Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7]   Go Down

Author Topic: visual counterfeit , navigation and subsequent demise  (Read 80844 times)

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 5260
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: visual counterfeit , navigation and subsequent demise
« Reply #90 on: November 17, 2013, 07:47:23 PM »

Not trying to pick on Jeff nor Neff, just that so much of the navigation discussions (admittedly far more adroit than I) speculate on all the ways the crew would NOT have ended up at Gardner; but what we have is a body of evidence consistent with just that, a landing at Gardner.  I'm all for hard questions that challenge the evidence and the hypothesis, but those questions and challenges have to be based on evidence, not speculation about what the crew would have, should have, or may have done.  Or at the very least, if we are to speculate, let's try not to make declaritive statements based on our speculative ponderings.

Well said.
Logged

JNev

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 778
  • It's a GOOD thing to be in the cornfield...
Re: visual counterfeit , navigation and subsequent demise
« Reply #91 on: November 19, 2013, 06:23:52 AM »

Not trying to pick on Jeff nor Neff, just that so much of the navigation discussions (admittedly far more adroit than I) speculate on all the ways the crew would NOT have ended up at Gardner; but what we have is a body of evidence consistent with just that, a landing at Gardner.  I'm all for hard questions that challenge the evidence and the hypothesis, but those questions and challenges have to be based on evidence, not speculation about what the crew would have, should have, or may have done.  Or at the very least, if we are to speculate, let's try not to make declaritive statements based on our speculative ponderings.

Well said.

Who made a declaritive statement?
- Jeff Neville

Former Member 3074R
 
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 5260
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: visual counterfeit , navigation and subsequent demise
« Reply #92 on: November 19, 2013, 07:41:06 AM »

All of history is a judgment call, to a greater or lesser extent. Unless something was recorded immediately after it happened (and even then it is subject to the frailities of the human mind), all we are left with is imperfect records and assumptions. With which we make the best judgment we can of what may have happened.

At first my thought was "huh?"  But, Monty runs deep - and indeed, history is the "agreed upon set of lies", sayeth some wag of the past.

That wag was Napoleon Bonaparte. 

But to me, the nature of TIGHAR's quest is not to write probable history, but to go look for a lost airplane, find it if they can, conserve it if possible - and in the process end the mystery.  That is my narrow view given what I understand of TIGHAR's role in this things as taken from her own charter.  If we dabble toward 'conclusions' based on what we have now, we merely have 'the best idea of what happened, barring a better solution being found with as much evidence, such as it may be'.

"Probable history" is the only kind of history there is and "dabbling toward conclusions based on what we have now" is the best we can ever do.   We always want more than we have now but at some point each of us says "That's enough to convince me."  The debate comes down to how much is enough - and that is always an individual decision.

Look for a lost airplane?  In all probability the airplane is gone.  All we can do is look for whatever bits and pieces remain.  How much will be enough?  Do you need something that is unquestionably from a Lockheed 10 (until somebody questions whether it is really from a Lockheed 10) or do you need something with a serial number that can be matched to records of NR16020 (only the engines, prop hubs and prop blades had serial numbers that we know)?  Does "preponderance of evidence" count for anything or, like my old friend and nemesis Tom Crouch at NASM, do you maintain that TIGHAR has found nothing of significance in discovering the fate of Amelia Earhart?

I look back on all that we have learned and discovered and recovered over the past 25 years and it seems to me that our biggest problem is not a lack of evidence but rather an over-abundance of evidence.   To illustrate what I mean, answer this question:  Why does TIGHAR think the Earhart flight ended on Gardner Island?  If you're a dedicated TIGHAR you can probably list a half dozen pieces of evidence that support the hypothesis.  If you're a skeptic you can probably list a half dozen pieces of evidence that you feel can be explained away.  Either exercise is like dancing on the tip of an iceberg.  What is needed is for the entire corpus of research and analysis to be pulled together and presented in a way that makes it accessible and easy to understand.  That's my next book  Finding Amelia - The Castaway of Gardner Island.   Regardless of what more we find (or don't find) next summer, the story of what we've already found needs to be written.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7]   Go Up
 

Copyright 2018 by TIGHAR, a non-profit foundation. No portion of the TIGHAR Website may be reproduced by xerographic, photographic, digital or any other means for any purpose. No portion of the TIGHAR Website may be stored in a retrieval system, copied, transmitted or transferred in any form or by any means, whether electronic, mechanical, digital, photographic, magnetic or otherwise, for any purpose without the express, written permission of TIGHAR. All rights reserved.

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

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