Advanced search  
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6   Go Down

Author Topic: Betty's Notebook - ethics of acceptance  (Read 58032 times)

Greg Daspit

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 710
Re: Re: Betty's Notebook - ethics of acceptance
« Reply #30 on: July 06, 2012, 07:40:48 PM »

The habit of listening is not the habit of writing down what you listened to.
Maybe she only kept a written record that time because she heard “This is Amelia Earhart” and realized the importance, and during the other times she listened, there was not anything as important to write down.   
Like the importance of writing down the songs she heard?

gl

Gary wrote:
Quote
"If all she has is local music in her book then it tends to disprove that she was in the habit of listening to shortwave and makes it more probable, that on this occasion too, she was listening to a local broadcast, not shortwave"

Gary, from your previous statement above you seemed to say that there were two kinds of listening and they were not likley done on the same night.
When I said there was not anything important to write down I was referring to the shortwave listening. I didn't feel the need say that she could easily have been doing that short wave band listening between writing down lyrics from local broadcast. So I am saying it now. I think she easily could have been doing more than one thing on that occasion just like people who use their computers for different things and don't write down what the hear or see for every task (including work, research interest or entertainment,)they use the computer for.
I think Bruce explained the varied interest of a young girl better than me.

Then you asked:
Quote
"Like the importance of writing down the songs she heard?"
My answer is no. Its not like the importance of writing down songs she heard.
So now I ask, Do you understand the context of why I said she wrote down what she thought Amelia said because it was important? Or are you now asking if writing down songs important to her while listening to the local radio is the same importance as writing down something important to authorities that she heard in her shortwave listening?
3971R
 
« Last Edit: July 17, 2012, 01:46:48 PM by J. Nevill »
Logged

Greg Daspit

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 710
Re: Re: Betty's Notebook - ethics of acceptance
« Reply #31 on: July 06, 2012, 08:28:07 PM »


The habit of listening is not the habit of writing down what you listened to.
Maybe she only kept a written record that time because she heard “This is Amelia Earhart” and realized the importance, and during the other times she listened, there was not anything as important to write down.   

Like the importance of writing down the songs she heard?

gl

Quote from Malcolm
Quote
Well put Gary. This diary, despite some denials, has a lot riding on it. Without it we don't have the landed on the outer reef scenario nor the means to conjecture post-landing behaviour on the island. It needs to thoroughly examined.

Malcolm, you said "Without it we don't have the landed on the outer reef scenario"
 My interpretation of Tighar's "landed on the outer reef scenerio" is that the plane could not transmit if in water for any length of time, that there were several credible radio transmissions, and the props needed to be operable to transmit that long, so a "landed on the outer reef" scenerio best explained the multiple radio transmissions. I also think the outer reef scenario came before Betty's notebook was revealed to Tighar. You can look at Tighars index of dated subjects to see this.

And even before Tighar came up with that scenerio, I think the Navy thought a reef of some kind was a scenario in the 1937 search as well, and I don't think the Navy even talked to Betty. So Betty's notebook is not needed at all to have a "landed on the outer reef scenerio".
3971R
 
« Last Edit: July 17, 2012, 01:48:07 PM by J. Nevill »
Logged

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 2901
Re: Re: Betty's Notebook - ethics of acceptance
« Reply #32 on: July 06, 2012, 11:18:34 PM »

It is a simple request that I make. If she was in the habit of listening to shortwave broadcasts then she should have notes in her notebook that supports that and, if they are there, adds further credence to her claim.

I posted this link earlier in this thread, but I guess you missed it.

TIGHAR has provided a summary of all of the films and songs referred to in the notebook.

Quote
It might be that her notebook will support her story, let's just see it.

It seems to me that her notebook does support her story.  This chart has been available for 12 years for folks to inspect.  Do you doubt the veracity of the report?  Do you think TIGHAR is lying about the movies and songs referred to in the book? 

There may be other things in Betty's notebook that she would not like to have posted on the internet for all to see. The eight pages shown here seem good enough for our purposes here.

Nothing essential to the Niku hypothesis hangs on Betty's notebook.  I guess you are thinking that she decided in her old age (78 in 2000, I believe) to make up a story about her childhood that would bring her riches, fame, and glory.  If so, she sure worked hard to fake the document.
LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
Logged

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 2901
Re: Re: Betty's Notebook - ethics of acceptance
« Reply #33 on: July 06, 2012, 11:24:16 PM »

Of course if the devil's advocate was posting on these forums he/she could say that the Electra crashed into the ocean near Howland drifted to Gardner and broke up and sunk on the reef face.

Exactly.

That's why there is no Any-Idiot Artifact.

Besides your theory, there are any number more like it.
  • The plane was dropped there by the Japanese to throw searchers off the scent.
  • The plane was dropped there by the U.S. government after the secret spy equipment was retrieved from it.
  • Counterfeit parts were dropped there by TIGHAR.
LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
Logged

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 2901
Re: Re: Betty's Notebook - ethics of acceptance
« Reply #34 on: July 06, 2012, 11:28:31 PM »

I keep reading at this site about the “4th harmonic”.  Who came up with this theory?

Please click on the words in blue that follow this introduction.

It is called a link.

Clicking on a link takes you to material elsewhere on the internet.

In this case, it will take you to a page with three links on it.

Each of those links addresses part of your question.

Here is the opening link:

Harmony and Power: Could Betty Have Heard Amelia Earhart on a Harmonic?
LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
Logged

Jeff Victor Hayden

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1387
Re: Re: Betty's Notebook - ethics of acceptance
« Reply #35 on: July 07, 2012, 07:06:17 AM »

The part I find most interesting is the reaction of Bettys father...


The transmissions continued to come in, off and on, for about three hours until 6:15 p.m. At 5:15 her father came home from work and Betty excitedly told him to come listen. After a few minutes her father ran next door to see if his neighbor could also hear it on his radio

Strange reaction to a 'mistaken' broadcast.
He must have felt it was worth the rush next door to check if his neighbour could hear it as well
This must be the place
 
Logged

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 2901
Re: Re: Betty's Notebook - ethics of acceptance
« Reply #36 on: July 07, 2012, 07:11:58 AM »

The reef landing is I believe the fourth attempt at this, the previous ones involved landings on the beach or the island.

The beach is on the island.

There is no landing strip elsewhere "on" the island.

Perhaps you meant to say, "on the beach or in the lagoon," which comes closer to the historical documents available from TIGHAR about its early work.

Quote
Therefore for things like the "Betty" notebook entry to have validity there must be a reef landing to keep the radio dry, and there is no landing on the island as has been well and truly demonstrated. Accordingly "Betty" must be kosher in order for the reef landing hypothesis to work and there must be a reef landing for "Betty" to be kosher - it's a circular argument. One supports the other.   

Even if Betty's notebook were the sole source for the idea of a reef landing, it wouldn't follow from the notebook being a hoax that AE and FN did not land on the reef.

Betty's notebook is only one of dozens of post-loss radio messages that Gillespie and Brandenburg find credible.  The historical fact that Betty's notebook got them thinking about this data does not mean that proving Betty to have been in error eradicates the other data.

LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
Logged

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 2901
Re: Re: Betty's Notebook - ethics of acceptance
« Reply #37 on: July 07, 2012, 07:23:22 AM »

So now you are saying that the story http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Notebook/notebook.html that she offered it to Fred Goerner (1925 - 1994) presumably after he published his book on Earhart is not true.

My apologies for forgetting this important event.

So now we have a criminal mastermind embarking on the hoax at age 54 instead.

Having failed to cash in on her investment of time and energy in producing 80+ pages of nonsense to help validate 5 pages of lies, she waits for 11 years after TIGHAR starts searching Niku to cash in.

I don't find this persuasive.  I think Betty is honestly reporting how and when the notes in the notebook got there; whether they do, in fact, represent an authentic reception is a different issue, of course. 

There is no "scientific" proof that witnesses (or archaeologists) are not lying.  In the final analysis, you either take them at their word or you don't. 
LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
Logged

Jeff Victor Hayden

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1387
Re: Re: Betty's Notebook - ethics of acceptance
« Reply #38 on: July 07, 2012, 07:37:09 AM »

Did her father testify to this?

It's difficult to say Malcolm. From the link you posted it is Bettys recollections we are looking at. So it could be possible that not only the messages she heard were not what they first appear to be but also, her recollections of what happened in her house with her father could also be debatable.
Not sure if her father was able to 'testify' as the account given by Betty was taken a number of years later, very much later. He may have still been alive.
Another point to note is that it is her father who set up the radio reciever and antenna so he must have some idea of what he was doing and listening to regarding ham radio. Does that sound like a reasonable summary?
This must be the place
 
« Last Edit: July 07, 2012, 09:55:02 AM by Jeff Victor Hayden »
Logged

Greg Daspit

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 710
Re: Re: Betty's Notebook - ethics of acceptance
« Reply #39 on: July 07, 2012, 10:33:57 AM »


Malcolm, you said "Without it we don't have the landed on the outer reef scenario"
 My interpretation of Tighar's "landed on the outer reef scenerio" is that the plane could not transmit if in water for any length of time, that there were several credible radio transmissions, and the props needed to be operable to transmit that long, so a "landed on the outer reef" scenerio best explained the multiple radio transmissions. I also think the outer reef scenario came before Betty's notebook was revealed to Tighar. You can look at Tighars index of dated subjects to see this.

And even before Tighar came up with that scenerio, I think the Navy thought a reef of some kind was a scenario in the 1937 search as well, and I don't think the Navy even talked to Betty. So Betty's notebook is not needed at all to have a "landed on the outer reef scenerio".

You have forgotten that TIGHAR have had to come up with a scenario that supports their hypothesis for the Nikumaroro landing. The reef landing is I believe the fourth attempt at this, the previous ones involved landings on the beach or the island. Therefore for things like the "Betty" notebook entry to have validity there must be a reef landing to keep the radio dry, and there is no landing on the island as has been well and truly demonstrated. Accordingly "Betty" must be kosher in order for the reef landing hypothesis to work and there must be a reef landing for "Betty" to be kosher - it's a circular argument. One supports the other.   

No Malcolm,  I did not forget that.
I think you should read what Tighar's hypothesis is. It seems you forgot or don't know alot of what is in the hypothesis.
I think you should read Marty's post to point you in the right direction of what Tighar's hypothesis is.
This link is what I find informative
http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Overview/AEhypothesis.html
3971R
 
« Last Edit: July 07, 2012, 10:40:25 AM by Gregory Lee Daspit »
Logged

Gary LaPook

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1624
Re: Re: Betty's Notebook - ethics of acceptance
« Reply #40 on: July 07, 2012, 02:21:48 PM »

It is a simple request that I make. If she was in the habit of listening to shortwave broadcasts then she should have notes in her notebook that supports that and, if they are there, adds further credence to her claim.

I posted this link earlier in this thread, but I guess you missed it.

TIGHAR has provided a summary of all of the films and songs referred to in the notebook.

Quote
It might be that her notebook will support her story, let's just see it.

It seems to me that her notebook does support her story.  This chart has been available for 12 years for folks to inspect.  Do you doubt the veracity of the report?  Do you think TIGHAR is lying about the movies and songs referred to in the book? 

There may be other things in Betty's notebook that she would not like to have posted on the internet for all to see. The eight pages shown here seem good enough for our purposes here.

Nothing essential to the Niku hypothesis hangs on Betty's notebook.  I guess you are thinking that she decided in her old age (78 in 2000, I believe) to make up a story about her childhood that would bring her riches, fame, and glory.  If so, she sure worked hard to fake the document.
Nothing shown indicates that she ever listened to shortwave broadcasts either before the Earhart event of after. These pages do support my point in that they show she did listen to local commercial broadcast of the current songs and so supports my point that whatever she heard on that day was most likely also on the standard AM broadcast band. See jury instruction 203.

gl
« Last Edit: July 07, 2012, 02:26:51 PM by Gary LaPook »
Logged

richie conroy

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1412
Re: Re: Betty's Notebook - ethics of acceptance
« Reply #41 on: July 07, 2012, 07:11:51 PM »


No Malcolm,  I did not forget that.
I think you should read what Tighar's hypothesis is. It seems you forgot or don't know alot of what is in the hypothesis.
I think you should read Marty's post to point you in the right direction of what Tighar's hypothesis is.
This link is what I find informative
http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Overview/AEhypothesis.html

I have read the hypothesis - however the simple truth is that the "Betty" notebook and the outer reef landing need each other to work. Simply because if "Betty" is correct then the engines must be functioning and they cannot have been functioning if the aircraft was somehow parked in a clear spot on land because there is no wreck on the actual island itself. The only other clear spot albeit at low tide is the outer reef. As I said it is a circular argument.

Tighar's hypothesis was off reef landing, before Betty's notebook came to light so how do they need it, 

let's be honest Betty's notebook don't have any influence on Tighar's hypothesis either way, it is just another piece of information that Tighar has been made aware ov existing, which like everything else has been posted for all to see

they don't credit or discredit it   
We are an echo of the past


Member# 416
 
Logged

richie conroy

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1412
Re: Re: Betty's Notebook - ethics of acceptance
« Reply #42 on: July 07, 2012, 07:51:04 PM »



Tighar's hypothesis was off reef landing, before Betty's notebook came to light so how do they need it, 

let's be honest Betty's notebook don't have any influence on Tighar's hypothesis either way, it is just another piece of information that Tighar has been made aware ov existing, which like everything else has been posted for all to see

they don't credit or discredit it   

For something they don't need they spend a lot of time defending it. Me, I am as ever rightly sceptical Richie - I suggest that you need to be also.

I think they are showing Betty, who they have met and interviewed a bit of respect and rightly so, We can speculate the notebook is fabricated but what if it isn't, an like those folks in 1937 just dismiss it, like every think else in life, unless it's ourselves that have witnessed an seen for our selves, we will always question other peoples accounts  :)   
We are an echo of the past


Member# 416
 
Logged

Greg Daspit

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 710
Re: Re: Betty's Notebook - ethics of acceptance
« Reply #43 on: July 07, 2012, 09:25:45 PM »


No Malcolm,  I did not forget that.
I think you should read what Tighar's hypothesis is. It seems you forgot or don't know alot of what is in the hypothesis.
I think you should read Marty's post to point you in the right direction of what Tighar's hypothesis is.
This link is what I find informative
http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Overview/AEhypothesis.html

I have read the hypothesis - however the simple truth is that the "Betty" notebook and the outer reef landing need each other to work. Simply because if "Betty" is correct then the engines must be functioning and they cannot have been functioning if the aircraft was somehow parked in a clear spot on land because there is no wreck on the actual island itself. The only other clear spot albeit at low tide is the outer reef. As I said it is a circular argument.

Malcolm, There were several other radio messages listed that are part of their hypothesis. Betty's is not the only radio signal recieved so your statement "Betty" notebook and the outer reef landing need each other to work" is not correct.

 There are also photographic parts, the witnesses to aircraft wreckage on the reef part, and found aircraft debris near the reef parts. So the simple truth is the outer reef landing aspect of their hypothesis does not need Betty's notebook.

See this link for the radio message part of the landing on a reef hypothesis. Clearly Betty's is not the only one listed
http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/ResearchPapers/Brandenburg/signalcatalog3.html

In the link, look at the radio message Dana Randolf recieved. He reported he heard Amelia Earhart and "ship is on a reef" and what he heard was reported in the local paper at the time.
Dana Randolf said he heard the transmission approx 1500-1525Z, at about that same time Ernest Crabb also reported hearing what she thought was AE and two different Pan Am Direction stations (Oahu and Midway) also logged in recieving signals.
Oahu even got a bearing of 213 degrees at 1515Z (same period Dana Randolf said he recieved "ship is on a reef"). Gardner is on a bearing of 213 from Oahu.

4 different sources in about a 25 minute period. 2 logged by professionals, one of which got a bearing to Gardner. A 3rd logged by newspaper account at the time.
Again we are talking about Tighar's hypothesis of a landing on a reef. It does not need Betty's notebook.
3971R
 
« Last Edit: July 07, 2012, 09:33:07 PM by Gregory Lee Daspit »
Logged

Gary LaPook

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1624
Re: Re: Betty's Notebook - ethics of acceptance
« Reply #44 on: July 07, 2012, 11:11:20 PM »

Nothing shown indicates that she ever listened to shortwave broadcasts either before the Earhart event of after.

All we have about the shortwave broadcasts is her testimony to that effect.

It's true that what we have seen of the rest of the notebook does not confirm her testimony; neither does it impeach it.

She claims that the five pages are from the shortwave band.  You apparently deny that.  I'd say that the five pages show she did listen to the shortwave; you would not accept that reasoning.  I think she's telling the truth; you think she's mistaken or malevolent.
I certainly do not think she is "malevolent."
In case you have misread what I have said in the past, here is a recap. I have said that Betty did not fabricate that notebook, I believe that she wrote down what she heard coming out of her radio and that what she stated when interviewed is what she remembered and believed was the truth. Is that clear?

Now to get to the point I have been trying to make. There is nothing in the original notes on the Earhart pages in her notebook saying that she was listening on shortwave and no mention of way up on the shortwave tuning dial around 25,000 kcs. So that part of the story is based on her memory when interviewed 60 years later, none of us have perfect memories. And we don't know what questions were asked of her and this is the same problem with the Japanese capture eyewitnesses.

"Do you remember what frequency you were listening on?"
"Not clearly"
"Did the radio cover shortwave?"
"My dad said it did."
"So it is possible that you were listening on shortwave?"
"Yes, I suppose so."
"Are you sure that you were not listening on shortwave?"
"Well, no."
"To be able to hear her you must have been listening on shortwave."
"Oh, so I guess I was listening on shortwave."

IF there are other pages that clearly show that on other occasions that she had listened to shortwave then that would bolster the story that on the Earhart occasion she was also listening on shortwave so that would be strong evidence in favor of that theory. I have no idea if there are such notations but if there are then show us, it can only help your case. Otherwise we have to believe that the one time she happened to try the shorwave bands she hit the jackpot, hearing Amelia.
I also suppose that Betty may have given a complete copy to TIGHAR so maybe this should be directed to TIGHAR and not Betty. Put your cards on the table, show us what you got.

I looked at the list of songs in Betty's notebook and it is obvious that they are all American songs so she didn't hear them on international shortwave broadcasts, just like I said before, this shows that she was in the habit of listening on the normal AM broadcast band.

gl


« Last Edit: July 10, 2012, 04:12:50 AM by Gary LaPook »
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6   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