Advanced search  
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5   Go Down

Author Topic: aircraft parts villagers had?  (Read 56976 times)

Irvine John Donald

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 597
Re: aircraft parts villagers had?
« Reply #30 on: December 28, 2011, 12:16:28 PM »

Good comments one and all.  My original post in this thread suggesting an experiment ended with my comment that it would be better to spend the money on a good ROV search.

I share Jeff's feelings on experimentation to see what might happen but the expense isn't going to produce the evidence.

Marty's comments about the true definition of a Thought Experiment and how it doesn't mean the same as a "daydream" is probably technically accurate. But I think most experiments started with a thought. How else would someone "dream up" the experiment?  If we don't dream and think in this forum then are we just to sit and regurgitate the known facts?  You know, the technical ones. 

Read Jeff's reply. He says what I feel.  TIGHAR has been using the hypothesis and scientific methodology to develop this same hypothesis. Slowly more facts come to life. Especially from the island visits. But every one of those trips had a agenda. Someone 'thought' about what that agenda was to be.  That's the thinking that needs to continue.  I believe that's what Harry was suggesting.
Respectfully Submitted;

Irv
 
Logged

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 2901
Re: aircraft parts villagers had?
« Reply #31 on: December 28, 2011, 12:27:57 PM »

There have been lots of WW2 aircraft discovered in very good condition in both shallower and deeper water than what we are talking about.

In quiet waters, yes.

On the side of a coral reef?  That's the relevant analogy.
LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
Logged

Chris Johnson

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1069
  • Trying to give a fig but would settle for $100,000
Re: aircraft parts villagers had?
« Reply #32 on: December 28, 2011, 12:28:45 PM »

I'll predict that they don 't slide very far down the side of the reef before getting caught in pretty shallow water where they will stay forever, but I could be wrong.

https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,481.msg6151.html#msg6151

gl

Gary, what makes you think that the peices would get caught up in shallow water? If this was the case then the action of waves, tides and storms would be more likely to move the peices out of the shallow areas and onto the reef flat as when the waves hit the shallow areas the energy within tem is released.
I've done a lot of diving on reefs and they have an infinite number of nooks, crannies, protuberances, and coral heads to catch stuff. The TIGHAR theory also relies on this to get the aircraft pieces to the natives. If the plane went over the edge and did not get caught in shallow water then it would have sunk to such a depth that none of the pieces would ever have come back up because wave action does not extend very far below the surface and gets attenuated very rapidly. So it TIGHAR is correct I would expect some pieces to still be found at a fairly shallow depth that has already been searched by the ROV with nothing found.

gl

OK now to add the text.

Gary, like Marty says in a nice environment.  I lived by the sea for nearly half my life in some rough conditions and have seen what the sea can do.  This picture was taken on Chritmas day on a sand beach after a moderate south westerly gale.  whats missing?

BTW the boulders/pebbles form a very nice storm surge ridge behind the photo taker.
« Last Edit: December 28, 2011, 12:32:59 PM by Chris Johnson »
Logged

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 2901
Re: aircraft parts villagers had?
« Reply #33 on: December 28, 2011, 02:59:43 PM »

I don't recall saying anything that would warrant equating a "thought experiment" with a DayDream.

I didn't attribute that to you.  I have trouble ranking wishful thinking about destroying an Electra on an active archeology site as the moral equivalent of physicists' thought experiments.

Quote
Perhaps I should have said "a thoughtful Thought Experiment".  That might have dampened your need to pontificate.

I doubt it.  Some thought experiments are more respectable ("thoughtful") than others.

Quote
At one time it was thought that the proton and the neutron were "elementary" particles, i.e. they were indivisible.  Now the standard model defines the proton as a combination of two "Up" Quarks and a "Down"  Quark (the Up Quark carries a charge of positive 2/3 of the charge of an electron, and the Down Quark carries a charge of negative 1/3 of the charge of an electron), thus two Ups and one Down, the proton, has a charge of positive 1 electron charge.  The neutron is a combination of two Down Quarks and one Up Quark and has zero charge.

The existence of the 6 Quarks (Top, Bottom, Up, Down, and Charmed, Strange) were first Theoretical, i.e. a Thought, and then Experimental,i.e. a Discovery.  Who knows, maybe even a DayDream or two might have been involved.

I did not deny the fruitfulness of thought experiments in physics.  In fact, I gave examples of how Einstein and Polanyi used them profitably.

I deny that this particular "thought experiment" is on par with those found in physics.
LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
Logged

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 2901
Re: aircraft parts villagers had?
« Reply #34 on: December 28, 2011, 03:08:06 PM »

Marty's comments about the true definition of a Thought Experiment and how it doesn't mean the same as a "daydream" is probably technically accurate. But I think most experiments started with a thought. How else would someone "dream up" the experiment?  If we don't dream and think in this forum then are we just to sit and regurgitate the known facts?  You know, the technical ones. 

Yes, of course experiments must be preceded by thought.

Yes, some good ideas may come to qualified experimenters in the form of a dream or a daydream.  Arthur Koestler's book, Sleepwalkers, collects any number of stories like that.  So, too, does Polya in How to Solve It.

My disagreement is whether this particular "thought" ("Wouldn't it be nice to destroy an Electra at Niku?") is going to lead to a theoretical breakthrough in TIGHAR's work or to a real experiment.  My answer is, "No."

Quote
TIGHAR has been using the hypothesis and scientific methodology to develop this same hypothesis. Slowly more facts come to life. Especially from the island visits. But every one of those trips had a agenda. Someone 'thought' about what that agenda was to be.  That's the thinking that needs to continue.  I believe that's what Harry was suggesting.

I don't find your "thought" in the same class as the "thoughts" that lead TIGHAR to Niku and that have guided TIGHAR's research on the island.  Your thought reminds me of the cranks whom I have encountered personally, through reading Polanyi's files, and in my former work as a member of the Big Eight Management Board, where I dealt with some mathematical cranks.  Yes, scientists think; yes, some of their thoughts come in unusual forms; no, this thought that you have had is not one that is going to lead to good results.
LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
Logged

Irvine John Donald

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 597
Re: aircraft parts villagers had?
« Reply #35 on: December 28, 2011, 03:45:42 PM »

Thanks Marty for that clarification. As I was unaware of the term and definition of a "Thought experiment" then my whimsical thought can not be on par as you have observed.  Neither would I think it practical to destroy a perfectly good aircraft. Even I said in my original post that it would be better to spend the money on an ROV search. My admission that it would not be a good idea. However it did generate some ideas and comments from others. So my "thought" served a purpose.

I take your comment "Your thought reminds me of the cranks..." personally. I haven't had anyone say anything like that to me or about my thoughts in my lifetime that i am aware of.  You are, of course, entitled to your opinions as am I. Why have this forum if not to solicit ideas and comments?  Some of which you may not like. You should be allowed to express your ideas here without fear of personal attack. Please leave it at that.
Respectfully Submitted;

Irv
 
Logged

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 2901
Re: aircraft parts villagers had?
« Reply #36 on: December 28, 2011, 04:45:12 PM »

I take your comment "Your thought reminds me of the cranks..." personally. I haven't had anyone say anything like that to me or about my thoughts in my lifetime that i am aware of.  You are, of course, entitled to your opinions as am I. Why have this forum if not to solicit ideas and comments?  Some of which you may not like. You should be allowed to express your ideas here without fear of personal attack. Please leave it at that.

I apologize for hurting your feelings.  I will try to respond to your solicitations for "ideas and comments" in the future more diplomatically.
LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
Logged

Irvine John Donald

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 597
Re: aircraft parts villagers had?
« Reply #37 on: December 28, 2011, 05:29:27 PM »

No apology is necessary. I respect that you have accepted a difficult role in this forum.  Your knowledge on how to move around and do research in this forum is envious. Your knowledge of the subject matter is highly respected.  Dealing with "Johnny come latelys" like me must test your patience.

 My role, as I see it in this forum is best explained with a quote by another respected TIGHAR member.

As Dr Tom King said in a forum post on Dec 2, 2007 "You can ask the questions and make the suggestions that don't occur to us who've been there (Gardner), or been with the project forever and ever and hence don't think to ask or suggest.  And often a "dumb" question or idea can cause us to look at something in a different way, and come up with new stuff. So please do keep presenting ideas, they're invaluable.".

LTM (Who reminds her children that the only really stupid question is the one not asked). ". 

I will try to keep my ideas and suggestions reasonable.  On to other things now Marty. Lots to think about.
Respectfully Submitted;

Irv
 
Logged

Jeff Scott

  • T2
  • **
  • Posts: 93
Re: aircraft parts villagers had?
« Reply #38 on: December 28, 2011, 06:55:09 PM »

Speaking of "thought experiments," I thought this was an interesting (if depressing) topic addressed by Dr. Tom King in an article on his blog:

Quote
A decade ago, we were blessed to have on the Earhart Project Advisory Council (EPAC) Howard Allred, a New Zealand-based coral reef geologist (though he’d gone into olive growing to make his living). Tragically, we lost Howard to a brain tumor not long before the 2007 expedition. I vividly recall Howard making a presentation to an EPAC meeting – he’d flown all the way from New Zealand to participate – on what he thought the action of the ocean on the Nutiran reef would do to the Electra. It would most likely, he said, tear it to shreds, and the pieces would then move slowly southeast along the reef face, every now and then being coughed up onto the reef flat. Such fragments may be responsible for the reflective signatures that appear on some mid-twentieth century aerial photos of the southern Nutiran reef flat, and the periodic deposition of such fragments farther southeast, along the Ritiati shoreline, could be the source of the airplane parts we’ve found in the colonial village, some of them fashioned into handicrafts.

At the EPAC meeting someone – perhaps I – asked Howard where the plane parts might be by now. He said that by now they would have reached the midpoint of the shoreline, where the currents flowing down from the northwest run into those flowing up from around the southeast tip.

And how big would they be by now? Howard opined that they could be reduced to the size of sand grains.

Of course, it’s certainly possible that biggish parts of the Electra – notably those two big heavy engines – went down into deep water before they had a chance to be ground up by weather and waves. But the engines and other heavy parts of the airplane have their own problems. They’re steel, as are the pieces of the SS Norwich City that are scattered down the face of the Nutiran reef. The 2010 ROV work didn’t turn up a great deal of Norwich City wreckage on the reef face above 300 meters, but we know that the stern of the ship broke off and went down there, and much of the rest of it must have followed. There’s probably a good-sized Norwich City debris field at the base of the reef, all made of steel. Can the Electra’s steel engines or gear be distinguished from Norwich City debris? Maybe, but I’d call it a long shot.

My hope is that this line of reasoning is wrong, but it is certainly plausible.
It's not too late to be great.
 
« Last Edit: December 28, 2011, 07:18:46 PM by Jeff Scott »
Logged

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 2901
Re: aircraft parts villagers had?
« Reply #39 on: December 28, 2011, 09:06:20 PM »

As Dr Tom King said in a forum post on Dec 2, 2007 "You can ask the questions and make the suggestions that don't occur to us who've been there (Gardner), or been with the project forever and ever and hence don't think to ask or suggest.  And often a "dumb" question or idea can cause us to look at something in a different way, and come up with new stuff. So please do keep presenting ideas, they're invaluable.".

Dr. King no longer participates in the Forum.  He is very active in EPAC's private mailing list and continues to pore over the materials collected in TIGHAR's expeditions.

I state this as a matter of fact.  Dr. King has not explained why the steady stream of ideas suggested in Forum no longer interests him.
LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
Logged

Irvine John Donald

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 597
Re: aircraft parts villagers had?
« Reply #40 on: December 29, 2011, 07:22:28 AM »

Thanks for sharing that story Gary. Very interesting.  I do believe that it wouldn't take a lot to do as you propose but I really do wonder at the value of the experiment. Marty points out, rightly, that there are more cons than pros. What could be proved by dropping these sheets in is "what happens to 2x2 sheets of aluminum when dropped off the edge of a coral reef.". While interesting in itself it doesn't seem like the right thing to do. An aircraft body is made so much more rigid in its construction than flimsy thin sheets. The sheets would simply be washed away in the current proving very little.
Respectfully Submitted;

Irv
 
Logged

Chris Johnson

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1069
  • Trying to give a fig but would settle for $100,000
Re: aircraft parts villagers had?
« Reply #42 on: December 31, 2011, 11:03:44 AM »

picture gallery of queen of the skies policy 12

"Być może kolejna ekspedycja TIGHAR odnajdzie zatopiony wrak Electry w wodach otaczających wysepkę Nikumaroro"

"Perhaps another expedition to find the sunken wreck of TIGHAR Electra in the waters surrounding the island Nikumaroro"

The item of wreckage looks like wooden decking with a blue finish.
« Last Edit: December 31, 2011, 11:09:11 AM by Chris Johnson »
Logged

John Ousterhout

  • T4
  • ****
  • Posts: 487
Re: aircraft parts villagers had?
« Reply #43 on: January 01, 2012, 09:46:12 AM »

To me, the item of wreckage looks like the trailing edge of an aircraft wing.  Wooden decking isn't usually tapered.  I wonder where the photo was taken?
Cheers,
JohnO
 
Logged

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 2901
Re: aircraft parts villagers had?
« Reply #44 on: January 01, 2012, 10:03:11 AM »

To me, the item of wreckage looks like the trailing edge of an aircraft wing.  Wooden decking isn't usually tapered.  I wonder where the photo was taken?

Judging by the amount of background light in the photo, I would say it's relatively shallow water.

Judging by the lack of publicity of someone finding the Electra, I would say it's not from Niku.
LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5   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