Agreed ,
Agreed? Agreed to what? You didn't answer my questions. I'll ask them again.
- Is anything we could find, short of the conclusively identifiable wreckage of NR16020, that you would consider to be "real results?"
- Why would we undertake testing a hypothesis for which, despite repeated attempts, there the results are truly nil and abandon one for which there are abundant clues?
- If the Electra did land on the reef at Gardner Island, and if it was subsequently washed over the edge into deep water, and if AE and FN did ultimately die as castaways on Gardner Island what, in your opinion, should we have found that we have not found?
...the theoretical chance for the outcome of two occurrences is for this case 50% for each : yes or no .
No, it's not. There is evidence to support the Gardner hypothesis. The Crashed & Sank hypothesis is negated by the post-loss radio signals.
For practice the outcome of the theory containing the most (in number) reasonable inputs gains probability against the theory with the smaller amount of input .
That's just a convoluted way of saying that the theory with the most supporting is evidence is most likely to be correct. DUH.
This rule depends on the s.c. Rule of Bays , who introduced "likeliness" between prior and posterior results .
You seem to be referring to
Bayes' Theorem . If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with BS.
The "alighted at sea" theory has several : although fuel was low between 1912 & 2015 GMT , the crew did not announce to undertake evasive action ;
Evasive action??? What are you talking about??
several potential emergency landing grounds were closer than Gardner : Winslow 210 mls , McKean 350 , Baker nearby , (Kanton 410) , for a same chance to having been set course for .
How many times do I need to say that we don't think AE and FN ever "set course" for anywhere but Howland?
Declaring "fuel low" if at least 11% (120 galls) of the initial quantity of 1,100 remains , would be too much cabaret for a pilot in distress .
According to USAC Lt. Daniel Cooper's report "20% fuel reserve is usually required" on such long distance flights. The flight from Lae to Howland was expected to take 18 hours. Using Kelly Johnson's recommendations for the Oakland-Honolulu flight, 1,100 gallons should have given her about 24 hours of fuel - a 6 hour (33%) reserve. In fact, it was a little over 19 hours before she got to where she thought Howland should be. She's in the middle of the Pacific with five hours of gas left. Her destination has not appeared where it was supposed to be and she has been unable to establish radio contact with the only people who can help her. Gas is, most certainly, "running low."
Usually in practice , the computed chance by Baysian statistics is greater than by flat addition of partial possibilities . The criterion for having landed @ Gardner is in itself not of navigational nature , it is of physical character : was the fuel supply sufficient ? All available information answers negatively at this point
No it does not. Your calculations have repeatedly been shown to be based on inaccurate data and unwarranted assumptions.
, therefore the quantified chance to ever find anything having belonged to the Earhart crew on Gardner or any other island is of a so extremely small figure that continued research is hardly or not worth the trouble.
So all you're able to say is that it doesn't matter how much evidence we find that she was on Gardner because you've convinced yourself that she didn't have enough gas to get there. I don't think there's anything we can do to help you.