Print

[Irvine John Donald]

Just because the Phoenix Islands weren't on the Williams Strip chart doesnt mean FN didnt remember them being on other charts or had another larger scale, general purpose map.  Not being on the Williams charts doesn't remove them from the planet.

Of course not, the entire TIGHAR theory is based on Earhart and Noonan knowing about their existence as I pointed out before. Because they knew of their existence they headed there when they couldn't find Howland (according to TGHAR) so they would also remember their name after landing and could transmit that information in their emergency messages, but they didn't. So if you think that they didn't know the name of the island group where they landed, so as to be able to transmit that information, then you have a direct conflict with the TIGHAR theory which requires that they knew that information.

I have no direct or indirect conflict with the TIGHAR theory. If AE and FN didn't mention "Phoenix" then we must ask why. They were trying to be more exact by giving co ordinates, and/or identifiable features of the island.   Perhaps Fred got hit on the head and forgot the name. Since there are messages with content consistent with trying to be more exact as to which island they were on then I will assume you also believe they knew what island they were on.  They just didn't get recorded as saying it.

The Norwich City wreck was likely known to local mariners and natives. AE didnt care who got her message.  In fact she likely didnt realize her messages would be heard in Florida.  She knows the voice transmissions dont go as far as morse so she likely suspected any radio message she put out would only be heard relatively locally.  And, Guess What?  She probably wants someone local to hear her as they can get to her sooner than someone in Hawaii or California.

But there were no local mariners or natives.

Gee. You think she knew that?  AE was broadcasting in the hopes that ANYONE might hear her and come to help.  I don't think she was tailoring her rescue me speeches to certain demographic groups.

and finally.  Gary are you honestly suggesting the shape of the island as drawn on a chart has anything to do with her not being found?  There was land at Gardner regardless of how its drawn on a chart.

No, that was only to illustrate that no ship wreck was depicted with, or without, a name attached.

gl

As you pointed out yourself, there are no shipwrecks marked on the English flight maps created by Williams.
Is the reason for that the same reason that today's aeronautical charts are different than maritime charts?  All charts are not created equal. Williams charts were custom created for AE's trips.

[Monty Fowler]

In an attempt to get things back on track here, I will make one firsthand observation about constructing signals or markers or monuments, in 100 degree-plus heat, with little or no water or food, over the course of several days (let's toss in little or no sleep as well): It can be extremely difficult to mentally whip yourself into venturing out onto that glaring white hot hell known as the beach - where your signals will have to be made to have any hope of being seen - hour after hour and day after day, even if you know your life depends on it. Survivor apathy can be quite debilitating when coupled with extreme physical deprivation. If you haven't experienced it, don't discount it lightly.

And that's all I've got to say about that.

LTM, who prefers umbrella drinks,

Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 CER

[Tom Swearengen]

Uh Gary--Not being a sailor I stand corrected. I would think that mariners in the area would have charts of the area with potential landmarks. HUM---now that I think about it, the NC obviously didnt realize how close she was to Gardner, even with the storm.
Gee---I missed the point all around!

[Malcolm McKay]

I quite agree with with Gary in his post #63 above. To which I add that which I said in my post #62

A body of evidence is like a chain - its strength relies on its weakest part. As I said in regard to the Betty notebook, its validity as an account of post loss events rests upon finding that Earhart and Noonan survived on an island like Nikumaroro. And part of the evidence posited for that island being Nikumaroro is the Betty notebook. So they are mutually dependent. Taking two unproven hypotheses and linking them together to create a plausible scenario is always problematic.

These post-loss transmissions simply provide no usable data and therefore must be read as either background noise generated by normal traffic or nice hoaxes to generate newspaper sales. I find it unbelievable that if they were transmitting that they would not have mentioned at least the name of the chain of islands they had landed in, even if they didn't know they were on Gardner.

The other thing which I still find to be rather too convenient is the explanation that when the Navy flies over Gardner they cannot see the Electra because a big wave has washed it off the reef (the maritime dog that ate the homework). Yet a couple of years later we have Nikumaroroan settlers claiming that there, in plain site, is aircraft wreckage which even when Gallagher is investigating what he thinks is Earhart's skeleton they don't even mention to him. That is the problem with weak links in the evidence chain, as Lady Bracknell would have said one is inconvenient but two are sheer carelessness.

[Irvine John Donald]

Just to be clear Malcolm.... You are dismissing the post loss radio signals as background noise or "nice" hoaxes. (what is a nice hoax?). The reason for this is because the messages are not worded the way you think they should be?  I sincerely hope you never man a 911 call centre or coast guard radio.

"No ma'am. I won't send the fire dept out to your house until you use the proper wording format for the request. I think your call is a hoax and I am going to ignore it."

 How scientific is your evaluation? 

But Let's clear one point up.  Does this mean the signals existed or that they didn't?

[Gary LaPook]

I do recall having taken your 'fable' as sarcastic humor and readily confess that I likely didn't delve into it so deeply - and usually enjoy your acerbic efforts as lighthearted.  If that is somehow dense of me it certainly does not make me a liar.

LTM -

Jeff, I'm sorry, and I apologize profusely if you interpreted my words as calling you a liar, that was certainly not my intent nor my belief. Please accept this apology.
gl

[Gary LaPook]

Just to be clear Malcolm.... You are dismissing the post loss radio signals as background noise or "nice" hoaxes. (what is a nice hoax?). The reason for this is because the messages are not worded the way you think they should be?  I sincerely hope you never man a 911 call centre or coast guard radio.

"No ma'am. I won't send the fire dept out to your house until you use the proper wording format for the request. I think your call is a hoax and I am going to ignore it."

 How scientific is your evaluation? 

But Let's clear one point up.  Does this mean the signals existed or that they didn't?

"No ma'am. I can't send the fire dept out to your house until you tell me your location".

gl

[Irvine John Donald]

"But I'm not sure of my location".

You see Gary you can ask for the location but she couldn't receive a message so no one could ask that question.

You also can't say to someone "Because your message is missing some information that I deem important, I will believe your message is a hoax."

However, Everyone has the right to do just that but you cannot then say others are wrong for not sharing your opinion.  Who said your opinion trumps everyone else's?

You and Malcolm have said the post loss signals are not real and should be classified as hoaxes, IN YOUR OPINION.   The signals are not believable as real to you.  But you can't say that opposing opinions are wrong. You cannot suggest that only your version is acceptable as valid.

Let's go back to my last question which neither of you have answered.  Did the signals exist or didn't they?

[Malcolm McKay]

Just to be clear Malcolm.... You are dismissing the post loss radio signals as background noise or "nice" hoaxes. (what is a nice hoax?). The reason for this is because the messages are not worded the way you think they should be?  I sincerely hope you never man a 911 call centre or coast guard radio.

"No ma'am. I won't send the fire dept out to your house until you use the proper wording format for the request. I think your call is a hoax and I am going to ignore it."

 How scientific is your evaluation? 

But Let's clear one point up.  Does this mean the signals existed or that they didn't?

"No ma'am. I can't send the fire dept out to your house until you tell me your location".

gl

Exactly 

[Malcolm McKay]

(what is a nice hoax?).

But Let's clear one point up.  Does this mean the signals existed or that they didn't?

I am using "nice" in its original meaning.

The signals exist but incontrovertible evidence that they are from Earhart doesn't.

[Irvine John Donald]

I will agree that their mere existence is not proof of Earhart evidence if you agree that it could be.

But if they are real as you agree, then you are determining they are real signals but the content is a hoax.  Correct?

[Malcolm McKay]

I will agree that their mere existence is not proof of Earhart evidence if you agree that it could be.

But if they are real as you agree, then you are determining they are real signals but the content is a hoax.  Correct?

We know that many of the post-loss Earhart "messages" are hoaxes or misunderstandings of the March of Time broadcast. At present there is no reason to conclude that the messages received by Betty and the other woman (Mabel?) do not fall into the same category. As for the carrier wave receptions with no content these I would conclude are what Gary says. I find it a little strange that both people wait for many years before they come forward (A point I return to below regarding the wreckage and skeletons).

I have read Brandenburg's analysis many times

http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/ResearchPapers/Brandenburg/HarmonyandPower.htm

and while it is interesting it relies a little too much on postulating how Betty may have heard the message rather than what it should do which is to question the lack of content about location. Gary is perfectly right in his assessment of that peculiar feature.

And as I have said regarding the supposed aircraft wreckage and skeletons reported by Emily Sikuli, Pulekai Songivalu and Tapania Taiki I find it very odd if not slightly unbelievable that these things were not reported to Gallagher by the settlers who found them when he was excavating the skeleton of someone he thought might be Earhart. There was no animosity between him and the PISS settlers, they were not unwilling conscripts but people who had voluntarily come because of overcrowding on their home island. They had no reason to keep this information from him. Yet all of this only comes out later when there is sudden interest from people keen to further the idea that Nikumaroro was where Earhart and Noonan landed. Helpful witness syndrome?     

[Gary LaPook]

As you pointed out yourself, there are no shipwrecks marked on the English flight maps created by Williams.
Is the reason for that the same reason that today's aeronautical charts are different than maritime charts?  All charts are not created equal. Williams charts were custom created for AE's trips.

The marine chart Noonan used for the Atlantic crossing was at a scale of 5,281,950 to 1 meaning that one inch represented 72.5 NM.(83.4 SM.), 72.5 NM. The chart that Noonan used for the flight from California to Hawaii was the standard Pan Am flight navigation chart at a scale 3,200,000 to 1, one inch equal to 43.5 NM (50 SM) on the ground. Neither of these charts show any ship wrecks. The standard chart used for flight navigation by the U.S. Air Force have a scale of 5,000,000 to 1, 67 NM (79 SM) per inch. Here is a link to the standard flight navigation chart that covers Gardner. Here is a link to a large scale flight chart covering Gardner. This chart is at a scale five times larger than the previous chart, 1,000,000 to 1, one inch equals about 14 NM (16 SM.) Notice that even the large scale chart does not show the wreck of the Norwich City.

Ship wrecks are depicted on marine charts if they present a hazard to navigation or if they are conspicuous enough to be use for navigational purposes. Unless you are flying your plane only a few feet above the ocean it is hard to see how a ship wreck could be a hazard to flight navigation so they are not depicted on flight charts. As seen from the bridge of a ship a wreck may be more visible than the nearby land so might be depicted on a marine chart but this is  not true from a plane so they are not depicted for that reason either.

gl

[Oskar Erich Heinrich Haberlandt]

My problem with Betty's notebook is the age of Betty when she wrote the messages down in 1937: She was 15, and she might have been a day-dreaming girl, who knew about E.A. missing. I don't say she wanted to create a hoax, but I think it is quite possible that she didn't really hear what she wrote down. Many teenage girls and boys create their own fantasies.
I DON'T SAY it was just a fantasy, but I think it could have been.

[Malcolm McKay]

... all do not rise to your academic standards for a search is what I think I am reading in that - about right?

The airplane had to go somewhere.  What hypothesis then is based on firmer points that you can believe in, and do you therefore see as less problematic?  Where then, if people would like to find the Electra, should they search?

Just wondering.

Well having academic standards is what old retired academics have 

Frankly I must admit that I have never ever felt that there was any need to find the Electra - Earhart's flight is, even from the most friendly view, rather a footnote to history. It was unnecessary at the time and all it achieved was the death of two people. In fact without intending to be harsh I suspect that if Earhart and Noonan had completed the flight successfully they would be largely forgotten today. The only reason people look is that her disappearance added mystique to what was in reality a pretty mundane affair.

I haven't ruled out Nikumaroro, I have just applied the blowtorch of my academic reason to the evidence and found that I cannot accept it as anything more than a string of guesses and assumptions loosely gathered to support a hypothesis. Now if it is to be shown that Earhart and Noonan did come down at Nikumaroro then it goes without saying that someone better find something a bit more convincing than the sole of a shoe, and a reassessment of some lost human bones. You mention aircraft wrecks - I say what aircraft wreck? The only evidence to support that is the testimony of Emily Sikuli, Pulekai Songivalu and Tapania Taiki which as I have already show is flimsy to say the least - even TIGHAR admits to being less than happy with it. The radio messages are of the same testamentary value as Gary has pointed out and with which I agree.

As for the archaeological evidence I refer you to my last post #31 on the Norwich City Survivors and the Seven Site thread.

If you want my opinion of where to look for the Electra - I suggest at the bottom of the Pacific, perhaps off Nikumaroro, perhaps not. I am quite happy if someone finds it and actually proves the Nikumaroro hypothesis but on present evidence it is far from demonstrated to be the right one.