responsibility of people who put forth hypothesis to provide
> compelling evidence in favor of their hypothesis. They test the
> hypothesis by showing that the evidence is consistent with the
> hypothesis. There is no such requirement that they also attempt to
> falsify it. That is not required of any scientific investigation.

I don't agree. In my view, Tighar is working on a scientific effort which *could* falsify its hypothesis. This makes the project a worthwhile scientific effort. Obviously, Tighar doesn't *hope* to do so, but Tighar still must live with the fact that an intensive search for unambigious physical evidence on Gardner Isl. might yield no such evidence.

If Tighar just wanted to show that evidence was consistant w/ its hypothesis, it would stop work now. It would just say that (1) it makes sense that AE & FN would have flown on a line that could have taken them to Gardner; (2) they had enough gas to probably make it there but almost nowhere else; (3) at least one of the post-loss messages must be real, so they must have landed somewhere; and (4) there are a few pieces of sketchy physical evidence suggesting that they may have been on Gardner. The end. But that's not science.

> If someone wishes to falsify the hypothesis, they can search the
> bottom of the Pacific Ocean where Elgen Long says AE's airplane is
> located, or falsify it in some other way. TIGHAR has no such
> responsibility. Perhaps you are confused by the fact that hypotheses
> must be falsifiable ... a different condition than trying to falsify
> an hypothesis.

No, I don't think I'm confused. And, of course, people are trying to find the plane where Long says it should be. Maybe they'll find it (though I'd bet against it). You're right, it's not Tighar's responsibility to look for the plane everywhere except on Gardner Isl. But it is Tighar's responsibility to test its own hypothesis. Right now, the weakest point in the hypothesis is the absence of compelling physical evidence. I admire Tighar for digging into this weakness so thoroughly.

Best,
-SW
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 11 Jul 2005 08:32:39
From:         Scott White
Subject:      Re: What's a hypothesis?

Alfred Hendrickson wrote:

> . . .. Last month, Alan posted some definitions here on theory,
> hypothesis, supposition and conjecture. . . .

I think it's worth saying that defnitions like these are only trying to explain what science is. They are not hard and fast, by any means. In reality these ideas blur in a continuum, like yellow into orange into red. We should understand the difference between yellow and orange, but there's little point in defining the exact wavelength where yellow stops and orange begins. To me, the Tighar "hypothesis" is just that: a hypothesis. But your mileage may vary.
Best,
-SW
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 11 Jul 2005 08:33:23
From:         Paige Miller
Subject:      Re: Columbus

Herman writes:

> I can't remember someone on this forum said that it could never be proven
> what land or island Columbus landed at. As far as Columbus is concerned, it
> is taught in schools that he landed on an island he called Hispaniola and
> today that is the Dominican Republic.

Well, I'm sorry I brought up the subject. I was trying to rebut someone's claim that if we don't ever find the airplane on Nikumaroro Island, we have to abandon the TIGHAR hypothesis. I said that they will never find an artifact from Columbus's first landfall, but no one has abandoned their hypotheses. That was the point. However, since we have now gone off topic into naming actual islands where Columbus might have been ... Herman, you are incorrect ... Columbus called the first island he visited San Salvador, not Hispaniola, and no historian today thinks that island was the Dominican Republic. Columbus later in his voyages visited Hispaniola.

--
Paige Miller #2565
LTM
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 11 Jul 2005 10:15:09
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: The professor and the navigator

Gary, you are correct that a deviation to the North would seem to have been more practical and the performance charts agree they could climb to a safe altitude in that distance.

The problem is that we know what route they took since Amelia gave two sets of coordinates showing they deviated slightly to the South. Whether one uses 150.7 E or 157 E makes little difference. They still deviated to the South and there is no question about that.

My belief is that 157 E is correct and was merely written down wrong. The coordinate of 150.7 is in too close and it would not be in keeping with their usual way of reporting to have reported a position so very long after passing it.

Why they deviated south is open to speculation. I have guessed the weather system reported at 300 miles east of Lae had something to do with their decision. If it was north of course it would make sense to avoid it to the  South. If it was slightly south of course they could pick up a good tail wind by flying across the North edge.

The location doesn't mean there wasn't weather to the west of it making VFR doubtful. If they were in weather from Lae outbound the course they took would have ensured clearance from New Britain and Bougainville Island. Your guess is as good as mine.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 11 Jul 2005 10:15:35
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: The professor and the navigator

Gary, there is no way to tell how accurate Balfours copied the messages from AE. I have some folks searching for the tower records but so far no cigar.

I worried about the style used in which a decimal point was used. The 4.33  S confirmed to me that it was NOT a decimal. Noonan would not give a position accurate to the hundredths. So it had to be 7 degrees and 33 minutes.

The problem was the 150.7 E position. If you will say that out loud you can see that one fifty...seven could be either 150.7 or 157. I think the latter.

Seven is not an easily confused sound so in the case of 7.3 S I don't see that it could readily be misheard. Possible of course.

I doubt AE said seven point three or four point thirty-three or one fifty point seven. More likely and this is pure opinion, she said she was at seven...three south, four...thirty-three south and one fifty....seven east. If  she actually said four degrees thirty-three minutes south then that would blow  my 157 theory.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 11 Jul 2005 13:11:38
From:         Art Carty
Subject:      Re: Columbus

Since we are lurching off topic, here is the site for the Columbus Landfall Project.....

http://www1.minn.net/~keithp/cclandfl.htm

Art Carty

*************************************

Thanks, Art. That's the end of the Columbus thread, those interested may discuss in private.

Pat
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 12 Jul 2005 08:24:58
From:         Tom Strang
Subject:      Re: Lae departure time

For: Alan Caldwell

Mr. Caldwell, thank you for your response to the question I directed to Mr. Jacobson.

I'm a where of the "block time" departure theory with regards to NR16020's Lae egress - I am also a where of the speculated departure times you stated.

My question to Mr. Jacobson pertained simply to Itasca and her crew's knowledge on the receiving end of this proposed Earhart flight leg.

Mr. Caldwell I apreciate your comments,but I think at this time it is un-necessary to think past my question in the direction the Lae departure.

Respectfully:
Tom  Strang   #  2559
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 12 Jul 2005 08:25:33
From:         Tom Strang
Subject:      Re: Lae departure time

For: Randy Jacobson

Mr Jacobson, thank you for your quick response to my question - If you may permit me one follow up question I would greatly appreciate it.  Have you looked for any other messages transmitted to Itasca later in the day of  2 July 1937, correcting NR16020's Lae departure time, possibly buried in the ship's routine message traffic of that day?

Again thank you for your time.

Respectfully:
Tom  Strang  #  2559
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 12 Jul 2005 08:26:45
From:         Gary LaPook
Subject:      Re: The professor and the navigator

Further to my prior response:

The original question related to the altitude of the sun  at noon and whether it would be too high to be observed. Using the straight course to Howland of 078¡ they would have been at about 5¡ South and the altitude of the sun would have been 62¡ at noon. Using a latitude of 7¡S then the altitude of the sun would have been 60¡, not much of a difference in relationship to the original question. Take your pick, the sun should have been observable at either elevation.

Gary LaPook
======================================================================== 
=
Date:         Tue, 12 Jul 2005 08:27:47
From:         
Subject:      The Professor and the Navigator

 From  Jack Clark
To  Gary LaPook

Gary I cannot see any reason to think that the 05.19Z(3.19 local) message was garbled.    The Chater report gives the position clearly with no doubt expressed whereas in the 0418 Z (2.18pm local) message  
it is stated that there was doubt as to what was heard. The problem with the 05.19Z message arises from the time that AE passed the message. It is possible that she was trying to pass the position during the 0418Z report. A much more appropriate time to be sending it if indeed it was a noon shot position.

The direct route from Lae passes fairly close to high mountains especially near Lae. We know it was a time of rain. 20.1mm on 1st July 43.9mm on 2nd July  36.3mm on 3rd July so I believe it reasonable to think those mountains would be cloud covered, something any flyer would be careful to keep clear of, hence the detour south.

Wouldn't a detour north from the 078¡ T course take them closer to the mountains  near Lae and on New Britain ?

Jack Clark   #2564
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 12 Jul 2005 08:28:51
From:         Paige Miller
Subject:      Re: What's a hypothesis?

Scott White said:

> Not really. Hoaxes are easy for anyone with a radio that can transmit
> on the right band. It just takes a few seconds of holding down the
> microphone key and a little breath to transmit a hoax. If it can
> happen once, it can easily happen 148 times or 148,000 times.

And again, I consider this to be a ridiculous statement given some of the known facts. Many of the so-called post-loss messages were heard on AE's known frequency (a frequency reserved for airplanes) by listening stations in the Pacific Ocean. Very few, if any, people in 1937 had radios that broadcast on those frequencies and even fewer had radios  that could be heard in the South Pacific. Since some of the messages were heard strongest by Itasca, weakly by HMS Achilles, and not at all by other listening stations, you would have a very difficult time convincing me that there was even one person with a radio capable of perpetrating such a hoax.

> Right there, I was talking about the "Betty's notebook" thing. But I
> still think the 148 hoaxes idea is perfectly likely. If one hoax is
> likely (and it is), then 148 are just as easy to transmit. 148 just is
> not a very big number. I could transmit 148 phony AE messages this
> evening if I had the right radio. Then, if people started replying to
> them, listeners might hear many more than 148 messages talking
> about AE.

Again, I don't care what you could transmit. I care what could have been transmitted in 1937 on airline frequencies to be heard in the area of the Pacific where AE was last heard.

> This is another way of talking about "falsifiability." The "refuting
> the hypothesis thing goes back to Karl Popper in (I think) the 1920s.
> His work has very strongly influenced science and experimental design
> for many years. The central point is that (1) a worthy hypothesis
> should make some predictions; (2) if those predictions are shown
> false, then the hypothesis fails. The whole point of testing a
> hypothesis is to look for its weak points and find out if there are
> fatal flaws. There is no point in giving the hypothesis an easy test
> that it is bound to pass. An exeriment designed to confirm a
> hypothesis is no experiment.

You say: "(2) if those prediction are shown false, the hypothesis fails". While this is correct, that does not imply that TIGHAR is *required* to search for evidence against their hypothesis. You confuse experimentation with historical or archeological studies. In a well designed experiment, one set of results could support the hypothesis, while the opposite results could argue against the hypothesis. But such experimentation is rarely possible in historical sciences. TIGHAR is not doing this type of experiment, but it is still conducting a scientific investigation. In the historical sciences, one searches for evidence that supports your hypothesis -- you shouldn't ignore evidence against it, especially if you run across such evidence, but you are not *required* to go out of your way to find evidence against your hypothesis.

> Not so far. But don't forget about the circumstantial evidence for
> crashed/sank: The ocean is vast and the plane was tiny.

No. Absence of evidence is not the same as presence of evidence. It is the opposite of presence of evidence.

> If Tighar just wanted to show that evidence was consistant w/ its
> hypothesis, it would stop work now. It would just say that (1) it
> makes sense that AE & FN would have flown on a line that could have
> taken them to Gardner; (2) they had enough gas to probably make it
> there but almost nowhere else; (3) at least one of the post-loss
> messages must be real, so they must have landed somewhere; and (4)
> there are a few pieces of sketchy physical evidence suggesting that
> they may have been on Gardner. The end.
> But that's not science.

And that's not what TIGHAR is doing. TIGHAR does not think it should stop now. Nor is it what I claim they should do. I do not think it  should stop now. TIGHAR is continuing its research -- they want compelling evidence, not just the evidence they currently have.

*If* TIGHAR finds compelling evidence at Nikumaroro, then it doesn't need to simultaneously attempt to falsify its hypothesis -- the alternatives cannot have any validity given the compelling evidence in favor of the TIGHAR hypothesis; thus no need for falsification.

> No, I don't think I'm confused. And, of course, people are trying to
> find the plane where Long says it should be. Maybe they'll find it
> (though I'd bet against it). You're right, it's not Tighar's
> responsibility to look for the plane everywhere except on Gardner Isl.
> But it is Tighar's responsibility to test its own hypothesis. Right
> now, the weakest point in the hypothesis is the absence of compelling
> physical evidence. I admire Tighar for digging into this weakness so
> thoroughly.

The hypothesis can be tested without attempting to falsify it as well. As I just said, if TIGHAR finds compelling evidence on Nikumaroro, then its hypothesis has been tested and confirmed. It has been tested without TIGHAR attempting to find the AE or the airplane elsewhere.

--
Paige Miller #2565
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 12 Jul 2005 09:34:43
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: The professor and the navigator

That's right, Gary and not a lot of difference. What would the azimuth have been?

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 12 Jul 2005 09:40:54
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: The Professor and the Navigator

Jack, you made a good point in suggesting the possibility AE might have repeated her earlier position again at 05:19GMT as a reason for the great time discrepancy. In any case we can't know when they were at any particular point. It does give us a good handle on the early part of her route.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 12 Jul 2005 10:08:20
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: What's a hypothesis?

Good analysis, Paige.

I think 148 hoaxes given the circumstances and known evidence is unreasonable. My nephew pitches for the Seattle Mariners. when he comes into the  game it is likely he will strike out the first batter he faces. It is UNLIKELY he will strike out the next 26.

The post loss radio transmissions cannot be taken out of context and then "tested." This has to be done as of 1937, in the South Pacific and under the circumstances and limitations of the period.

I don't know what the "circumstantial evidence for crashed/sank" is in order to argue Scott's point but certainly that, along with a number of ideas, could be a possible resolution to the mystery. So far, however, I see nothing pointing anywhere other than AE and FN reaching land some place.

If we are able to prove the Niku theory then it would not be necessary to try and prove some other theory.

Although we appear to be maintaining a somewhat narrow approach to our Niku theory that is a little misleading. We are quite aware of other ideas and  if anyone could come up with the slightest evidence something else occurred we would clearly take that under advisement. So far that hasn't happened. There has  been no other supportable evidence pointing elsewhere.

I agree with Paige TIGHAR has no obligation to investigate other theories  or attempt to disprove its own theory.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 12 Jul 2005 13:21:26
From:         Andrew McKenna
Subject:      Re: Evidence

Scott

For you to suggest that all the radio messages to be hoaxes, you have to think about what kind of pattern they would create.

  From where is your hoaxer transmitting?  On what frequencies?  At what time of day?  Who would be most likely to hear it?  etc, etc.  You need to propose what pattern you think would be created by such hoaxing, and then compare it to the pattern of recorded receptions.

Ric is looking at the pattern of the messages in this light and has gone way down this road.  In his mind most of the receptions are not hoaxes according to his perceived pattern hoaxes would create vs a pattern messages transmitted by AE would create.

What pattern would your 148 hoaxes create?  If you are going to float such an idea on the Forum, you have to be able to take it to the next step.  It is not productive to simply float fat trial balloons without further developing your "Hypothesis" so the rest of us can test it, so to speak.

By engaging in this process, I think you will discover that it is not so easy to write off all the messages as hoaxes.

Andrew McKenna.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 12 Jul 2005 13:52:51
From:         Alfred Hendrickson
Subject:      Post-Loss messages

148 messages? All of them hoaxes? That just does not feel plausible to me. I wish I could offer up some evidence, something objective and scientific, to support my feeling, but I can't. However, one thing I can do, and am doing, is supporting the writing of the book. I'm anxious to read more about this topic.

LTM -- with her trick left knee, she just KNEW when it was gonna rain,

Alfred Hendrickson #2583
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 13 Jul 2005 08:45:23
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: Lae departure time

There were no other messages regarding Earhart's time of departure received or sent to the Itasca on July 2nd than the three I mentioned.  By the time they heard her come close, the departure time was somewhat of a moot point. I believe it was a couple of days later that confirmation came from Lae of a 0000 GMT departure time.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 13 Jul 2005 08:45:56
From:         Gary LaPook
Subject:      Re: The professor and the navigator

Well, if the sights were taken at local apparent noon then the azimuth would have been 360¡, straight north.(DUH) (Of course, as I have stated in prior posts, I don't believe that a flight navigator would use a "noon sight" in flight.)

The other problem in trying to make the 0519Z position into a noon position (and this goes for the other position report also) is that noon occurred a lot earlier at either 150-07 E or at 157-00E than 0519Z. Noon on July 2, 1937 occurred at 180E at 0004Z. (Actually 00:03:42 Z) At 157 E, (which is 23¡ west of the 180th meridian), noon occurred one hour and 32 minutes later, 0136 Z, since the earth turns at a rate of 15¡ per hour. This is more than 3 hours and  45 minutes before 0519Z. At 150-07E noon occurred at 0202Z and at Lae (147-02E) noon occurred at 0216Z.

Think about it, they took off at 10:00 am in Lae (0000 Z) and you would expect noon to occur at about 12:00 local or about 0200 Z in Lae. The earth turns at a rate of 15¡ per hour so noon would happen about 40 minutes earlier at 157 E which is about 10¡ east of Lae, which takes the earth 2/3rds of an hour to turn that much. You can do the math for the other longitudes.

Gary LaPook
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 13 Jul 2005 08:46:51
From:         Gary LaPook
Subject:      Re: The professor and the navigator

That is why I said a deviation to the south of only 20 NM for the first 250 NM would clear that high terrain. After only 360 NM they would be past all of the high terrain on New Britain and New Hanover and could deviate to the north all they wanted to avoid Bougainville. Look at 
http://www.geocities.com/phinneasbluster/gnc-20-0.JPG to see for yourself.

Gary LaPook

>From  Jack Clark
>
> The direct route from Lae passes fairly close to high mountains
> especially near Lae. We know it was a time of rain. 20.1mm on 1st July
> 43.9mm on 2nd July  36.3mm on 3rd July so I believe it reasonable to
> think those mountains would be cloud covered, something any flyer 
> would be careful to keep clear of, hence the detour south.
>
> Wouldn't a detour north from the 078¡ T course take them closer to the
> mountains  near Lae and on New Britain ?
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 13 Jul 2005 08:47:39
From:         Ron Bright
Subject:      Re: Evidence

Re: Post loss msgs

Ric or Pat, was there any spike in reported post loss msgs based on the time and date of  the 8 July 37 March of Time simulated Amelia broadcasts by professional   or by amateurs in the US and or Hawaii?

I suppose it is impossible to learn of all the reported msgs received as many operators may have only notified their local police or newspaper. I imagine many were reported like that, but never made headlines or were gathered by the Coast Guard. For instance if Dana Randolf of Rock Springs didn't telephone authorities, no one would have known of his reception, one of the most widely reported.

Ron
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 13 Jul 2005 11:19:56
From:         Paige Miller
Subject:      What's An Hypothesis?

Alan Caldwell says:

> I think 148 hoaxes given the circumstances and known evidence is
> unreasonable. My nephew pitches for the Seattle Mariners. when he
> comes into the  game it
> is likely he will strike out the first batter he faces. It is UNLIKELY
>  he will strike out the next 26.

I'd like to take a minute and re-phrase your point in terms of the current debate. The issue has never been, as Scott White tries to imply, could one person send out 148 hoax messages? I suppose that certainly could be done.

The issue is, what is the likelihood that each and every one of the 148 post-loss messages are a hoax? That is an entirely different issue than what Scott White is trying to imply.

--
Paige Miller #2565
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 13 Jul 2005 11:20:59
From:         Ric Gillespie
Subject:      Re: Evidence

Ron Bright asks:

> was there any spike in reported post loss msgs based on the
> time and date of  the 8 July 37 March of Time simulated Amelia
> broadcasts by
> professional   or by amateurs in the US and or Hawaii?

No.  Not only was there no spike. There were no reports at all that coincide with the March Of Time broadcast.

> I suppose it is impossible to learn of all the reported msgs received
> as many
> operators may have only notified their local police or newspaper.

We can't know what we can't know.  Unless a reported reception appeared in a newspaper or official communication, or unless the individual came forward later  - i.e. the three shortwave listeners who contacted TIGHAR - Thelma Lovelace, Mabel Larimore (Duncklee), and Betty Klenck (Brown) - we have no way of knowing about them.  All three of them say they made an attempt to report what they heard but were turned away by the news media or the authorities.  How many other Thelmas, Mabels and Bettys had similar experiences but never happened to connect with TIGHAR a half century later?

LTM,
Ric
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 13 Jul 2005 14:23:14
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: The professor and the navigator

You're correct in the 360 degree azimuth of course but I wanted YOU to make the point. Your credibility doesn't get attacked as much. <G> I wanted the noon sun shot advocates to see that shooting the sun at a 62 degree elevation and a 360 azimuth wasn't the simplest celestial shot with an airplane heading east.

You went a step further and showed how unlikely there was a noon shot in  the first place. The Electra was still amid some land masses and if weather permitted a celestial shot wouldn't have been necessary.

That was really good information, Gary, showing once again we tend to complicate matters far more than necessary. For example at one time some were concerned with a great circle route but obviously being at and near the equator there was hardly any significance. Also if one flies the leg no wind and apply predicted winds as though Noonan was not aware of them the plane still gets fairly close.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 14 Jul 2005 10:34:35
From:         Jack Clark
Subject:      Re: The professor and the navigator

To Gary LaPook

Gary I knew I had seen another reference to noon sights from an aircraft apart from the Mattingly ref. I have finally tracked it down. It is in a posting by Ron Reuther dated 25/Feb/2003  and titled Fred Noonan and PAA navigation techniques. It quotes from a book titled "Flying the Oceans" by Horace Brock. Brock was a PAA pilot in the pacific circa 1937.       It states, in part,"During the middle of the day sun-sights gave us good checks on our latitude,...." which is what I suggest Fred did to obtain the position which AE eventually reported. Brock also states " The navigating techniques we used had been set up by Noonan after consultation with Harold Gatty...."

So it would appear that the technique was used in those times and Fred was aware of it.

I appreciate that local noon would be a lot earlier than 05.19Z that was the time AE reported it not the time of the  sighting. It would occur I believe around 0200Z and would probably not be exactly at 0200Z due to the equation of time which in the almanac pages you posted recently is given as  -3mins 42.6 secs. ( I think I have read that correctly).

Gary as Fred would  have plotted that position I feel they must have passed through those coordinates and a noon time passing seems to me to be a logical conclusion given the distance involved etc.

Jack Clark #2564
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 14 Jul 2005 14:22:21
From:         Jerry Hamilton
Subject:      Coral investigations

Slightly off topic, but I think of interest given the area of the world being explored. Today's San Francisco Chronicle has an article regarding a research ship (White Holly) about to investigate coral reef decline in the Pacific. Kingman Island is on their list. Article web site below:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/07/14/MNGR7DNPOS1.DTL

blue skies, JHam
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 14 Jul 2005 16:02:16
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: The professor and the navigator

Jack, I agree that Noonan was aware of the noon technique but he was heading  almost due east. He could guess his latitude closer than the sun shot would have given him. In addition of the weather was good enough to shoot the sun he could look out of the window and see his position as he was amid several land masses.

Based on the aborted westbound flight wherein we have good examples of Noonan's work around forty minutes off of a position was the biggest deviation between a position and AE's radio report. Three hours seems to be a stretch.

Of course a noon shot is still a possibility but I can't imagine why Noonan would have done that nor can I see any evidence pointing to one.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 15 Jul 2005 10:14:03
From:         Dan Postellon
Subject:      Re: coral investigations

Nice article!  Scripps is the institution that produced the detailed underwater charts of the Winslow Seamount.  Kingman Reef is of course, charted.  Although it was never "inhabited" as such, it was used by Pan Am prior to WW2, and did have at least one radio DX expedition based there.

Dan Postellon

> From JHam 2128 (aka jerry hamilton) Slightly off topic, but I think of
> interest given the area of the world  being explored. Today's San
> Francisco Chronicle has an article  regarding a research ship (White
> Holly) about to investigate coral reef  decline in the Pacific.
> Kingman Island is on their list. Article web  site below:
> http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/07/14/
> MNGR7DNPOS1.DTL blue skies, JHam
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 15 Jul 2005 10:14:32
From:         George Werth
Subject:      Re: Coral investigations

For JHam 2128:

Read the article with interest, BUT, didn't find any mention of books in the ship's library; i.e., "Amelia Earhart's SHOES."

Cheers
George Ray Werth
TIGHAR Member # 2630
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 15 Jul 2005 10:15:45
From:         Jack Clark
Subject:      Re: The professor and the navigator

Alan --  Taking the position given as being 7¡ 3' S 150¡ 7' E (my interpretation  of the position) they would have been I believe some 50 nm  from New Britain. In order to get a visual fix they would need a clear view of some  identifiable feature. My opinion of course is that New Britain in particular had a good cloud cover so making a visual sighting difficult from that distance. I feel there was a better chance of seeing the sun which was above the clouds than New Britain which was below the cloud.

I understand that a noon shot gave a very accurate latitude so why guess when you could get it right? You have navigation experience, would you  guess when it was possible to get an accurate shot? I believe Fred needed an accurate fix to get them back on a direct course for Howland.

If an identifiable object was visible this would give them a longitude as it passed abeam of the aircraft. I assume they would then get  a latitude by estimating the distance from the object. Is that what you mean?

I agree there is no evidence that a noon sight was made nor is there any evidence that one was not made.

Jack Clark  #2564.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 19 Jul 2005 20:15:55
From:         Gary LaPook
Subject:      Re: position at noon

Adding to my prior post for those interested in just when and where NR16020 would have had "noon" on July 2nd.

Depending on what you assume their ground speed to be, the faster they are traveling towards the east the further east and the earlier that "noon" occurs.

If their ground speed was Zero  (meaning that they were sitting on the ground at Lae) then noon would occur at 02:15:36 Z at 147¡ 02' East longitude (the longitude of Lae airport.) not a surprise.

If 90 knots then 02:03:11 Z at 150¡ 08' E.

If 100K then 02:01:57 Z at 150¡ 26' E.

If 110K then 02:00:46 Z at 150¡ 54' E.

If 120K then 01:59:34 Z at 151¡ 02' E.

If 130 K then 01:58:24 Z at 151¡ 19' E.

If 140K then 01:57:13 Z at 151¡ 37' E.

I will lay out the calculations in another post.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 20 Jul 2005 07:47:27
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Position at noon

That's great work, Gary. It will certainly be food for thought for the noon shot advocates. I am not implying such was not done. I haven't a clue.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 20 Jul 2005 07:47:53
From:         Scott White
Subject:      Re: Evidence

Replying to Andrew McKenna:

I'm not suggesting that the messages *are* all hoaxes, only that they *could be*. I was replying to an earlier message that said (if I understood it correctly) that all 148 messages couldn't possibly be hoaxes, just based on sheer numbers. My only point is that this argument (if was ever really intended) isn't good enough. I wasn't intending to float a new idea, but just to reply to an idea that seemed (to me) to have no basis in analysis. But (for what it's worth) I wouldn't presume only one "hoaxer," or even that these were deliberate hoaxes. I tend to think that misunderstandings among various transmitting and receiving stations talking -about- AE could have lead to a lot of mistaken post-loss messages. But, as I've said, I haven't read Ric's work and  I'm not prejudging it. I'm only saying that these things are possible.

Best,
-SW
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 20 Jul 2005 11:22:39
From:         Gary LaPook
Subject:      Re: Position at noon

Adding to my prior post for those interested in just when and where NR16020 would have had "noon" on July 2nd.

Depending on what you assume their ground speed to be, the faster they are traveling towards the east the further east and the earlier that "noon" occurs.

If their ground speed was Zero  (meaning that they were sitting on the ground at Lae) then noon would occur at 02:15:36 Z at 147¡ 02' East longitude (the longitude of Lae airport.) not a surprise.

If 90 knots then 02:03:11 Z at 150¡ 08' E.

If 100K then 02:01:57 Z at 150¡ 26' E.

If 110K then 02:00:46 Z at 150¡ 54' E.

If 120K then 01:59:34 Z at 151¡ 02' E.

If 130 K then 01:58:24 Z at 151¡ 19' E.

If 140K then 01:57:13 Z at 151¡ 37' E.

Here is how you can calculate this:

At the time of take off from Lae, at 0000 Z July 2, 1937 the sun was almost on the 180th meridian, opposite from Greenwich since it was midnight in Greenwich. However, the sun was running a bit slow that day, 3 minutes and 41.6 seconds slow. This is known as the "equation of time" and is found in the Nautical Almanac for that date, see:  http://www.geocities.com/fredienoonan/almanac-1937-22.JPG

Then in the same line you will see that the G.H.A. (Greenwich Hour Angle which is the same as the sun's west longitude ) for the sun is 179¡ 04.6' (I know, it looks like "170") which means that the sun is 55.4' east of the 180th meridian and it will take 3 minutes and 41.6 seconds for the sun to cover that 55.4' since it takes four seconds of time for the sun to move one minute of arc. It will be "noon" on the 180th meridian at 00:03:41.6 Z.

Lae is located at 147¡ 02' east longitude so the difference in longitude between Lae and the position of the sun at the time of take off is 33¡ 53.4', the distance from  147¡ 02 E to the 180th meridian, (32 ¡ 58',) plus the 55.4' that the sun is on the other side of the 180th meridian.

At the equator, one degree of longitude equals 60 Nautical Miles so if Lae were on the equator then the sun would have been 2034 NM east. But, at 7¡ south a degree of longitude is only 59.552 NM (the cosine of 7¡ times 60 NM) so the sun is only 2018 miles east.

At the equator the sun travels westward at 900 knots, (15¡ per hour times 60 NM per degree) and at 7¡ the sun is traveling westwards at 893.3 K (900 K times the cosine of 7¡.)  If the plane stayed on the ground at Lae it would take 2:15:36 for the sun to reach them (2018 NM divided by 893.3 K)

If the plane is flying straight east at 7¡ south latitude then the sun and the plane are coming together at their combined speeds. Using 90 K ground speed as an example, the converging speed of the plane and the sun is 983.3 (893.3K plus 90K). At this speed it will take only 02:03:11 for the sun and the plane to reach the same meridian (2018 NM divided by 983.3 K) so "noon " would be at 02:03:11 Z. Since the sun is moving westward at a rate of 15¡ per hour, the sun will cover 30¡ 47.6' in that time period. We add this number to its starting position of 179¡ 04.6' and get 209¡ 52.2' west longitude which we convert to east longitude by subtracting this number from 360¡ giving us 150¡ 07.8' East.

You can use this procedure for any value of assumed ground speed that you like.

Gary LaPook
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 20 Jul 2005 12:59:22
From:         Dan Brown
Subject:      No joy on Naval Air Pilot

Through the interlibrary loan services at my university, Arkansas State University confirmed several weeks ago that their copy of Naval Air Pilot: Pacific Islands (1936) is missing. The other potential source was the UCLA Charles E. Young Research Library's Maps and Government Information holdings. UCLA originally responded that they have the book but it is not available for interlibrary loan. When I requested Xerox copies of the table of contents and index, it seems someone actually went to the UCLA shelves to look for it, and their copy is missing also.

Dan Brown, #2408

Daniel R. Brown, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
Pathobiology
University of Florida
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 20 Jul 2005 13:00:08
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: Evidence

Scott White wrote:

> all 148  messages couldn't possibly be
> hoaxes,

Good point, Scott. When I see an absolute (all, possibly) it raises a red flag just as it did with you.

It is not easy to come up with absolutes in this case, other than perhaps the plane could not possibly be still in the air. <G>

I think the reasonable statement regarding the post loss messages is that  it seems quite unlikely, given the circumstances, that ALL 148 transmissions could be hoaxes. I'm not sure we can go much beyond that at this point.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 20 Jul 2005 21:14:12
From:         Peter Boor
Subject:      Re: Position at noon

Gary - among the "navigators" subscribed to this forum, you are a stand out. I thank you for your "navigator point of view" calculations and analysis. In my opinion, your focus gives important and proper meaning to FN's state of
mind in 1937. Great job.

Peter Boor USAF (Ret) 1525 Class 54F-36/47.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 21 Jul 2005 08:52:01
From:         Scott White
Subject:      Re: What's a hypothesis?

replying to Paige Miller

> Many of the so-called post-loss messages were heard on AE's known
> frequency (a frequency reserved for airplanes) by listening stations
> in the Pacific Ocean. Very few, if any, people in 1937 had radios that
> broadcast on those frequencies and even fewer had radios that could be
> heard in the South Pacific. Since some of the messages were heard
> strongest by Itasca, weakly by HMS Achilles, and not at all by other
> listening stations, you would have a very difficult time convincing me
> that there was even one person with a radio capable of perpetrating
> such a hoax.

Did the planes, ships, and land-based stations involved in the search have capacity to broadcast on that freq. or on harmonics that could have been heard by a listener on that freq.? I'll bet at least one of them did.

> You say: "(2) if those prediction are shown false, the hypothesis
> fails". While this is correct, that does not imply that TIGHAR is
> *required* to search for evidence against their hypothesis.

No, of course not. Now that you mention it, Tighar isn't required to do anything at all, except adhere to the legal constraints of a nonprofit organization. But if Tighar hopes to be taken seriously outside its fairly narrow membership, it needs to investigate rigorously.

> You confuse experimentation with historical or archeological studies.
> In a well designed experiment, one set of results could support the
> hypothesis, while the opposite results could argue against the
> hypothesis. But such experimentation is rarely possible in historical
> sciences. TIGHAR is not doing this type of experiment, but it is still
> conducting a scientific investigation. In the historical sciences, one
> searches for evidence that supports your hypothesis -- you shouldn't
> ignore evidence against it, especially if you run across such
> evidence, but you are not *required* to go out of your way to find
> evidence against your hypothesis.
>
Part of our misunderstanding may be in semantics. If I said that the experimenter needs to "try" to disprove they hypothesis, maybe I should have worded it differently. Obviously, the experimenter will hope that his/her hypothesis is affirmed. But s/he still must subject the hypothesis to a test which, if it fails, would disprove (falsify) it. Where there is a hypothesis involved, anything less would not be science.

I agree with you that much of science is strictly exploratory. That's what 19th century naturalists (e.g., Darwin on board the Beagle) were doing -- travelling the world to see what they could find. Geology, astronomy, chemistry, etc. have all been through these phases in their development. And exploratory data gathering still goes on, of course. But it is clear to me that Tighar is focusing on a specific hypothesis, and is not merely collecting data because it might someday become useful to some unknown investigation.

Today, archaeology and other historical sciences certainly do involve hypothesis testing. For example, look at the detailed investigations that tested (and appear to have confirmed) that Native Americans in the 4-Corners area practiced cannibalism before European contact.

In my view, Tighar is indeed conducting an experiment to test a hypothesis. I won't reiterate the hypothesis. One prediction from the hypothesis is that physical evidence of AE, FN, and the plane should be on Gardner Island. Tighar is testing that hypothesis by looking for the evidence. It's not the same as a lab experiment where the investigator manipulates a system, but it's still an experiment in the sense that it tests the hypothesis. So far, results have been ambiguous. But Tighar appears (to me) to be investigating its hypothesis in a credible, scientific way by figuring out where each teeny artifact came from. So far, each artifact has turned out to have either some other explanation or else a fairly ambiguous potential link to AE. In many of these analyses, Tighar has gone very far out of its way to find evidence that, it turned out, didn't support its hypothesis (e.g., the dados). That's why, in my opinion, Tighar's work is credible.

Best,
-SW
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 21 Jul 2005 08:52:41
From:         Scott White
Subject:      Re: Evidence

Alan Caldwell wrote:

> I think the reasonable statement regarding the post loss messages is
> that  it
> seems quite unlikely, given the circumstances, that ALL 148
> transmissions
> could be hoaxes. I'm not sure we can go much beyond that at this point.

---

Rereading my post and Paige's earlier one (which I was replying to), I think I overstated his claims and oversoftened mine.

Paige said, essentially, the same thing you've said above.

I don't know enough about the "circumstances" or "pattern" to claim that all messages are likely to be hoaxes. While I do think that there easily could be 148 hoaxes (or many many more), I don't know anything much about the post-loss messages, and I'm not saying that they all are hoaxes (or errors, etc.). I started reading Ric's piece in the recent TT, and I'm enjoying it. I look forward to the actual analysis of the messages.
Best,
-SW
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 21 Jul 2005 11:08:34
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: What's a hypothesis?

Scott White wrote:

> But s/he  still must subject the
> hypothesis to a test which, if it fails, would  disprove (falsify) it.

Scott, could you give me an example of a practical test we could conduct that upon failure would disprove TIGHAR's hypothesis that the Electra flew to Gardner?

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 21 Jul 2005 15:49:33
From:         Chuck Buzbee
Subject:      Re: Hypothesis

To Alan Caldwell

Alan, your answer/request to Scott is right on. The Tighar hypothesis or theory or whatever you want to call it has much more evidence supporting it than any other. The order of business is to find enough more evidence to prove it. As you and I agree, there is not enough at this time but  more time on Gardner may very well provide the "Grail". Just one positively identifyable piece of aluminum might do the trick.

Chuck Buzbee
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 22 Jul 2005 07:55:00
From:         Paige Miller
Subject:      What's an hypothesis?

Scott White says:

> Did the planes, ships, and land-based stations involved in the search
> have capacity to broadcast on that freq. or on harmonics that could
> have been heard by a listener on that freq.? I'll bet at least one of
> them did.

And so you are implying that a crewman aboard the boat was committing a hoax? Are you implying that at least one of the message was simply a mis-understood transmission from one of those ships and attributed to Earhart? I'm quite sure that Ric is examining the radio logs of the two known ships in the area that might have radio transmission capability on Earhart's frequency (Itasca and Achilles) and we'll see if the logs show transmissions at the time when the so-called post-loss messages from Earhart were heard. I'd bet some large amounts of money that no such transmissions were made.

But your original statement is a mis-statement of the problem Ric is working on. No one cares if there *COULD* be 148 hoaxes. We care if even a single message is not a hoax, not a misunderstanding of a non-Earhart transmission, etc. Perhaps you should read Ric's posting in this forum on 12/6/2002 of some of the post-loss messages. Tell me how any one of these post-loss messages attributed to Earhart could be a hoax or a misunderstanding.

> No, of course not. Now that you mention it, Tighar isn't required to
> do anything at all, except adhere to the legal constraints of a
> nonprofit organization. But if Tighar hopes to be taken seriously
> outside its fairly narrow membership, it needs to investigate
> rigorously.

And now you are changing the meaning of my words. I was talking about what is scientifically required, not what is legally required.

TIGHAR is certainly doing a rigorous investigation, just not the rigor that you seem to incorrectly call for by trying to falsify its hypothesis.

> Part of our misunderstanding may be in semantics. If I said that the
> experimenter needs to "try" to disprove they hypothesis, maybe I
> should have worded it differently. Obviously, the experimenter will
> hope that his/her hypothesis is affirmed. But s/he still must subject
> the hypothesis to a test which, if it fails, would disprove (falsify)
> it. Where there is a hypothesis involved, anything less would not be
> science.

No. No. No. This is wrong. 100% wrong. Thus far, TIGHAR has not attempted to falsify its hypothesis by looking elsewhere. If tomorrow, it finds the Electra or a bone with Earhart's DNA on Nikumaroro, then they have provided compelling evidence in favor of their hypothesis. What possible reason could there be to continue to look elsewhere or otherwise falsify the hypothesis with such strong evidence? No reason at all. Falsification is not required.

> Today, archaeology and other historical sciences certainly do involve
> hypothesis testing. For example, look at the detailed investigations
> that tested (and appear to have confirmed) that Native Americans in
> the 4-Corners area practiced cannibalism before European contact.

And what, may I ask, did they do to falsify this hypothesis?

> In my view, Tighar is indeed conducting an experiment to test a
> hypothesis. I won't reiterate the hypothesis. One prediction from the
> hypothesis is that physical evidence of AE, FN, and the plane should
> be on Gardner Island. Tighar is testing that hypothesis by looking for
> the evidence. It's not the same as a lab experiment where the
> investigator manipulates a system, but it's still an experiment in the
> sense that it tests the hypothesis. So far, results have been
> ambiguous. But Tighar apears (to me) to be investigating its
> hypothesis in a credible, scientific way by figuring out where each
> teeny artifact came from. So far, each artifact has turned out to have
> either some other explanation or else a fairly ambiguous potential
> link to AE. In many of these analyses, Tighar has gone very far out of
> its way to find evidence that, it turned out, didn't support its
> hypothesis (e.g., the dados). That's why, in my opinion, Tighar's work
> is credible.

TIGHAR's work is extremely credible. Much more credible than others who have worked on this Earhart mystery, based upon my readings so far. And it will remain extremely credible even if they don't falsify their hypothesis as you claim they should.

--
Paige Miller
pmiller5@rochester.rr.com
http://paiges-page.net

It's nothing until I call it -- Bill Klem, NL Umpire
If you get the choice to sit it out or dance,
   I hope you dance -- Lee Ann Womack
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 22 Jul 2005 09:49:42
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      Naval Air Pilot

Dan Brown said:

> Through the interlibrary loan services at my university, Arkansas State University confirmed several weeks ago that their copy of Naval Air
> Pilot: Pacific Islands (1936) is missing. The other potential source was
> the UCLA Charles E. Young Research Library's Maps and Government
> Information holdings. UCLA originally responded that they have the book
> but it is not available for interlibrary loan. When I requested xerox
> copies of the table of contents and index, it seems someone actually
> went to the UCLA shelves to look for it, and their copy is missing also.

Golly, Dan I could have gone all year without hearing that.  For two major libraries to both loose copies of Naval Air Pilot . . . well, there can be only one explanation - conspiracy!

I'm sure the conspiracy crowd will love this piece of information because in their world it only confirms the breadth and depth of the plot to "keep the truth from the American people."

Librarians can be a quirky lot, but I never suspected they'd go to these lengths!  :-)

LTM, who has no overdue books
Dennis O. McGee #0149EC
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 22 Jul 2005 12:38:09
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: What's an hypothesis?

Paige Miller wrote:

> Scott White wrote:
>
>> No,  of course not. Now that you mention it, Tighar isn't required to
>> do  anything at all, except adhere to the legal constraints of a
>> nonprofit organization. But if Tighar hopes to be taken seriously
>> outside its fairly narrow membership, it needs to investigate
>> rigorously.
>>
> And now you are changing the meaning of my words. I was  talking about
> what is scientifically required, not what is legally  required.

Paige, I think by Scott's "legal constraints" comment he was being facetious in that Ric could just sit around and watch TV or something and the ONLY real requirement he has in regard to the group is not go afoul of the requirements of a non profit organization.

I think we sometimes have trouble communicating via email -- more so than in person. <G> Otherwise I agree with your comments. There are a lot of folks who have not quite got onto what we are doing and seem to think we are stubbornly ignoring their input about other theories. We may be but other  theories are not our province.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 22 Jul 2005 13:40:26
From:         Karen Hoy
Subject:      Re: Naval Air Pilot

Both books are missing?! But they're both still listed in WorldCat!

Obviously the librarians are plotting and the odds are stacked.

But seriously, most libraries have books that are missing for years--still in the library, because someone put them on the wrong shelf. Or they've been moved to remote storage, and the catalogers never updated the record.

This may be the impetus they need to do a major search. I know from experience.

Karen #2610 and university library employee

*************************************

> Obviously the librarians are plotting and the odds are stacked.

Or at the very least, the stacks are odd.....

Sorry, it must be Friday or something.

P
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 22 Jul 2005 15:23:53
From:         Alfred Hendrickson
Subject:      Here -- test this one for me ...

Alan writes:

> There are a lot of folks who have not quite got onto what we
> are doing and seem to think we are stubbornly ignoring their input
> about other theories.

Agreed, Alan. I've not yet understood the people who come forward with another hypothesis and get angry when we don't drop what we're doing and rush to test it for them. They have a "be reasonable, see things my way" sort of mindset.

LTM,

Alfred Hendrickson #2583
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 22 Jul 2005 18:19:57
From:         Jackie Tharp
Subject:      Re: Naval Air Pilot

I agree with Alfred, and that was a good one, Pat.

Jackie #2440

LTM who always had a good sense of humor
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 23 Jul 2005 10:01:33
From:         Scott White
Subject:      Re: What's a Hypothesis?

> Alan Caldwell wrote:
> Scott, could you give me an example of a practical test we could conduct
> that upon failure would disprove TIGHAR's hypothesis that the Electra flew to
> Gardner?

That depends on what's "practical."

Obviously, there's no simple, inexpensive experiment. If there were, someone would have done it years ago. In fact, I believe that Tighar would have done it.

In my opinion, the best and most practical tests of Tighar's hypothesis are the ones Tighar does -- it goes to the island to look for evidence (all evidence, pro or con) and it rigorously works through every available shred of evidence to see where it leads. Maybe someday, one of these lines of evidence will lead unambiguously to AE. Or, maybe someday, after many expeditions and much sand-sifting, Tighar will announce that it has done it's damned best but has no choice except to conclude that there just isn't any unambiguous evidence to be found on Gardner Isl. Presumably, this conclusion wouldn't come until after Tighar has had a chance to look underwater on the surrounding seafloor.
Best,
-SW
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 23 Jul 2005 10:02:46
From:         Chuck Buzbee
Subject:      Be Reasonable

Hey Alfred and Jackie, That line of "be reasonable and see it my way" is my line. Just in case some have missed my point, The Tighar position is the ONLY way that is not full of holes. Fn had the necessary equipment and knowledge to get very close to Howland. Though I don't think AE was much of a pilot on this trip, she certainly was a skilled flyer and able to take the Electra to where FN advised her to go.

As to my opinion of what makes a good pilot, being a skilled flyer is only one part of it.

Chuck Buzbee
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 23 Jul 2005 10:05:18
From:         Scott White
Subject:      Re: What's a hypothesis?

Paige wrote:

> And so you are implying that a crewman aboard the boat was committing
> a hoax?

I was implying that one of them could have, yes. Are you implying that they couldn't have? Is there some reason to think that none of them could have been involved in a juvenile prank? But, beyond that, you asked if there was even one single radio in the South Pacific at that time that was capable of making such hoaxes. There must have been dozens, just among the search teams. Do you believe that there wasn't even one single other radio anywhere within range capable of transmitting on those freqs?

> Are you implying that at least one of the messages was simply a
> mis-understood transmission from one of those ships and attributed to
> Earhart?

Again, yes, I'm implying that it could have been (a ship or plane). Is there some reason to think that radio operators are incapable of error?

> I'm quite sure that Ric is examining the radio logs of the two known
> ships in the area that might have radio transmission capability on
> Earhart's frequency (Itasca and Achilles) and we'll see if the logs
> show transmissions at the time when the so-called post-loss messages
> from Earhart were heard. I'd bet some large amounts of money that no
> such transmissions were made.

Yes, I'm sure he's doing that too. But I haven't read the analysis yet, and I'm not willing to discount the possiblilty. I've lisened to radio exchanges and it's painfully obvious to me that all sorts of confusions and misunderstandings are common.

> But your original statement is a mis-statement of the problem Ric is
> working on. No one cares if there *COULD* be 148 hoaxes.

I'm hurt, Paige. Everything you've said up until now had led me to believe that *you* cared. If you don't care, then why do you keep up this conversation? I never tried to state what problem Ric is working on. I was just replying to your assertion that 148 hoaxes was so unlikely that it wasn't worth considering. I simply disagree with you. It's not illegal, immoral, or even unfounded. My interpretation of the evidence I've seen is different from yours. But all this should become moot once Ric's work is available for both of us to read.

> We care if even a single message is not a hoax, not a misunderstanding
> of a non-Earhart transmission, etc. Perhaps you should read Ric's
> posting in this forum on 12/6/2002 of some of the post-loss messages.
> Tell me how any one of these post-loss messages attributed to Earhart
> could be a hoax or a misunderstanding.

I've read the recent posts but nothing that far back. I'll try to track it down.

> And now you are changing the meaning of my words. I was talking about
> what is scientifically required, not what is legally required.

Just trying to have a little fun. Didn't mean to offend.

> SW: Part of our misunderstanding may be in semantics. If I said that
> the experimenter needs to "try" to disprove they hypothesis, maybe I
> should have worded it differently. Obviously, the experimenter will
> hope that his/her hypothesis is affirmed. But s/he still must subject
> the hypothesis to a test which, if it fails, would disprove (falsify)
> it. Where there is a hypothesis involved, anything less would not be
> science.

Paige: "No. No. No. This is wrong. 100% wrong."

I've read it over 4 or 5 time now, and can't find anything wrong. Only the last two sentences (maybe 40% or so) could even be in conention, so your assertion is nonsense to begin with. There's no point in even trying to disagree with any more than 40% of it. But it's a solid interpretation of scientific method. You haven't posted anything to refute it. You can say it's wrong as loud and often as you like, but that doesn't strengthen your argument.

> Thus far, TIGHAR has not attempted to falsify its hypothesis by
> looking elsewhere.

Where was Tom King sending those posts from just a few months ago? You remember, the site where they were digging up a purported grave? It wasn't Gardner Isl.!

> If tomorrow, it finds the Electra or a bone with Earhart's DNA on
> Nikumaroro, then they have provided compelling evidence in favor of
> their hypothesis. What possible reason could there be to continue to
> look elsewhere or otherwise falsify the hypothesis with such strong
> evidence? No reason at all. Falsification is not required.

My whole point is that a rigorous search on Niku *is* a legitimate test of the hypothesis, and it could eventually falsify the hypothesis. I am not criticizing Tighar's work or its hypothesis.

>> Today, archaeology and other historical sciences certainly do involve
>> hypothesis testing. For example, look at the detailed investigations
>> that tested (and appear to have confirmed) that Native Americans in
>> the 4-Corners area practiced cannibalism before European contact.
>>
> And what, may I ask, did they do to falsify this hypothesis?

They didn't falsify it. They tested it. They collected data that could have falsified the hypothesis if artifacts hadn't shown what they did show. Look up Christy Turner on amazon. The whole thing is still contentious, but Turner has made a strong case for his view, and it's now up to his opponents to show that he's wrong. So far, they have relied on arguments like "Turner is biased" and "No way that could have ever happened." To my knowledge, none of the counter arguments rely on any actual data.

> TIGHAR's work is extremely credible. Much more credible than others
> who have worked on this Earhart mystery, based upon my readings so
> far. And it will remain extremely credible even if they don't falsify
> their hypothesis as you claim they should.

I don't make any such claim. I claim they should test their hypothesis, as they are doing. But I agree with the rest of your paragraph.
Best,
-SW
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 24 Jul 2005 11:16:05
From:         Paige Miller
Subject:      Re: What's an hypothesis?

I'd like to correct and amplify something I wrote. (Gee, I hate it when I get something wrong)

> But your original statement is a mis-statement of the problem Ric is
> working on. No one cares if there *COULD* be 148 hoaxes. We care if
> even a single message is not a hoax, not a misunderstanding of a
> non-Earhart transmission, etc. Perhaps you should read Ric's posting
> in this forum on 12/6/2002 of some of the post-loss messages. Tell me
> how any one of these post-loss messages attributed to Earhart could be
> a hoax or a misunderstanding.

The message from Ric was written 12/5/2002, but since I receive the digest form of forum messages, I receive all of the messages the next day. That's why I had the wrong date there.

Specifically, Ric reports post-loss messages 05:55Z heard by Itasca and PAA Mokapu; and one heard at 06:04Z heard by both Itasca and Achilles. I would like someone to explain how these could be hoaxes, or even mis-understandings of other non-Earhart transmissions on Earhart's frequency. Who else out there is broadcasting these messages? Who else out there is even capable of transmitting voice on Earhart's (airplane) frequency? Itasca had to be specially fitted with a radio capable of voice transmission; I have no idea if Achilles could broadcast voice on those frequencies, and I can't imagine other ships in the area having such specialized equipment for no reason when there had never been airplanes in that area of the world.

But...the point I failed to make was that it isn't one single transmission or this group of two that has an extremely low probability of being a hoax and an extremely low probability of being a mis-identified transmission. I believe what Ric will try to show in his book is that there is a large pattern of such receptions, each with extremely low probabilities of being a hoax or mis-identified transmission. Thus, if there is indeed such a pattern beyond 1 or 2 messages, the probabilities that it is Earhart increase by orders of magnitude, while the probabilities that it is a hoax or mis-identification decrease by orders of magnitude.

--
Paige Miller #2565
LTM
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 24 Jul 2005 11:16:59
From:         Paige Miller
Subject:      Re: What's an hypothesis

First, Alan Caldwell asks of Scott White:

> Scott, could you give me an example of a practical test we could
> conduct that upon failure would disprove TIGHAR's hypothesis that the
> Electra flew to Gardner?

to which Scott White answers:

> That depends on what's "practical."
>
> Obviously, there's no simple, inexpensive experiment. If there were,
> someone would have done it years ago. In fact, I believe that Tighar
> would have done it.
>
> In my opinion, the best and most practical tests of Tighar's
> hypothesis are the ones Tighar does -- it goes to the island to look
> for evidence (all evidence, pro or con) and it rigorously works
> through every available shred of evidence to see where it leads. Maybe
> someday, one of these lines of evidence will lead unambiguously to AE.
> Or, maybe someday, after many expeditions and much sand-sifting,
> Tighar will announce that it has done it's damned best but has no
> choice except to conclude that there just isn't any unambiguous
> evidence to be found on Gardner Isl. Presumably, this conclusion
> wouldn't come until after Tighar has had a chance to look underwater
> on the surrounding seafloor.

This represents a major backtrack from what Scott wrote on 7 July 2005. Then he said "Science works by designing experiments to *refute* hypotheses." (emphasis in original). Now he says that TIGHAR needs to do its best to refute individual pieces of evidence (not the entire hypothesis). He also said on 7 July 2005 "If Tighar is willing to examine its hypothesis in scientific terms, then it must test it by attempting to falsify it." In this quote too, he is discussing falsifying hypotheses, not falsifying individual pieces of evidence.

If that's what you meant all along, that TIGHAR must do its best to refute individual pieces of evidence (as opposed to the entire hypothesis), then I would agree. And TIGHAR does this routinely, as far as I can see.

Furthermore, on 7 July 2005, Scott White said:

> If a thorough search of the island (and surrounding sea) turn up no
> such evidence, then the hypothesis should be abandoned.

but then in the large quote from Scott above, he says a different thing. He says that TIGHAR has to "conclude that there just isn't any unambiguous evidence", not quite the same thing as abandoning the hypothesis. Another backtrack.

--
Paige Miller #2565
LTM
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 24 Jul 2005 11:18:15
From:         Paige Miller
Subject:      Re: What's an hypothesis?

Scott White says:

> Is there some reason to think that none of them could have been
> involved in a juvenile prank?

There were no juveniles aboard Itasca or Achilles. The ordinary crewman aboard those ships did not have the knowledge to use the equipment to perpetrate a prank. Operators of the radio routinely log their transmissions. Ric has those logs.

> But, beyond that, you asked if there was even one single radio in the
> South Pacific at that time that was capable of making such hoaxes.
> There must have been dozens, just among the search teams. Do you
> believe that there wasn't even one single other radio anywhere within
> range capable of transmitting on those freqs?

What search teams (plural) are you talking about? During the time of the post-loss messages (July 2 1937 to approx July 6 1937), there was only one search team (singular). There was only one radio aboard Itasca capable of transmitting voice. When Itasca heard something that it thought was from AE, it is safe to say that the source of the transmission was not Itasca itself.

Perhaps Achilles could transmit voice on AEs frequencies, I don't know. The ordinary ship at sea in 1937 had no reason to have a radio that could transmit voice on airline frequencies. Why? Because there were almost no airplanes in the Pacific. Why? Because back then ships communicated in code, not voice. Why? Because the normal ship's radio back then could not transmit voice. A radio that communicated via voice would have been a useless device on most ships. Itasca had to be specifically outfitted with a special transmitter so they could communicate via voice with AE. Yes, I do believe that there wasn't even one other radio capable of transmitting voice on AEs frequencies (other than AE, Itasca and possibly Achilles). And I believe if you or anyone else wants to make an argument that there were other transmitters out there with voice capability on AEs frequency, you must first of all go back to 1937 and understand the "state of radio" and secondly show that there was indeed another transmitter in that area of the South Pacific. If your claim is that there was another radio capable of transmitting voice on those frequencies besides Itasca, AE and possibly Achilles, then it is also your responsibility to show who that was.

> Again, yes, I'm implying that it could have been (a ship or plane). Is
> there some reason to think that radio operators are incapable of
> error?

Another airplane out there in the middle of the Pacific between July 2 1937 and July 6 1937? Really? You must know something the rest of us don't know.

A ship with voice transmission capabilities on airline frequencies? There were most likely ships in the region. I think it is extremely unlikely (as I said above) that they would have such capabilities. And I would not be surprised if Ric has done the research on those few ships that were in that part of the Pacific to determine what their radio capabilities were.

As far as radio operators being incapable of error, I have to assume that if Ric has the logs and knows who is transmitting and when they are transmitting. If a possible post-loss message from AE is heard when no one is transmitting, then it cannot be a mis-identification. Ric's research will let us know. But here we come back to the pattern issue again ... single transmissions could be recorded in error. When there is a pattern of such transmissions, it is unlikely that they are all recorded in error. Again, Ric's research will let us know.

> Where was Tom King sending those posts from just a few months ago? You
> remember, the site where they were digging up a purported grave? It
> wasn't Gardner Isl.!

That was not a TIGHAR investigation. I believe (and someone correct me if I am wrong), Dr. King went as an observer because of his expertise in the field of archaeology. It was an investigation done by some other group trying to confirm their (non-TIGHAR) hypothesis.

> My whole point is that a rigorous search on Niku *is* a legitimate
> test of the hypothesis, and it could eventually falsify the
> hypothesis. I am not criticizing Tighar's work or its hypothesis.

And I would say it is a legitimate test of the hypothesis. It has nothing to do with eventually falsifying the hypothesis. I see no possible way that searching for artifacts could possibly falsify the hypothesis. The worst case scenario is that TIGHAR concludes that it cannot find evidence in favor. That is quite different than falsifying the hypothesis -- saying that TIGHAR hypothesis is false (which could happen for instance if the Nauticos search finds the airplane at the bottom of the sea floor)

Some people may think I am splitting hairs here, but I have spent my entire professional career testing scientific hypotheses. Concluding "there is no evidence to support a hypothesis" is not the same as concluding it is false.

Scott discusses an hypothesis about certain native Americans performing cannibalism:

> They didn't falsify it. They tested it.

Oh, I thought on 7 July 2005 the same Scott White said "Science works by designing experiments to *refute* hypotheses." He also said "If Tighar is willing to examine its hypothesis in scientific terms, then it must test it by attempting to falsify it." Note, he said "attempting to falsify it". Now, the scientific study of cannibalism among certain Native American that Scott cites approvingly did not falsify it, nor did they attempt to falsify it. "They tested it". And that of course is what I claim TIGHAR has been doing all along. TIGHAR is still doing science, despite not designing an experiment to *refute* the hypothesis, and despite not attempting to falsify it. TIGHAR has been testing its hypothesis.

Scott continues:

> They collected data that could have falsified the hypothesis if
> artifacts hadn't shown what they did show.

So if the study didn't find bones that show signs of cannibalism, is the hypothesis falsified? No. The study simply didn't show the evidence in favor; and there still might be bones out there which haven't been found that do show cannibalism. If TIGHAR can't find conclusive evidence on Nikumaroro, is the hypothesis falsified? No. It simply means they couldn't find the evidence. (If Nauticos finds the airplane on the bottom of the Pacific where Elgen Long said it was, THEN the hypothesis is falsified)

--
Paige Miller #2565
LTM
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 24 Jul 2005 13:32:01
From:         Jackie Tharp
Subject:      Re: What's an hypothesis?

Paige:  Your last three posts were EXCELLENT... I'm with you all the way...
Jackie #2440
======================================================================== 
Date:         Mon, 25 Jul 2005 07:44:54
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: What's a hypothesis

OK, Scott, I hereby take out the word "practical." Now give me the answer.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 26 Jul 2005 12:08:01
From:         Scott White
Subject:      Re: What's an hypothesis?

> From Alan Caldwell
>
> OK, Scott, I hereby take out the word "practical." Now give me the
> answer.

----
I have this bad feeling I'm being baited in here, but  . . . An impractical search for AE evidence that could falsify the Tighar hypothesis would be to search the sea floor throughout the South Pacific until eventually finding the plane, recovering it, and then analysing all evidence to be had. Maybe, the plane would be found somewhere near Niku Isl, and evidence in it would support the Tighar hypothesis. Or, maybe it would be found somewhere far far away with no evidence that AE and FN ever got out of it after landing on water and floating for a few hrs.
Best,
-SW
======================================================================== 
Date:         Tue, 26 Jul 2005 12:08:24
From:         Paige Miller
Subject:      Re: What's an hypothesis?

Alan Caldwell says:

> OK, Scott, I hereby take out the word "practical." Now give me the
> answer.

Good point, Alan. I was thinking the same thing myself and you beat me to it.

I think that since Scott has admitted that "there's no simple, inexpensive experiment", that pretty much means that TIGHAR doesn't really have to attempt to falsify its hypothesis, despite his earlier claim that TIGHAR did have to. But I'd still like to see his answer to Alan's amended question.

--
Paige Miller #2565
LTM
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 27 Jul 2005 09:46:57
From:         Scott White
Subject:      Re: What's an hypothesis?

Responding to two of Paige's points:

First, the various post-loss messages (e.g., the ones Ric posted on 5 Dec 02 [thanks for the correction, Paige]) -- Paige asks, who else but AE could have transmitted them? The short answer is: I don't know. But just because I don't know, that doesn't prove the messages came from AE. This is called an "argument from ignorance." The creationists and flying saucer people use it all the time. As in, "Nobody can explain how the Egyptians built the pyramids. Therefore, they must have had help from space aliens."

Beyond that, Ric's post confirms that there were at least three known radios in the South Pacific operating on 3105. QZ5 was broadcasting code trying to reach two other stations (planes?) called KACA and KWCR. Whether any of these three stations could also broadcast voice on that freq. is unknown. Also, the Achilles reception logged at 0600 could easily be a slightly garbled wording of the similar Itasca broadcast at the same time.

I too prefer to believe that nobody, especially someone involved in the search, would have hoaxed the searchers. But I'm not willing to rule the possiblity out based on what I know right now. I'm pretty sure that the Itasca and other ships in the region were staffed by young men. As a male myself, I can say with confidence that these guys were fully capable of juvenile pranks. Barry Williams, who edits the Australian Skeptic magazine, says "there are no adults under 35, and precious few under 50."

I still believe that (1) at least one of the messages -could- have been a hoax, and (2), if one is possible, then hundreds or even thousands also are possible. Ric will be publishing enough real data and real analysis about all this in the near future. I don't want to argue any more about hypothetical hoaxes. Right now, Ric knows more about this than anyone else and I'm more than willing to wait and read what he has to say about it. If he believes that some of them, none of them, or all of them were hoaxes, he will explain why in the book. We'll all have our opportunity to comment.

Second, on falsification in science, and my waffling, Paige wrote:

> Oh, I thought on 7 July 2005 the same Scott White said "Science works
> by designing experiments to *refute* hypotheses." He also said "If
> Tighar is willing to examine its hypothesis in scientific terms, then
> it must test it by attempting to falsify it." Note, he said
> "attempting to falsify it". Now, the scientific study of cannibalism
> among certain Native American that Scott cites approvingly did not
> falsify it, nor did they attempt to falsify it. "They tested it". And
> that of course is what I claim TIGHAR has been doing all along. TIGHAR
> is still doing science, despite not designing an experiment to
> *refute* the hypothesis, and despite not attempting to falsify it.
> TIGHAR has been testing its hypothesis.

For what it's worth, I followed up on that already, with the following quote:

> "Part of our misunderstanding may be in semantics. If I said that the
> experimenter needs to "try" to disprove they hypothesis, maybe I
> should have worded it differently. Obviously, the experimenter will
> hope that his/her hypothesis is affirmed. But s/he still must subject
> the hypothesis to a test which, if it fails, would disprove (falsify)
> it. Where there is a hypothesis involved, anything less would not be
> science."

Paige said this was 100% wrong, but I'm not sure she read it.

Just for what it's worth, "falsification" is similar to "proof." Paige is right -- there is no point at which searching for data without finding it can absolutely refute a hypothesis. Strict "falsification" is an unattainable absolute. Same as "proof" (as others have pointed out here, even if the plane is found on the island, with AE and FN's remains and campsite nearby, it won't prove the Tighar hypothesis absolutely). But there must be some point at which so much effort has been put into searching the island and adjacent sea floor that virtually all investigators would conclude that -if- any evidence were there, it would have been found. At that point, I would consider the hypothesis refuted from a practical (but not absolute) point of view. I don't know where to draw that line. Still, a meaningful test of a hypothesis is that -could- falsify it (with caveats above).

Paige seems to be arguing for an absolute interpretation on the hoaxes (the messages weren't hoaxes; crew members wouldn't commit pranks; there were no radios around that could have done it . . .) and arguing against an absolutist view of falsification. She has convinced me to be more careful about the f word and its unintended baggage. As someone said on the radio a few months ago, "Where I come from, when the facts prove us wrong, we change our minds. What do you do?"

Anyway, it's probably time to wind this down an let it fizzle out.
Best,
-SW
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 27 Jul 2005 09:49:22
From:         Scott White
Subject:      Re: What's an hypothesis?

>From Paige Miller
>
> I think that since Scott has admitted that "there's no simple,
> inexpensive experiment", that pretty much means that TIGHAR doesn't
> really have to attempt to falsify its hypothesis, despite his earlier
> claim that TIGHAR did have to. But I'd still like to see his answer  
> to Alan's amended question.

WTF? Admitted to what?

We've been around three times on the rest of this Paige, and I've replied to a fourth one this evening. I've repeatedly clarified your mischaracterization of my view, and you've read them and pasted them into your replies. Yet you keep attacking this straw-man you invented using words I corrected days ago, wrapped up inside your own fabriction of my views. Yes, I said that "Tighar should attempt to falsify its hypothesis," and that was an overstatement. You've read my clarification. You know damned well that I've never said Tighar should be doing anything other than what it's already doing. If you have an honest interest in understanding anything I've written, then say so. Otherwise, just drop it. -SW

********************************************

Gentlemen, gentlemen, I think the heat has gone to all our heads (98¡ and 95% humidity today here in Delaware). Let's read for comprehension, give the benefit of the doubt, and chill.

Pat
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 27 Jul 2005 09:49:48
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: What's an hypothesis?

Scott, of course I was baiting you but I knew you would see that. All in  fun as I know there was no real answer to that. Keep up the good work but recognize you'll be tested now and then as all of us have been and will as long  as we are on the Forum.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 27 Jul 2005 09:50:27
From:         Gary LaPook
Subject:      Re: The professor and the navigator -- Noon fix

>From Jack Clark
>
> Gary I knew I had seen another reference to noon sights from an
> aircraft apart from the Mattingly ref. I have finally tracked it down.
> It is in a posting by Ron Reuther dated 25/Feb/2003  and titled Fred
> Noonan and PAA navigation techniques. It quotes from a book titled 
> "Flying the Oceans" by Horace Brock. Brock was a PAA pilot in the 
> pacific circa 1937.       It states, in part,"During the middle of the 
> day sun-sights gave us good checks on our latitude,...." which is what 
> I suggest Fred did to obtain the position which AE eventually 
> reported. Brock also states " The navigating techniques we used had 
> been set up by Noonan after consultation with Harold Gatty...."

I don't doubt that Noonan could use sights taken before noon and after noon to obtain a fix (not just a latitude) near the time of LAN (Local Apparent Noon.) What I took issue with in the previous posts is the technique used to obtain such a fix. He would not have used the "noon latitude" sight which was used by old time marine navigators, which had been advocated, and I think I explained why this was so in my previous posts. My recent post of 7/20/05 showing how one could compute the time of "noon" based on the assumed ground speed also illustrates why this old fashioned technique doesn't work in a speeding aircraft. The time of "noon" varies with the assumed ground speed and any misestimate of that ground speed would throw off the scheduled time to shoot the sun for an exactly "noon" shot.

The technique actually used is to take a shot sometime before an estimate of noon when the azimuth of the sun is far enough away from straight north so that it will provide an acceptable "cut" for a sight taken about the same amount of time after the estimate of noon (it doesn't have to be exactly the same amount of time before and after). Using my numbers from my  7/20/05 post and assuming a ground speed of 90K eastward along the 7¡ south parallel, we could estimate that noon would occur at 0202 Z at a longitude of 150¡ 08' E. If a sight were taken an hour earlier at 0102 Z at approximately 148¡ 37' E the azimuth of the sun would have been 028¡. A sight taken one hour after noon at 0302 Z and at approximately 151¡ 37' E would have an azimuth to the sun of 333¡, a difference, or "cut", of 55¡. Though this is not the perfect 90¡ "cut" is is perfectly adequate for an accurate running fix. Sights taken only 30 minutes before and after noon would provide a cut of 29¡ which is also good enough for a running fix but with a greater uncertainty than the first example.

Noonan could have then advanced the earlier LOP to the time of the later LOP and produced a running fix for the time of the later LOP. He could also have advanced the first LOP and also retarded the later LOP to a common time sometime between the times of the two sights and produced a running fix for that intermediate time. These are called "running fixes" because the two LOPs are not obtained at the same instant of time. In fact, all celestial fixes shot from an airplane are actually running fixes because of the time interval between sights and the fact that the airplane has moved a considerable distance during that period. In marine navigation the movement of the ship during the period between taking two celestial shots is so small that it can be ignored and the ship can be considered stationary but the movement of the airplane during the same period must be corrected for by advancing the earlier LOP in the direction of movement of the plane and for the distance covered between the shots. Since  any error in the dead reckoning of course and ground speed will effect how the earlier LOP is moved, a running fix's accuracy decreases over time at the rate of uncertainty in the DR. For example, at 120K ground speed an airplane will move 8 NM in the standard four minute period between airborne celestial shots. If the DR uncertainty is taken to be 10% of the distance flown then the fix accuracy is degraded about .8 NM for a normal celestial fix. If the airplane is a B52 flying at 450 K then the distance covered is 30 NM and the loss of accuracy is 3 NM, close enough for government work. For a running fix with the sights taken about 30 minutes before and after an estimate of noon, a one hour period, at a ground speed of 120 K the plane covers 120 NM in the period and the accuracy of the running fix degrades by 12 NM, still plenty good. For a two hour period it would increase to 24 NM, not real good but better than nothing.

So, it is possible that a 7¡ 03' S, 150¡ 07 E fix was obtained this way (note is is midday fix not just a latitude.). But this would imply the the plane had only averaged 90 K for the first two hours, which seems kinda slow and there is still the question of why this was not reported until 0519 Z. Contrary to another post, ships did not report their noon positions to anybody (they still don't unless part of the voluntary AMVER system) so there is no reason to believe that Noonan was attempting to pass this old position report at 0519 Z. Also, since they never received any acknowledgment for their other reports, they transmitted "in the blind", they would not have known that an earlier report of the same fix had not been received so would have had no reason to repeat it at the later time.

Gary LaPook
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 27 Jul 2005 11:51:54
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: The professor and the navigator -- Noon fix

My only question is why would anyone heading East need to check his latitude?

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 27 Jul 2005 13:52:55
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      Re: The professor and the navigator -- Noon fix

Alan Caldwell wrote :

> My only question is why would anyone heading East need to check his
> latitude?

Alan,

Anyone navigating will usually need to know latitude AND longitude to determine his position.
LTM
======================================================================== 
Date:         Wed, 27 Jul 2005 13:53:33
From:         Gary LaPook
Subject:      Re: The professor and the navigator -- Noon fix

Of course, heading east and tracking east may be two different things depending on winds and the resultant drift. The navigator would like to ensure that he is actually tracking east by obtaining a fix. The running fix also gives longitude for a ground speed check.

Gary LaPook

> From Alan Caldwell
>
> My only question is why would anyone heading East need to check his
> latitude?
>
> Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 28 Jul 2005 08:53:59
From:         Scott White
Subject:      Re: What's an hypothesis?

> From Alan Caldwell
>
> Scott, of course I was baiting you but I knew you would see that. All
> in  fun
> as I know there was no real answer to that. Keep up the good work but
> recognize you'll be tested now and then as all of us have been and
> will as long  as
> we are on the Forum.

Pat,
Ok. Chillin' in the cool 95 deg. So. Calif. icebox. We had a few days last week in the 102-104 range, with humidity unusually high for us, probably nothing like Delaware. Then we got a good thunderstorm Sunday afternoon, and it's been bearable ever since.

Best,
-SW
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 28 Jul 2005 08:55:07
From:         Jack Clark
Subject:      Re: The Professor and the Navigator--Noon Fix

Gary, Thanks very much for all your explanations of navigation techniques. I don't think it matters what method was used to obtain a noon position. My original suggestion was that the position given was a  noon sighting and not the result of a garbled /misunderstood message. I went with the noon sun shot method as I understand it gives a very accurate latitude and the sun I think would be the only celestial body available.   If I am wrong in proposing a noon sun shot then I have to accept that. As I have mentioned before a longitude would be advanced from a previous known position, in this case possibly Lae, to give a running fix. I did not mean to suggest FN would only obtain a latitude.

I think I have shown that there is a method for taking a meridian passage sighting from an aircraft and that FN was accustomed to takeing midday sightings (when with Pan Am) so why would he not do so now when he had to establish his position in order to get back on a direct course for Howland ?

Gary,  I don't think I can add anything further to what I have already said to support my suggestion explaining the apparent garbled report.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 28 Jul 2005 15:24:04
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      So, What's New?

Now that Scott and Paige have kissed and made-up, and Alan is sitting contentedly on the side lines, let's change the subject(s).  The only two topics that are ABSOLTUELY forbidden are navigation and post-loss signals.  A close second would be radio wave propagation.

How about a contest for the best haggis recipe?  You know, tofu haggis, veggie haggis, low-carb haggis, etc. etc.

LTM, who's suffering from heat stroke

Dennis O. McGee #0149EC
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 28 Jul 2005 15:58:51
From:         Ted Campbell
Subject:      Re: So, what's new?

Dennis is right, let's change the subject.

We all know that Ric is tied up with the book, but what else is going on. Hopefully, other matters move ahead e.g. the dado analysis, planning the next vacation to Niku, continued fund raising, etc.

Would you give us all a brief recap of what is in the works on this AE project.

Thanks.

*****************************************

Other stuff is going on. I'll be in a better position to give a position report after our EPAC conference the weekend of 12-14 August, and will do so. Lots of individual threads will come together then and we may be able to figure out where we're going <G>.

Pat
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 28 Jul 2005 16:19:29
From:         Dan Postellon

I understand that in Scotland last year, curry haggis and hot pepper haggis were popular.

Dan Postellon  TIGHAR#2263
**********************************

Well, I saw Vegetarian haggis with my own eyes. Seems like a contradiction in terms....

P
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 28 Jul 2005 22:05:07
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      Re: What's New?

Pat,

You end your last message saying: "... and we may figure out where we are going". I hope we don't have to take that too literally? It could have been said by Amelia Earhart.

Herman

****************************************

Well, no, not *too* literally. It's more a matter of  collecting and collating position reports.

P
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 28 Jul 2005 22:06:04
From:         Gary LaPook
Subject:      Re: The Professor and the Navigator--Noon Fix

>From  Jack Clark.
>
> Gary, Thanks very much for all your explanations of navigation 
> techniques. I don't think it matters what method was used to obtain a 
> noon position. My original suggestion was that the position given was 
> a noon sighting and not the result of a garbled /misunderstood 
> message. I went with the noon sun shot method as I understand it gives 
> a very accurate latitude and the sun I think would be the only 
> celestial body available.   If I am wrong in proposing a noon sun shot 
> then I have to accept that. As I have mentioned before a longitude 
> would be advanced from a previous known position, in this case 
> possibly Lae, to give a running fix. I did not mean to suggest FN 
> would only obtain a latitude.

If he could advance his longitude from Lae then he could also advance his latitude, this is what is meant by dead reckoning. There is a limit on how far you can advance a LOP and still call the result a running fix  since the accuracy decreases as the distance increases.

Interestingly enough, if the position report was for  7¡ 03' S, 150¡ 07' E and  about 0200 Z this would mean that it was a position only about 200 NM from Lae. Using the standard estimate of  uncertainty of 10% of the distance flown, then this could be a DR position with only a 20 NM uncertainty, about the same as a running fix would have based on two sun lines as I described in my previous post. Since a normal airborne celestial fix is assumed to have about a 10 NM uncertainty, a DR position is going to be more accurate for the first 100 NM of any flight. After that, the celestial fix will have greater accuracy.

As I pointed out before, I don't disagree with you that that position could have been derived from a running sunline midday fix or it could have been a DR position. The only problem, as I pointed out, is that it would require a 90 K ground speed  and an explanation as to why it wasn't transmitted until 0519 Z.

Gary LaPook=
======================================================================== 
Date:         Thu, 28 Jul 2005 22:16:14
From:         Kerry Tiller
Subject:      Re: Veggie Haggis

Pat says:

> Well, I saw Vegetarian haggis with my own eyes. Seems like a
> contradiction in terms..

Maybe not. Doesn't the viscera and the stomach it's prepared in come from an herbivore? You know, like a sheep or a young bovine?

I don't know, Dennis, maybe we should try a different off-topic subject...........Hey,  Wombat, isn't it Barbie time in Australia? Oh, no, that's right, you guys do your seasons backwards. You must be the only one not suffering from the heat.

Kerry Tiller

****************************************

Sheep innards, actually. Don't get me started. Ric actually LIKES the
stuff.

P
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 29 Jul 2005 10:22:49
From:         Alfred Hendrickson
Subject:      Haggis

Gary, you are waaaay off-topic, man.

LTM, who liked green haggis and ham,

Alfred 2583
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 29 Jul 2005 10:24:00
From:         Chuck Buzbee
Subject:      Octant/sextant

To any and all:

Some time back I read that FN acquired a new or at least another octant just before the last flight. The box found on Gardner is referred to as a sextant box. Does anybody have the scoop on this.

Also, somewhere in the olden days, there was mention of a Dayton Mark VII computer. If there is still any interest in this, I have one in excellent condition.

Chuck Buzbee

**************************************************

http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Bulletins/12_Sextantbox/12_Sextantbox.html
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 29 Jul 2005 10:24:25
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: The professor and the navigator -- Noon fix

Herman you missed my point. Anyone heading east should know his latitude.  It doesn't change.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 29 Jul 2005 10:24:58
From:         Alan Caldwell
Subject:      Re: The professor and the navigator -- Noon fix

I was being facetious, Gary, but Noonan wasn't one for making frequent or small corrections. So the little change in latitude over that short distance may not have been all that important to him. Maybe.

Alan
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 29 Jul 2005 10:25:29
From:         Jack Clark
Subject:      Re: The Professor and the Navigator--Noon Fix

I agree 90k does seem a bit slow for G/S although they had  a grossly overloaded aircraft and were climbing. Also of course we don't know what winds they encounterd. I can offer no explanation as to why the position report was not transmitted until 0519Z. It is possible they tried to report the position during the 0418Z report a much more appropiate time to do so.

Jack Clark.   #2564.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 29 Jul 2005 11:05:17
From:         Don Jordan
Subject:      Re: The professor and the navigator -- Noon fix

I would think it does if you have an unknown cross-wind!  Or don't hold your intended heading as well as you think you are!

Don
Cal City, CA

> From Alan Caldwell
>
> Herman you missed my point. Anyone heading east should know his
> latitude.  It doesn't change.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 29 Jul 2005 11:08:46
From:         Dennis McGee
Subject:      Haggis!

Pat said:

> Sheep innards, actually. Don't get me started. Ric actually
> LIKES the stuff.

Eeeeewwww!!!!

LTM, who just lost her breakfast
Dennis O. McGee #0149EC
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 29 Jul 2005 11:45:46
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Re: Haggis!

<<Ric actually LIKES the stuff.>>

Ric actually isn't the only one.  It's one of our rare points of agreement. We haven't been able to find it on Niku, however.

LTM, who, like Gerald Gallagher, is catholic in her  tastes
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 29 Jul 2005 12:59:23
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      Re: Haggis

I don't know what haggis is. I know that it is popular in the UK. I also know that one Lord Robertson, who was Secretary-General of NATO at that time, invited President Chirac of France to breakfast to talk things over. Chirac still talks about that "horrible culinary experience", as he put it. Ever since he dislikes all things British... It must have been a horrible experience indeed.

LTM

*********************************************

Lady Login's Receipt for Haggis, 1856

          1 cleaned sheep or lamb's stomach bag
          2 lb. dry oatmeal
          1 lb chopped mutton suet
          1 lb lamb's or deer's liver, boiled and minced
          1 pint (2 cups) stock
          the heart and lights [lungs] of the sheep, boiled and minced
          1 large chopped onion
          1/2 tsp.. each: cayenne pepper, Jamaica pepper, salt and pepper

Toast the oatmeal slowly until it is crisp, then mix all the ingredients (except the stomach bag) together, and add the stock. Fill the bag just over half full, press out the air and sew up securely. Have ready a large pot of boiling water, prick the haggis all over with a large needle so it does not burst and boil slowly for 4 to 5 hours. Serves 12.

Sorry you asked?

P
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 29 Jul 2005 12:59:48
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      Re: The professor and the navigator -- Noon fix

Alan,

You are right. However, heading east means flying 090 degrees. Anything different (e.g. flying 085 degrees or  095 degrees) is still "heading east" but it implies one will  gradually deviate north or south of his latitude.

LTM
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 29 Jul 2005 13:00:12
From:         Herman De Wulf
Subject:      Re: The Professor and the Navigator--Noon Fix

90 knots seems very slow indeed. According to one pilot I know who flew a Lockheed 10, cruising speed of the Lockheed Electra is 150 mph, which is 130 knots.

LTM
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 29 Jul 2005 21:45:28
From:         Monty Fowler
Subject:      Well, that explains EVERYTHING

Ric actually likes haggis??? Well, thanks for shattering all my illusions of a calm, insightful, rational leader ... can I have my money back?

LTM, who DOES admit to liking Vegemite,
Monty Fowler, #2189
======================================================================== 
Date:         Fri, 29 Jul 2005 22:32:22
From:         Kerry Tiller
Subject:      Re: Haggis

<snip recipe for haggis, ending in "serves 12."

Uh, serves 12 what?

Kerry Tiller

************************************

12 people with stronger stomachs than I.

P
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 30 Jul 2005 10:27:47
From:         Chuck Buzbee
Subject:      Re: Haggis

I read somewhere that AE and FN had a meal of haggis just before they took off. Probably explanes why they never got to Howland.

Chuck B.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 30 Jul 2005 10:29:49
From:         Tom King
Subject:      Wikipedia

As a matter of curiosity, does anyone know who's responsible for the several entries on the Phoenix Islands, Nikumaroro, Gerald Gallagher, and such in Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.  See, for instance,

_http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Gallagher_
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Gallagher)

They're quite good.  I suppose there's a way to figure out who's writing  them, but I'm not well enough versed in the ways of Wikipedia to figure it out.
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 30 Jul 2005 12:35:17
From:         Dan Postellon
Subject:      Re: Haggis

The scrapple you can probably get in Delaware can't be any worse than haggis.   Dan Postellon

**************************************

Scrapple is a very Philadelphia thing, more than Delaware. It's made from miscellaneous parts of a pig, rather than sheep, and thickened with cornmeal rather than oatmeal. Otherwise, same difference. --- Oh, it's formed into a loaf rather than being stuffed into a stomach and boiled. You slice off chunks and fry it up in bacon drippings.

Actually, it sounds more Southren than anything -- but I never heard of it before I moved up here from Virginia.

Pat, who seems to be learning more than she wants to know about this stuff right now......
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 30 Jul 2005 19:10:02
From:         Tim Smith
Subject:      Re: Haggis becoming scrapple

OK, I've tried to stay out of the haggis thread, but now that we're even further OT with scrapple....

Scrapple is a Pennsylvania Dutch concoction.  It got to Philly by reverse osmosis. The name comes, obviously, from "scraps" meaning, in this case, whatever is left over from butchering a hog that is not roasts, bacon, ham, etc.  Just another German efficiency in using everything.  It keeps well if the loaf is covered with a layer of lard, so it is more of a winter treat, at least traditionally.  Now days, you can get it in the grocery stores around here all year.  I even saw some canned scrapple at a gourmet shop in Alaska once.  The center of the scrapple universe is Lancaster County but it is widely relished in Berks, Chester, and York County (where I live). It is known but less popular in surrounding counties to the east, north, and west. It is largely unheard of south of the Mason-Dixon Line (it should be called the scrapple v. grits line).

We don't raise many sheep around here so we don't have something as cool as haggis.  However, we have "hog maw" which is potatoes, turnips, and sausage (or whatever meat you have) stuffed into a hog stomach and roasted.  YUM!

Tim Smith
1142 CE
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 30 Jul 2005 19:14:36
From:         Karen Hoy
Subject:      Re: Wikipedia

I don't know who wrote the Wikipedia articles, but Fred Noonan's contains at least two inaccuracies:

Joseph Noonan was born in 1861, not 1865, according to the 1900 Census.

In the same Census, Joseph, not Fred, was living alone in a Chicago boardinghouse. I've never found Fred Noonan in the 1900 Census.

And I always thought it was "Bosun's Mate." Wikipedia wrote "Boson."

LTM (who always checks details)

Karen Hoy, #2610
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 30 Jul 2005 19:16:08
From:         Pat Thrasher
Subject:      Re: Wikipedia

The author of the mentioned articles, and the one on Fred Noonan and most of the one on Earhart is a TIGHAR member who wishes to remain anonymous. He has been in touch, and is a member of the Forum. Anything posted here will get to him.

Pat
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sat, 30 Jul 2005 21:46:51
From:         Gary Fajack
Subject:      Re: Haggis becoming scrapple

The only Haggis I like is "Bad Haggis", a rock group in so. Cal that's headed by a bag pipe player.

LTM who knows good music.

**************************************************

Ummmmmmmmm......... does anyone want to talk about Amelia Earhart?
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 31 Jul 2005 09:01:29
From:         Dave Carter
Subject:      Re: Wikipedia

Actually, it's "bos'un/bo's'ons/bo'sun/boson mate ," an abbreviation of "boatswain's mate" Etymology: Middle English bootswein, from boot boat + swein boy, servant -- more at SWAIN 1 : a petty officer on a merchant ship having charge of hull maintenance and related work 2 : a naval warrant officer in charge of the hull and all related equipment

Hope this helps:)

Dave Carter
2585
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 31 Jul 2005 09:02:08
From:         Dave Carter
Subject:      Re: Haggis becoming scrapple

The only thing I can interject in the conversation is to mention that haggis is a fabulous dish... especially from those partially inebriated from mead or "quality" Scotch whisky... And to this I can only speak as a fan of haggis from my misspent youth as a lad while serving in the US Navy for years in Holy Loch, Scotland... For those to be exacting in your quest, my residence was "#4 Greenwood Flats, Dunoon, Argyll, Scotland... PA23_8HD (postal code)

Although, I must say that the finest deep-fried pizza in the UK is to be had at Anselmo's Fish & Chips Shop... Not to mention fish & chips... it was even mentioned on the BBC...

LTM (who knew Anselmo's was right across William St. from the Cinema)
Dave
2585
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 31 Jul 2005 09:05:59
From:         Scott White
Subject:      Re: Haggis becoming scrapple

> From Tim Smith
>
> Scrapple is a Pennsylvania Dutch concoction.  It got to Philly by
> reverse osmosis. The name comes, obviously, from "scraps" meaning, in
> this case, whatever is left over from butchering a hog that is not
> roasts, bacon, ham, etc.

----

I thought civilized people world-wide made sausage out of that stuff. When it's all ground up and seasoned and stuffed into a tube (the origins of which we need not mention), at least it's not recognizable.
Best,
-SW
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 31 Jul 2005 09:49:06
From:         Suzanne Astorino
Subject:      Re: Wikipedia

Wikipedia is written by the general public.  Anybody registered user (it's free) can edit any page, or add any page.  To see the most recent revisions, you click on the "history" tab at the top of the page.

You can also see all the previous versions, and compare any two versions.

It appears that the main contributor for the Gerald Gallagher page is the user who goes by the name of "Wyss."

He has a user page here;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Wyss
======================================================================== 
Date:         Sun, 31 Jul 2005 11:50:21
From:         Bill Leary
Subject:      Re: Wikipedia

> Wikipedia is written by the general public.  Anybody registered user
> (it's free) can edit any page, or add any page.

I'm not registered, but I've edited (made minor corrections to) several pages.

> To see the most recent
> revisions, you click on the "history" tab at the top of the page.

Thanks.  I missed that.

And I see it recorded me by the IP address I happened to have at that moment.

      - Bill