I have written what Noonan did while approaching Howland (including using the "Landfall procedure" of offsetting to the north-northwest) and you always complain that this is just speculation. You complain that I have no evidence of what Noonan did but you are wrong, I have admissible evidence that would stand up in a court of law.
But this is not a court of law. The objective of a lawyer in a court of law is not to discover truth - it is to win the case. A good lawyer can argue either side of any given case. You win by convincing the judge, or jury, that your representation of events is correct. The rules of evidence define and limit what tools you can use to make your case but essentially it's a sales job. Many an innocent man has gone to jail, or worse, because the prosecution "proved" he was guilty. Many a felon has gone free because the defense "proved" there wasn't sufficient evidence to convict. OJ walked.
I don't think that is a fair description of our legal system, Ric. Court procedures, rules of evidence, jury instructions, courtroom control by the judge are all designed to place a discipline on the truth finding process and to help jurors think clearly when evaluating conflicting evidence and theories so that there is the highest probability that they will arrive at the truth about what actually happened. I recommend this as a useful way to consider the competing Earhart theories and evidence.
But, of course, this could be overcome by direct evidence that he was not acting in conformity with his training or with the customary practices in his field so this puts the burden on you, Ric, to come up with admissible evidence that Noonan was NOT doing that.
If this was merely a court of law I would cite your exhaustive testimony describing all the ways Noonan should have been able to find Howland and argue that the fact that he clearly didn't is direct evidence that he was not acting in conformity with his training or with the customary practices in his field. I would then produce evidence that experienced naval aviators at Pearl Harbor in 1937 believed that Noonan would probably run southeastward down the LOP
That is technically known as "jumping to conclusions." It is certainly an easy conclusion to "jump to," the plane is missing and the line they said they were on extended on the chart does go to the Phoenix group, "Shazam, just follow that line." And in the back of the room a nervous Lieutenant j.g., sitting with a plotting board in his lap, the Nautical Almanac on top of it along with H.O. 211 navigational tables and papers and pencils says "Sir, I've done some calculations"...... and he then wilts away under the stare of Captain Fridell. "X.O. inform engineering to to light off the boilers and get steam up, I want to be underway in six hours." YES SIR!
Any Navy Navigator that took the time to do the celestial computations would have told Fridell that you can't follow the LOP to Gardner (
see a complete explanation here) and you have agreed that this is the case Ric.
; that experienced aerial navigators (Willi and Gannon) later agreed with that assessment
I certainly am not disparaging the competence or sincerity of these two gentlemen, I wish I had had the opportunity to meet them and talk to them about this navigation. But, in order to evaluate their theories, and to make sure you get the complete basis for their theories, you must ask the correct questions and, no offense Ric, I think we know from our extensive conversation that you do not have a very complete knowledge of celestial navigation so couldn't ask the necessary questions to flesh out their opinions, their reasoning and their compuations. This is what I have done for a living for many years, cross-examining opposing expert witnesses at trial and at deposition so that the jurors could evaluate the bases and reasoning of those experts so that they could decide whether or not to accept the theories being espoused by those experts.
; that the post-loss radio signals show that plane was on land and sending distress calls for nearly a week; that the Colorado pilots saw signs of recent habitation on Gardner Island; that a photograph taken three months after the disappearance shows debris on the reef that is consistent with the landing gear of a Lockheed 10; that three years after the disappearance the bones of an otherwise unexplained castaway were found on Gardner Island, etc., etc., etc.
I'll get to this other stuff later.
The "jury" of this forum is a lot tougher than any jury you'd ever face in court. Many of them have expertise and experience that would never survive voir dire.
"If you have a logged radio transmission in which Earhart said "Noonan told me to pass on that he will not use the normal procedures for finding an island but will do something different this time" then you win but without that logged message, I win."
Gary, it's not about winning.
You're right, we both want to find out what actually happened.
gl