Granted I work in the hard sciences and soft sciences often abide by a different set of rules...
"Different set of rules." Hmm. Jeff, I'd appreciate a couple of references per that declaration. Thanx.
Deriving a baseline from direct written words yet comparing these to second- or third-hand reports of what Amelia or Fred might have said. The reports of post-loss messages remain highly controversial and debatable considering they are fragmentary, garbled, often incomprehensible, and always someone else's impression rather than a direct recording of her words. How can one have any confidence in the comparison results when there is so little confidence in her words themselves?
Had the credible reports of AE putative post-lost language not been transcriptions, I would not have conducted this study, Jeff. I refer you to Appendix 3, and therein to the appearance of quotation signs bracketing what ostensibly are AE's exact words--the exception being the paraphrased material in the 2 July report.
There is inherent subjectivity in what defines objective, subjective, and desperate language. In many of the messages used to define the baseline, only a single word is used to classify that entry in one category or another. These assessments seem arbitrary
Well, I presume there was plenty of subjectivity (reflection and thinking) when the meter was defined as one ten millions of a quarter of a meridian. Yes, I did score some language units on the basis of a single word, however one word can convey lots of subjective meaning. For example, if you asked what your very despondent friend was thinking and he or she said, "suicide," that single word says enough to spur you into some serious action, yes?
The analysis hinges on the assumption that a person in distress will make the same kinds of statements over a radio for everyone to hear as he would write in a private diary. Is there any evidence to support such a belief?
That is a solid methodological question, Jeff. I am not aware of research exactly aligned with all the variables at play here. When i designed the study this was my thinking on the point you are raising. The Lady Be Good diarists wrote about desperation in various ways: struggling, feel
very weak, praying and wishing for death. I figured AE would
not radio to the world that she was praying nor wishing to die; that public sharing just does not, IMO, fit AE's personality and self-image. Even this ole soft scientist saw that that would load the odds
against him finding positive (matching) results, and so it was OK to proceed even if the public/private factor might be a significant consideration.
The section attempting to use this psychological analysis and Brandenburg's analysis to prove each other is very convoluted logic. The statement "It is the author's scientific opinion that the empirical evidence–Brandenburg's DF findings and Ford's ALBT matching results–strongly confirms the proposition that Amelia Earhart and Fred Noonan were, post lost, in a life-threatening situation called Gardner Island" is especially flawed. If the psychological analysis showed Earhart was not in a life-threatening situation, does that mean she wasn't on Gardner Island? Of course not--the two issues are unrelated.
Ford's logic is "especially flawed." Hmm. Seemed rather syllogistic to me. Brandenburg empirically showed a zone wherein voice transmissions were made by a woman saying she was AE; the zone included Gardner and McKean islands. However, investigation of McKean
McKean Data showed no sign of AE, and so logically that leaves Gardner as the possible location of the radio transmitter used the the woman saying she was AE. Independent of Brandenburg's DF data, Ford showed AE may have produced language in a life-threatening situation, which Ford assumed describes Gardner Island. That appears, to me, as the overlap of two Venns: Gardner with transmitter used by woman saying she was AE, and lift-threatening place AE putatively transmitted from. The overlap looks to me to be the entity, "Amelia Earhart." I had fun thinking about your reference to me fnding negative results--AE did not match ALBT baseline. Well for sure I would not have called Ric to tell him to shut down the Earhart Project because AE was never on Gardner Island and I have data to prove it. I shudder just typing those words; heaven knows how I will react seeing them on the TIGHAR Forum! What I would have done with negative results is to conclude that the life-threatening situation as per the LBG and Lancaster scores, which was the Sahara desert, was not sufficiently comparable to Gardner Island, and/or that I had overemphasized in my mind that the island was a life-threatening situation. Realistically, I would have probably abandoned the language-matching idea altogether…but then I would have missed getting to know Forum readers, like you Jeff; and I would have missed feeling that even though only a tiny gear, I am part of the TIGHAR effort to "find Amelia."
The general concept of this analysis may have some value, but I don't see how it can ever be convincing evidence. Whether Earhart and Noonan ended up on Gardner, the bottom of the ocean, New Britain, or involuntary guests of the emperor, the only evidence that will prove it is to find the plane. If the Electra is one day found off the shore of Nikumaroro, items like this study may provide insight into thehttps://tighar.org/smf/Themes/core/images/bbc/unformat.gif pair's last days. But it will never be the "confirmation" of TIGHAR's hypothesis that the title claims it to be.
I hear you. And, BTW, I agree that there is nothing like an identifiable piece of NR16020 in the domain of Earhart evidence. Your reaction to "confirmation" brings a LOL that I think you'll enjoy. I tested the AE data on the ALBT baseline after the nightly news, at about 10:45; I remember my wife had drifted off when I turned off the TV. The AE scores matching the ALBT was for me an Eureka! moment, and I said to my wife, loud enough to wake her, "Honey, I have found Amelia Earhart!" Wife: "That's nice Guthrie, but your language project alone will not be enough; let's talk it in the morning. Goodnight!" So I now officially own that my paper is not the "smoking gun," and I will pull back my language to say that Ford's language matching data are in line with the Nikumararo hypothesis that AE landed on the reefing encircling a south central Pacific atoll that appears to be Nikumararo (nee Gardner) Island.
I appreciate all of your comments, Jeff….er, um, well maybe not so much your whack at "soft" sciences. Your words do show that you apparently read closely and thought about my work, and no better reward can a reader give a writer.
LTM, Guthrie