Advanced search  
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10   Go Down

Author Topic: The most perplexing issues  (Read 157729 times)

gail underwood

  • T1
  • *
  • Posts: 2
The most perplexing issues
« on: July 01, 2013, 10:06:42 PM »

I've been a regular reader of this forum for some time, but have just finally gotten around to registering so that I can participate. What prompted me was the in-depth article in The New Republic about Amelia Earhart and the work by TIGHAR and others to solve the mystery of her disappearance (http://tinyurl.com/lqyxaz4). The article does a good job of summarising some of the more perplexing issues, as follows:

1. "Nikumaroro lies some 350 miles southeast of Howland Island. In order to reach it, Earhart would have had to cover that distance, on top of the nearly 2,556 miles she had already flown from New Guinea in pursuit of Howland. But about an hour before breaking off contact, Earhart had clearly stated that gas was running low. Gillespie argues that Earhart meant she was beginning to burn into her reserve tank, in which case she would have had four or five hours of flying time left. Gillespie’s estimation that Earhart’s plane could have that much fuel left is based on ideal flight conditions, however, and Jourdan reminded me that there are several indications that Earhart’s flight was far from ideal. 'One of the major factors is that she was facing severe headwinds,' says Jourdan. 'They were 20, 25 miles an hour pretty much the whole way.' ”

The question this raises is that, if she knew she was burning fuel at a higher rate than planned, why didn't she abort the flight before it was too late? Surely she would have been doing the calculations necessary to determine where she stood in terms of fuel.

2. "Earhart was also reported to be south of her planned flight path and flying at high altitude quite early in her flight. 'What that meant is that there was a storm and she diverted around it,' Jourdan explained—a diversion that forced Earhart to gain altitude quickly and burn extra fuel in the process. An independent fuel analysis of Earhart’s flight that Jourdan commissioned from a mechanical-engineering professor at the California Institute of Technology validated Jourdan’s belief that Earhart ran out of fuel around the time of her last radio transmission."

Here's a kml file for Google Earth which shows her planned flight path and the actual flight path: http://tinyurl.com/mp54cgs. Is a copy of the chart Noonan used for navigation available anywhere?

3. "Earhart told the Itasca she was flying 'north and south' along the line—indicating that she was searching for Howland, not flying south for Nikumaroro."

I tend to agree that at the time of that transmission, she and Noonan were looking for Howland. However, the decision would have had to have been made immediately thereafter to head for Gardner Island. But in their frame of mind, being that they thought they were near Howland but couldn't see it, would they be inclined to risk everything by looking for a more distant island with very little fuel left? Particularly if they had a sense that Noonan's chart was wrong? Successfully reaching Gardner Island would require that their navigation be spot on, and surely they would have known that. Could they have had more confidence in reaching Gardner than in finding Howland?

4. "All the radio operators recall the increasing panic and distress in Earhart’s voice following her report that she was running low on fuel."

Seems to indicate that she was still looking for Howland at this point and panicking.

5. "If she did change her mind and decide to fly south and crash land on Nikumaroro, why didn’t she radio her intentions?"

This is the issue that perplexes me the most. There are two possibilities: (a) they were heading north on the LOP and then decided to head south where they're odds of finding a place to land were greater; or (b) they were flying south on the LOP looking for Howland and stumbled upon Gardner Island, instead. If (a), then why not inform Itasca of the change in plan? Would they make a conscious decision about it and then keep it to themselves? If (b), then why not inform Itasca that the flight turns out to have been off course and, in fact, you don't know where the heck you are? Why wait until after you've landed (judging by Betty's notes)? I would imagine that the sight of Gardner would have prompted at least a sigh of relief and a message to Itasca but, of course, that's just speculation. Perhaps, because of cloud shadows, they didn't recognise Gardner until they were right over it, at which point she would have been intensely focused on finding a place to land. But it seems reasonable to assume that the bright blue lagoon would have been obvious in advance, giving her time to radio information regarding her new circumstances.

6. "When Navy pilots flew over Nikumaroro a week later, why didn’t they see wreckage from the plane or any other evidence that Earhart and Noonan were there?"

I understand that the only land-able part of the reef flat is at the edge, where it is smooth, so it's easy to accept that the plane could have been pulled by the tide over the edge within a week. And signs of recent habitation on Gardner Island were noted during the search. It has been speculated that these signs could have been piles of vegetation that looked like markers, but could have been produced for the purpose of sending up smoke signals, and that the castaways were caught unprepared and inland, unable to signal the pilot from within the dense vegetation. My problem with this is that it requires that both Earhart and Noonan be unavailable, if Noonan was still alive. If he was still alive, then wouldn't common sense dictate that at least one person would always be on the beach in case a ship or plane were to arrive? Of course, I know there are other possibilities, but I try to start with the simplest, most common sensical explanation.

I know these are all woulda, coulda, shouldas, and I'm sure none of them are new to this forum. In the end, there's the sonar anomaly, investigation of which, I hope, will completely dispel these issues and open up entirely new avenues for investigation.
Logged

Lloyd Manley

  • T1
  • *
  • Posts: 29
Re: The most perplexing issues
« Reply #1 on: July 02, 2013, 12:18:18 AM »

I've been a regular reader of this forum for some time, but have just finally gotten around to registering so that I can participate. What prompted me was the in-depth article in The New Republic about Amelia Earhart and the work by TIGHAR and others to solve the mystery of her disappearance (http://tinyurl.com/lqyxaz4). The article does a good job of summarising some of the more perplexing issues, as follows:

1. "Nikumaroro lies some 350 miles southeast of Howland Island. In order to reach it, Earhart would have had to cover that distance, on top of the nearly 2,556 miles she had already flown from New Guinea in pursuit of Howland. But about an hour before breaking off contact, Earhart had clearly stated that gas was running low. Gillespie argues that Earhart meant she was beginning to burn into her reserve tank, in which case she would have had four or five hours of flying time left. Gillespie’s estimation that Earhart’s plane could have that much fuel left is based on ideal flight conditions, however, and Jourdan reminded me that there are several indications that Earhart’s flight was far from ideal. 'One of the major factors is that she was facing severe headwinds,' says Jourdan. 'They were 20, 25 miles an hour pretty much the whole way.' ”

The question this raises is that, if she knew she was burning fuel at a higher rate than planned, why didn't she abort the flight before it was too late? Surely she would have been doing the calculations necessary to determine where she stood in terms of fuel.

2. "Earhart was also reported to be south of her planned flight path and flying at high altitude quite early in her flight. 'What that meant is that there was a storm and she diverted around it,' Jourdan explained—a diversion that forced Earhart to gain altitude quickly and burn extra fuel in the process. An independent fuel analysis of Earhart’s flight that Jourdan commissioned from a mechanical-engineering professor at the California Institute of Technology validated Jourdan’s belief that Earhart ran out of fuel around the time of her last radio transmission."

Here's a kml file for Google Earth which shows her planned flight path and the actual flight path: http://tinyurl.com/mp54cgs. Is a copy of the chart Noonan used for navigation available anywhere?

3. "Earhart told the Itasca she was flying 'north and south' along the line—indicating that she was searching for Howland, not flying south for Nikumaroro."

I tend to agree that at the time of that transmission, she and Noonan were looking for Howland. However, the decision would have had to have been made immediately thereafter to head for Gardner Island. But in their frame of mind, being that they thought they were near Howland but couldn't see it, would they be inclined to risk everything by looking for a more distant island with very little fuel left? Particularly if they had a sense that Noonan's chart was wrong? Successfully reaching Gardner Island would require that their navigation be spot on, and surely they would have known that. Could they have had more confidence in reaching Gardner than in finding Howland?

4. "All the radio operators recall the increasing panic and distress in Earhart’s voice following her report that she was running low on fuel."

Seems to indicate that she was still looking for Howland at this point and panicking.

5. "If she did change her mind and decide to fly south and crash land on Nikumaroro, why didn’t she radio her intentions?"

This is the issue that perplexes me the most. There are two possibilities: (a) they were heading north on the LOP and then decided to head south where they're odds of finding a place to land were greater; or (b) they were flying south on the LOP looking for Howland and stumbled upon Gardner Island, instead. If (a), then why not inform Itasca of the change in plan? Would they make a conscious decision about it and then keep it to themselves? If (b), then why not inform Itasca that the flight turns out to have been off course and, in fact, you don't know where the heck you are? Why wait until after you've landed (judging by Betty's notes)? I would imagine that the sight of Gardner would have prompted at least a sigh of relief and a message to Itasca but, of course, that's just speculation. Perhaps, because of cloud shadows, they didn't recognise Gardner until they were right over it, at which point she would have been intensely focused on finding a place to land. But it seems reasonable to assume that the bright blue lagoon would have been obvious in advance, giving her time to radio information regarding her new circumstances.

6. "When Navy pilots flew over Nikumaroro a week later, why didn’t they see wreckage from the plane or any other evidence that Earhart and Noonan were there?"

I understand that the only land-able part of the reef flat is at the edge, where it is smooth, so it's easy to accept that the plane could have been pulled by the tide over the edge within a week. And signs of recent habitation on Gardner Island were noted during the search. It has been speculated that these signs could have been piles of vegetation that looked like markers, but could have been produced for the purpose of sending up smoke signals, and that the castaways were caught unprepared and inland, unable to signal the pilot from within the dense vegetation. My problem with this is that it requires that both Earhart and Noonan be unavailable, if Noonan was still alive. If he was still alive, then wouldn't common sense dictate that at least one person would always be on the beach in case a ship or plane were to arrive? Of course, I know there are other possibilities, but I try to start with the simplest, most common sensical explanation.

I know these are all woulda, coulda, shouldas, and I'm sure none of them are new to this forum. In the end, there's the sonar anomaly, investigation of which, I hope, will completely dispel these issues and open up entirely new avenues for investigation.

I read about that MIT work also. Elgen Long mentions this in his epic book. It is puzzling, but I believe the evidence of their presence at Gardner is stronger. I am not a pilot, so I cannot speak to this, but I suspect it is possible to "lean" the engines and compensate for periods of inefficient flight.  And yes, the evidence seems to support the conclusion that, for whatever reason, Earhart opted to turn directly south on the line of position and attempt a single pass search for Gilbert. I say that by elimination: if the evidence is good that they were there and the fuel was obviously strained, that is the only explanation. As for the north/south part, it is possible she turned north briefly but quickly decided to head south. This gets into state of mind so I don't know, I just know where the evidence points.

She probably did radio her intentions several times. Old-timers correct me, but I think there is ample evidence that she followed her radio pattern with discipline. But Itasca was not receiving. And my understanding is that certainty of location is far, bar better on the line of position than for a latitude, so FN may well have been certain that he was on this line.

Therefore, if he can line up two targets on that line he has a good chance of finding one of them, even if his latitude is off. In fact, logically, he would shoot for the most visible landmarks, which were to the south at that time. Howland was much harder to spot. So, yes, he could have been uncertain of his position in latitude, but not so much on his line of position. Navigator’s correct me.

Some have also said that he might not have been able to get sextant shots of celestial objects during the night, which would mean he could only get one after sunrise (the sun). But this should be enough to get a LOP. Some also say drift indication was not very good that night. I don’t know, but if it wasn’t very good, this would mess up his latitude. Also, headwinds, I think, can affect that also. Pilots?

After a week had elapsed, if they remained in the airplane and if the airplane were pulled off the reef by tides and undertow, there would be nothing left a week later. There was precious little fuel/oil to spread. So, that is one possible explanation for why they were not seen at Gardner. Nothing, imo, tells us they ever exited the plane.
Logged

Rob Seasock

  • T2
  • **
  • Posts: 66
Re: The most perplexing issues
« Reply #2 on: July 02, 2013, 12:41:04 AM »

There is also the RDF headings from Pan Am and the US Navy taken from Wake, Midway, Oahu
(and San Francisco possibly, if I recall correctly) as strong evidence the aircraft made it Gardner (or McKeon) and Lockheed's engineers opinion that an engine was running to allow them to transmit for several days.
Logged

Lloyd Manley

  • T1
  • *
  • Posts: 29
Re: The most perplexing issues
« Reply #3 on: July 02, 2013, 12:45:04 AM »


Seems to indicate that she was still looking for Howland at this point and panicking.


Almost forgot. Three things. I think the part about "panicking" is embellishment (my opinion). Of all the people out there that day she was apparently the calmest of all.

As for turning back, Earhart was a risk taker and I wouldn't expect that, but that is also state of mind. A lot of people who are risk averse, imo, interpret that erroneously as "bad piloting".

Again, my opinion, but allow me to hypothesize. I think FN was in fact uncertain of his latitude for the reasons I gave. But the one thing we know he had was the sun (probably). So, he may have reckoned himself in the proper east/west position but somewhere between Howland and Gardner and made a fateful guess as to which was closer.  He probably chose poorly. But given his exceptional demonstrated talent in this art, I think, again my opinion, that he was in fact about halfway between.
Logged

Adam Marsland

  • T2
  • **
  • Posts: 88
Re: The most perplexing issues
« Reply #4 on: July 02, 2013, 12:56:31 AM »

Nearly all of these questions have been asked and answered on this site, in quite a bit of detail, but you have to dig for it a bit.

I won't get into all of them (too tired) but one example would be the "why didn't she transmit her intentions?" question.  It has been pointed out that one of the things that she said she was going to do in her very last transmission was change her frequency (which Itasca urged her not to do, but she couldn't hear them).  There's a lot more information about daytime/nighttime propogation, which antennas were on the plane and whether one of them may have fallen off, and prior difficulties on that frequency that goes with that factoid to paint a bigger circumstantial picture of what happened, but the bottom line is she suddenly stops transmitting (or at least stops being heard) right after she changes her frequency.  Why?  Obvious answer:  she kept transmitting, but because of the change in frequency no one heard her. 

There's lots more on this topic, and all the others, if you dig around for them.  TIGHAR have done a very good job anticipating all objections and coming up with reasonable explanations (and evidence to support) to meet them.
« Last Edit: July 02, 2013, 12:59:20 AM by Adam Marsland »
Logged

Lloyd Manley

  • T1
  • *
  • Posts: 29
Re: The most perplexing issues
« Reply #5 on: July 02, 2013, 01:14:03 AM »

... but the bottom line is she suddenly stops transmitting (or at least stops being heard) right after she changes her frequency.  Why?  Obvious answer:  she kept transmitting, but because of the change in frequency no one heard her. 
Right, but wasn't this because of the schedule she was using? She was transmitting ... then _waiting_ for an answer 30 minutes later? The military communicated real-time, right? She was changing frequency because she had completed her transmission. Regardless, there were voids in that schedule, in fact, during most of that time, when Itasca heard nothing at all. Even so, they would hear her intermittently later on at the same scheduled interval, as if she had been transmitting throughout that time on that schedule. That was how I understood it.
Logged

Tim Gard

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 161
Re: The most perplexing issues
« Reply #6 on: July 02, 2013, 04:57:11 AM »

As previously said there is a great deal of fine grained well thought out info at this site.
I find each explanation begets another question which has also been answered to the same degree.

Watch "Ask Ric" for a very practical explanation on the radio occurrence  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IqS9GXM7nag

It took me a long time to comprehend how the Gardiner Island distance could have been rationally traversed, mostly due to mis-information from non-TIGHAR sources, but Ric has it covered brilliantly in the recent TIGHAR Tracks and in other places in the forum.

Simply put, AE and FN  never reached being any closer than 80 to 210 nautical miles from Howland Island. Ultimately the relief of seeing Gardner (so close to the Howland Line of Position) with ship (Itasca maybe?) and what appeared to be a newly laid concrete runway, made for a welcoming Howland. The Fuel Reserve that persisted until close to the time that the airframe was finally swept from Gardner's reef by rising seas, confirms that.

/ Member #4122 /
/Hold the Heading/
 
« Last Edit: July 03, 2013, 02:36:55 AM by Tim Gard »
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 6098
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: The most perplexing issues
« Reply #7 on: July 02, 2013, 08:46:58 AM »

Gail,

As others have pointed out, many if not all of the questions you raise have been addressed in depth on this forum but I'm happy to take a moment to address some of the more egregious errors you quote from the New Republic article.


1. "Nikumaroro lies some 350 miles southeast of Howland Island. In order to reach it, Earhart would have had to cover that distance, on top of the nearly 2,556 miles she had already flown from New Guinea in pursuit of Howland. But about an hour before breaking off contact, Earhart had clearly stated that gas was running low. Gillespie argues that Earhart meant she was beginning to burn into her reserve tank, in which case she would have had four or five hours of flying time left. Gillespie’s estimation that Earhart’s plane could have that much fuel left is based on ideal flight conditions, however, and Jourdan reminded me that there are several indications that Earhart’s flight was far from ideal. 'One of the major factors is that she was facing severe headwinds,' says Jourdan. 'They were 20, 25 miles an hour pretty much the whole way.' ”

There was no "reserve tank" and I never said there was.  Earhart left Lae with roughly 24 hours of fuel. The flight to Howland was expected to take 18 hours.  A 20% fuel reserve was standard for long range flights (see Cooper Report).  She had more like 25%.  At 19 hours and 12 minutes into the flight she said, "We must be on you but cannot see you, but gas is running low."  She's in the middle of the Pacific, the island she's looking for is nowhere in sight, and she is now burning into her reserve. You're darned right "gas is running low."
 
The airplane's expected 24 hour endurance is not based on "ideal flight conditions."  It's based on the fuel management recommendations she was given by Lockheed's Kelly Johnson.  With 1,100 gallons of gas aboard at takeoff, as long as she follows those procedures, the plane will fly for 24 hours regardless of "flight conditions."  What Dave Jourdan is suggesting (and he gets this from Elgen Long) is that Earhart departed from Kelly Johnson's fuel management program and increased her power settings - and therefore her fuel consumption -  because she ran into headwinds. First of all, that would be a stupid thing to do but, more to the point, there is no evidence that she encountered headwinds.  The presumption that she did is based entirely on the last position report received at Lae at 5:18 pm local time. “POSITION 4.33 SOUTH 159.7 EAST HEIGHT 8000 FEET OVER CUMULUS CLOUDS WIND 23 KNOTS”.  (see Chater Report)  Is that a headwind, a tailwind, a crosswind?  She doesn't say. Jourdan's unequivocal acceptance of pure speculation as established fact is a classic example of the methodological errors that permeate the case for Crashed and Sank. They stand the scientific method on its head.  They begin with the received wisdom that Earhart ran out of gas within moments of her 08:43 transmission and back into the numbers needed to make that happen by presenting speculation as fact.

The question this raises is that, if she knew she was burning fuel at a higher rate than planned, why didn't she abort the flight before it was too late? Surely she would have been doing the calculations necessary to determine where she stood in terms of fuel.

That sounds reasonable to me.

2. "Earhart was also reported to be south of her planned flight path and flying at high altitude quite early in her flight. 'What that meant is that there was a storm and she diverted around it,' Jourdan explained—a diversion that forced Earhart to gain altitude quickly and burn extra fuel in the process. An independent fuel analysis of Earhart’s flight that Jourdan commissioned from a mechanical-engineering professor at the California Institute of Technology validated Jourdan’s belief that Earhart ran out of fuel around the time of her last radio transmission."

He's doing it again.  To save time I'm attaching Part 1 of a previously unpublished analysis of the flight I did back in 2008.

Is a copy of the chart Noonan used for navigation available anywhere?

Nobody knows what chart(s) Noonan was using.

3. "Earhart told the Itasca she was flying 'north and south' along the line—indicating that she was searching for Howland, not flying south for Nikumaroro."

Huge misrepresentation. People get this wrong all the time.  We don't think she was intentionally flying south for Nikumaroro.  She was searching for Howland.  The sensible way to do that was to go north first as far as you dare and then go south and keep going, hoping that Howland will appear but knowing that the only other islands are to the south.

« Last Edit: July 02, 2013, 08:51:49 AM by Ric Gillespie »
Logged

Lloyd Manley

  • T1
  • *
  • Posts: 29
Re: The most perplexing issues
« Reply #8 on: July 02, 2013, 11:24:35 AM »

Gail,
As others have pointed out, many if not all of the questions you raise have been addressed in depth on this forum but I'm happy to take a moment to address some of the more egregious errors you quote from the New Republic article.
re to the south.
Ric,
Thanks for clearing this up. Is there any discussion yet for the next expedition regarding the use of metal detectors? I'm wondering if the higher mass objects might be sought out first in the hope of at least locating the most likely spots for serial number identification? From what I've read here, a separate expedition would be better for any archaeological work but I was thinking of "bang for the buck". In the first (next) expedition, nothing need be recovered, only located as a serial number target. Which component, of everything on the aircraft, would most likely best preserve a readable serial number under the conditions its expected to have endured? If not this way, what would be the most cost-effective way to determine the identity/origin of these debris fields?

The methodical TIGHAR approach is paying off and I'd be interested know what the thinking is.
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 6098
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: The most perplexing issues
« Reply #9 on: July 02, 2013, 11:54:15 AM »

Is there any discussion yet for the next expedition regarding the use of metal detectors?

The practicality of using metal detectors for general underwater searching depends upon how close you need to be to detect metal.  We're looking into it.

I'm wondering if the higher mass objects might be sought out first in the hope of at least locating the most likely spots for serial number identification?

I would love to have that luxury but I'll settle for any piece of airplane wreckage.  Very few components of the Electra had serial numbers and few of those were recorded in the records we have. We know the serial numbers for the engines, the prop hubs,and the prop blades.  That's it.  The gear motor, flap motor, radios and autopilot probably had serial numbers but we have no idea what they were.  For that matter, few of the airplane components had part numbers stamped into them.  That practice only became commonplace when aircraft production ramped up with the outbreak of war in Europe in 1939 and '40.

On the other hand, any piece of wreckage that could be conclusively identified as coming from a Lockheed 10 would be impossible to explain unless it came Earhart's Electra.  Her's was the only Model 10 that could be anywhere within thousands of miles of Niku.


From what I've read here, a separate expedition would be better for any archaeological work but I was thinking of "bang for the buck".

Here's the problem. The type of ship needed to support a hi-tech underwater search typically goes for about $30,000/day.  A ship to support the land-based and scuba work typically goes for about $10,000/day.  The hi-tech underwater work should only take a few days.  The land-based work will take two or three weeks.  Keeping an expensive boat around to support the land work doesn't get you more bang for the buck. 
Logged

Lloyd Manley

  • T1
  • *
  • Posts: 29
Re: The most perplexing issues
« Reply #10 on: July 02, 2013, 12:33:23 PM »


Here's the problem. The type of ship needed to support a hi-tech underwater search typically goes for about $30,000/day.  A ship to support the land-based and scuba work typically goes for about $10,000/day.  The hi-tech underwater work should only take a few days.  The land-based work will take two or three weeks.  Keeping an expensive boat around to support the land work doesn't get you more bang for the buck.

I have some passing familiarity with these costs. I've seen much larger numbers in the petroleum services industry. But I see your conundrum. It sounds like a two-ship expedition is needed as the requirements are quite different. I think you're wise to look for evidence ashore as that could equally-well clinch the case and I had not thought about the Electra 10 components. That's a very good point. I think history would record that as the crash site if all you had were the Electra parts positively identified as such. And at this point we have no way of knowing for sure if they left the plane or not. Some identifiable components could be aground, for any number of reasons.

Given the issues faced before with hardware, your lease/services cost on the marine aspect could be a million by itself (I'm thinking 30 days min). You need some bona fide marine archaeologists and an A-frame, I'm guessing.  I think you do have one on your team now? I would have guessed likewise that the shore party would cost much less but I would think they need more time; like all summer. What would be the pros and cons of having a university run the digs ashore? Offshore? Just curious on your thoughts.

In any case someone needs to get there quickly, imo.
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 6098
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: The most perplexing issues
« Reply #11 on: July 02, 2013, 12:58:00 PM »

You need some bona fide marine archaeologists and an A-frame, I'm guessing.  I think you do have one on your team now?

Yes, we actually have two.

I would have guessed likewise that the shore party would cost much less but I would think they need more time; like all summer. What would be the pros and cons of having a university run the digs ashore? Offshore? Just curious on your thoughts.

Experience has shown three weeks to be about the right amount of time for land operations.  By the end of three weeks the people are about used up and you've found enough stuff (or not) so that you don't know what you should do next until you've had a chance to identify what you've found or figure out where you went wrong.   I can't think of any pros to getting a university involved. 
Logged

Bill de Creeft

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 63
Re: The most perplexing issues
« Reply #12 on: July 02, 2013, 01:21:44 PM »

Nearly all of these questions have been asked and answered on this site, in quite a bit of detail, but you have to dig for it a bit.

There's lots more on this topic, and all the others, if you dig around for them.  TIGHAR have done a very good job anticipating all objections and coming up with reasonable explanations (and evidence to support) to meet them.

This comment from Adam, in my opinion obviously, is the answer to most of the questions in this thread; In about two weeks we will have a whole new set of new information from the 1938 photographs....
Ric, if you can keep your sanity for just that much longer...liberal use of that proffered beer money may help...save your strength for new questions with new answers!!
Take a line from the FAA medical: "Previously Reported"....This ground has been plowed before, over and over.
I am guilty of that too; I now await new word...and if there is none, then the hue and cry begins anew !?!
Bill
Bill de Creeft

Tighar Member #4131
 
Logged

Lloyd Manley

  • T1
  • *
  • Posts: 29
Re: The most perplexing issues
« Reply #13 on: July 02, 2013, 01:22:40 PM »


Experience has shown three weeks to be about the right amount of time for land operations.  By the end of three weeks the people are about used up and you've found enough stuff (or not) so that you don't know what you should do next until you've had a chance to identify what you've found or figure out where you went wrong.   I can't think of any pros to getting a university involved.

Okay, I was way off on that. My own thinking on the disadvantages of university involvement is the sheer time it would take them to conclude much of anything. I'm thinking out of the box on how to protect the overall mission from what I perceive to be a "drama queen" phenom where someone thinks we _know_ the plane is there - to such a certainty that we can stop looking. _They_ solved it. Whether we've reached that point or not, might the tendency increase as more data from that area is made available? The latest sonar analysis tells me it might. But what matters, imo, is what _posterity_ thinks. And posterity isn't going to be sold on what we know right now. There will be conspiracy theorists, but the mainstream view won't congeal without a lot more solid evidence.

Additionally, being too quick to closure also denies a proper burial if remains are recoverable. I know this doesn't matter to most, but it matters a lot to me and some others. There has been a lot of talk about what we know or don't know about their activities post-flight. I think the radio intercepts do provide enough corroboration, as I've stated before, to say that something was going on. It's just not clear what and I think we need answers to that as well; just being my opinion again.
Logged

Lloyd Manley

  • T1
  • *
  • Posts: 29
Re: The most perplexing issues
« Reply #14 on: July 02, 2013, 01:37:17 PM »

This comment from Adam, in my opinion obviously, is the answer to most of the questions in this thread;

I didn't get that feeling when I read it or the referenced material. I think this issue of radio communication is being inadvertently twisted to make AE look like an imbecile. The radios at that time were two separate units; they were not transceivers. She wasn't "changing frequency" in the middle of her own sentences. She was switching from transmitter to receiver. The problem is that USCG didn't do what they were told and reply on her _reception_ schedule. They didn't even use the time zone they were told to use. But really, this is minutiae and a side-show right now. We have ample evidence, even where we disagree, to locate the plane. We should focus on that, imo, so in that regard I agree. We need to filter out the drama and focus on the fact. That was why I tried to focus on the core evidence in my reply w/o getting into all that detail ... with a little opinion on my part ;-)

I agree, the photos will be tantalizing, but I'm not a big fan of photo analysis. It will give us good clues, for sure.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10   Go Up
 

Copyright 2024 by TIGHAR, a non-profit foundation. No portion of the TIGHAR Website may be reproduced by xerographic, photographic, digital or any other means for any purpose. No portion of the TIGHAR Website may be stored in a retrieval system, copied, transmitted or transferred in any form or by any means, whether electronic, mechanical, digital, photographic, magnetic or otherwise, for any purpose without the express, written permission of TIGHAR. All rights reserved.

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

Powered by MySQL SMF 2.0.18 | SMF © 2021, Simple Machines Powered by PHP