Advanced search  
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 7   Go Down

Author Topic: Evaluating the Niku hypothesis: conflicting strategies for testing hypotheses  (Read 68910 times)

C.W. Herndon

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 634

Good question! I think it was discussed somewhere but I don't remember where right now. I will try to find it as soon as I have a chance.
Woody (former 3316R)
"the watcher"
 
Logged

Bruce Thomas

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 646
  • Now where did I put my glasses?

For those who want to delve into the archive of earlier AE Forum postings (back when it was done via email), the Forum Archives provide for many additional hours of entertainment.  It's amusing how much of what gets discussed in the current forum has been hashed over ad nauseum in the past.  Pondering about the discrepancy between Lambrecht and Friedell in their separate writings, about "signs of recent habitation" on Gardner Island or not, was much discussed on the Forum back in March 2006.

The original of Lambrecht's report, annotated with comments as it was forwarded up the chain of command, was unearthed by Randy Jacobson at the National Archives.  I'll quote a Forum entry of Randy's about this (where at the end of the first paragraph he acknowledges that he had earlier reported the incorrect date of the document as July 17; Ron Bright had corrected that, saying that it was actually dated July 16).

Quote
Date:         Sat, 4 Mar 2006 18:13:41
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: Friedell and Lambrecht reports

For Ron Bright,

I have a copy of Lambrecht's original report.  I was the first person to find the original in the National Archives, and have provided a copy of my copy to TIGHAR.  All other copies are carbon copies.  It is, in fact, dated July 16, not 17 as you state.

It was sent via the CO of the Colorado to the Chief of the Bureau of Aeronautics via the Commander Battle Force, US Fleet as the first endorsement.  The second endorsement was sent from the CO of the Battle Force to the Commander-in-Chief, US Fleet, with a reference to CinCus restricted dispatch 0026-1349 (which I do not have).  In this second endorsement, it is stated that the letter of Lambrecht's properly should be under the cognizance of the Navy Dept. instead of the Bureau of Aeronatics, so it is being forwarded to CinCUS.  "Certain undesirable features of this correspondence, including the undue informality of expression in certain portions, are being taken up with the Commanding Officer, U.S.S. Colorado, in separate correspondence."  The date is 27 July, from the USS California, docked in Tacoma, Washington.  It is signed by C.C. Bloch.

I do not have a complete list of personnel in the Naval heirarchy, but I can vouch that CC Bloch, Admiral, was the ComBatForce.  Follow-on endorsements basically over-rule the hesitation and dislike of Lambrecht's letter, and eventually it was published by the Bureau of Aeronautics without editing. The follow-on comments are quite interesting, but has nothing to do with "signs of recent habitation"; rather, the style of writing in the letter.
LTM,

Bruce
TIGHAR #3123R
 
« Last Edit: June 30, 2012, 11:03:44 AM by Bruce Thomas »
Logged

Jeff Victor Hayden

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1387

Thanks Bruce, let the delving begin!!!
This must be the place
 
Logged

Malcolm McKay

  • Read-only
  • *
  • Posts: 551

From Friedell's report -

"No dwellings appeared on Gardner or any other signs of inhabitation. A long shallow lagoon extends the entire length of the Island and through most of the width. A seaplane could land in the lagoon and it is believed that a land plane could make a forced landing there, and the occupants walk ashore. Coral reefs extended out from the shore line for about 150 yards. At Gardner Island a four thousand ton tramp steamer has piled up head on and remains there with her back broken. Groves of Cocoanut palms grow on the western end and the entire island is covered with tropical vegetation. Myriads of birds cover both islands. "

Now from Lambrecht's report -

"From M’Kean the planes proceeded to Gardner Island (sighting the ship to starboard enroute) and made an aerial search of this island which proved to be one of the biggest of the group. Gardner is a typical example of your south sea atoll … a narrow circular strip of land (about as wide as Coronado’s silver strand) surrounding a large lagoon. Most of this island is covered with tropical vegetation with, here and there, a grove of coconut palms. Here signs of recent habitation were clearly visible but repeated circling and zooming failed to elicit any answering wave from possible inhabitants and it was finally taken for granted that none were there.

At the western end of the island a tramp steamer (of about 4000 tons) bore mute evidence of unlighted and poorly charted “Rocks and Shoals”. She lay high and almost dry head onto the coral beach with her back broken in two places.

The lagoon at Gardner looked sufficiently deep and certainly large enough so that a seaplane or even an airboat could have landed or taken off in any direction with little if any difficulty. Given a chance, it is believed that Miss Earhart could have landed her plane in this lagoon and swam or waded ashore. In fact, on any of these islands it is not hard to believe that a forced landing could have been accomplished with no more damage than a good barrier crash or a good wetting."


My emphasis.
Logged

Jeff Victor Hayden

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1387

From Friedell's report -

No dwellings appeared on Gardner or any other signs of inhabitation.

Now from Lambrecht's report -

Here signs of recent habitation were clearly visible...


Friedell and Lambrecht couldn't agree, fair enough. Perhaps the report Friedell saw differed somewhat to the one Lambrecht filed, it happens in the chain of command.



This must be the place
 
Logged

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 2909

Dr Moleski - I don't think you realise the seriousness of what you casually inferred I had done.

Dr. McKay, there was nothing casual at all in my identification of the rhetorical form you employed.

The evidence for the classification I made is in your original post.

Anyone who wishes to examine the evidence and test the classification may do so.

Quote
I'll say once more - you have abused your position as a forum moderator and if you had any understanding of that role you would withdraw unconditionally that comment to which I have objected.

Thanks for repeating yourself.  Oddly enough, it doesn't change my view of the situation.
LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
Logged

Malcolm McKay

  • Read-only
  • *
  • Posts: 551

Dr Moleski - I don't think you realise the seriousness of what you casually inferred I had done.

Dr. McKay, there was nothing casual at all in my identification of the rhetorical form you employed.

The evidence for the classification I made is in your original post.

Anyone who wishes to examine the evidence and test the classification may do so.

Quote
I'll say once more - you have abused your position as a forum moderator and if you had any understanding of that role you would withdraw unconditionally that comment to which I have objected.

Thanks for repeating yourself.  Oddly enough, it doesn't change my view of the situation.

I see your retreat has taught you nothing about ethics. But then I didn't expect miracles.
Logged

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 2909

Quote
I see your retreat has taught you nothing about ethics.

I see that my prayers for you are bearing good fruit.

When you say this, you make several claims.
  • You know what ethics are.
  • You can judge my ethics.
  • You judge that my ethics are deficient.
This is real progress in the spiritual life.  You are now dealing with strictly metaphysical realities and claiming competence in them.  That's a big step forward from your previous descriptions of yourself as a man who accepts nothing but what is proven by science.  "Ethics" can't be apprehended by the senses.  They aren't dug out of the ground and dated as artifacts.  They can't be studied by any of the methods proper to physics, chemistry, or biology.  The standards of ethics are discovered strictly by means of philosophical inquiry.
The fundamental principle of ethics (do good, avoid evil) is not something that can be established by the natural sciences.  It is an axiom of thought on the basis of which other logical inferences may be made, but it cannot be established by formal argument.  People see it or they don't, and accept or reject it without proof.  In other words, the conviction that there are ethics, that they are objective, and that they can be applied to particular cases is an act of faith in our ethical reasoning powers.
Welcome to the world of faith, Dr. McKay!

Quote
But then I didn't expect miracles.

If you want to use a theological term, it would be good to understand what it means in the world of theology.  A miracle is an observable natural event--something that can be apprehended by the senses--that cannot be explained in terms of natural causality. 

My adoption of your understanding of ethics (or your adoption of my understanding) would not technically be classified as a miracle.  It would be an astonishing conversion, and the sense of astonishment might resemble that of people pondering a miraculous event, but they are two different kettles of fish.
LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
Logged

john a delsing

  • T2
  • **
  • Posts: 66
  • Minnesota Johnny D.

Marty,
   You have been an excellent moderator. . . . .   don't ruin it.
The Earth is Full
 
Logged

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 2909

   You have been an excellent moderator. . . . .   don't ruin it.

Thanks for the kind words, John.  :)
LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
Logged

Malcolm McKay

  • Read-only
  • *
  • Posts: 551

   You have been an excellent moderator. . . . .   don't ruin it.

Thanks for the kind words, John.  :)

I think that was a past tense.
Logged

Chris Johnson

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1069
  • Trying to give a fig but would settle for $100,000

This thread is like hard drugs, only the foolhardy experiment  ;D
Logged

john a delsing

  • T2
  • **
  • Posts: 66
  • Minnesota Johnny D.

Malcolm,
    Don't start....   your STRONG suit is science.  It very deffiniely is not insults.  You have the ability to greatly help this forum,  very much so, you can also distrack,  very much so.   Your call sir!
The Earth is Full
 
Logged

richie conroy

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1412

Can Malcolm

Show us his Evidence, to prove Tighar is wrong about thinking gardner is were flight ended ?

with actual evidence,  not just nay say

?
We are an echo of the past


Member# 416
 
Logged

john a delsing

  • T2
  • **
  • Posts: 66
  • Minnesota Johnny D.

Richie,
   I think you have the cart in front of the horse. It is your job, and my job to prove Amelia landed at gardner, not the other way around. I don't think Malcolm can prove to you that there isn't men on the other side of the moon either. I think you should try listening to him, you might just learn some things. He does have alot to offer. And so do you richie.
The Earth is Full
 
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 7   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