Gary, here we go again. First of all let me again point out that your experiment was accomplished over flat terrain with no overhead cover.
What I saw is the same thing that Lambrecht would have seen if Earhart had been on the beach on Gardner so as to that scenario my data is certainly valid. I gathered some data, I do not claim that it is a complete study of search effectiveness. As to the people in the field, I stated: "The crops are a little more than waist high so the vegetation is nowhere as difficult as that on Gardner" so I never claimed that it did replicate the situation on Gardner with overhead cover.
Second of all let me refer to your oft quoted "Land Probability of Detection Tables", on page 77 of the pdf copy of the National Search and Rescue Supplement, see below. Please note what it says in Para 5.5.1 "The following POD tables used by the CAP and Air Force assume a crash location is more difficult to see in heavy terrain, and the search object is relatively small, such as a light aircraft". I think this is quite clear that the POD's listed are for, at a minimum, a light aircraft and not people.
I posted this before:"The Search and Rescue Manual states that searching for persons is the second most common type of search yet there is no separate POD table for this type of search or any correction table to use in adjusting the published values for POD as would be necessary if your interpretation was correct, that the tables only apply to searches for downed aircraft. I have stated before that the people who drafted this manual were compelled to use conservative numbers so as not to overestimate the effectiveness of a search. So, if the values only applied to searches for aircraft and the same tables also had to be used for searching for people then, if the calculated POD was designed to apply to aircraft, then the numbers would overestimate the effectiveness of a search for a person and so would NOT be conservative. But, if instead, they assumed the worst case, that of searching for the more difficult object to find, a person, then the tables correctly, and conservatively, predict the quality of a search for a person and underestimate the effectiveness of a search for a larger object. The is a conservative way to draft the POD tables. So which one makes more sense when drafting this table, overestimating the effectiveness of a search for a person or underestimating the the effectiveness of a search for a larger object? Which would be more conservative? Which would result in more lives being saved?
My National Search And Rescue Manual is dated 1986. You referred us to a
CAP document dated 2005. In spite of almost 20 additional years of search experience the POD table in your 2005 document is identical to the table in the 1986 manual. There is no separate POD table for searches for people nor is there a table to make an adjustment for searches for persons even though many thousands of such searches must have been made in this period. It appears that the drafters of the 2005 document were satisfied with the existing POD tables. "
I also note that this 2005 CAP manual was drafted after the document you directed me to in your prior post that criticized the inland POD tables and the CAP chose
NOT to make a change to these tables.
Third of all let me point out the clothing that AE and FN were wearing in most of the pictures made of them. AE is usually shown wearing either khaki or very dark trousers, either of which tends to blend in with most backgrounds, plus a plaid blouse which would show up very well most anywhere but would be a rather small target. FN is almost always shown wearing dark blue or black trousers and shirt which again would tend to blend in with most backgrounds.
http://earchives.lib.purdue.edu/u?/earhart,904
And lastly, the SAR documents always talk about the condition of the crews as being critical to detection of crash sites. While it does not talk about the attitude or attentiveness of the other crews, check out what Lt(jg) William Short had to say about the search in his log/letter to his father about the search. Especially note his comments about the search in general in his July 5, 1937 entry and the specific comments about the Gardner Island search on July 9, 1937. He gives a good discription of the ship on the reef but apparently fails to even notice the Buka trees on the atoll.
http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Forum/Highlights21_40/highlights26.html
gl