Since we are merely playing the "what if" game, how about this:
After sustaining fairly serious injuries in a very rough landing, Fred and Amelia are effectively trapped inside the aircraft. Amelia cannot reach the rear of the aircraft to retrieve the correct charts and instrumentation to allow them to positively identify where they have come down. After a time, Amelia is able to get free and find the name of the ship on the reef, and discover that the aircraft is able to run the right engine allowing her to recharge the nearly flat batteries. This allows further use of the radio. A few days pass, the airplane is being washed back and forth and Amelia cannot get Fred out of the cockpit hatch due to his injuries as well as her own. His condition continues to deteriorate until he passes away and Amelia abandons the wreckage to the sea. During the days that the aircraft was still transmitting, Amelia is forced to try to find help on the island, finding none she begins to understand what awaits her...
Of all I have read of the fire features, artifacts and other evidence found at the Seven Site (http://tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/2000Vol_16/sevensite.pdf), I can't seem to find an official current estimate of how long the castaways may have survived.
So yeah, it's day 3 or 4 or 5, nobody's coming to the rescue, nobody's acknowledged getting my distress signals, nobody's appeared on the horizon, and FN is dying on me, and I'm AE. What am I going to do? I am gonna find out if anybody else is on this fricking island. I'm going to feel pretty stupid if, LOST-style, there's someone else hiding out in a hut on the other side and I never went to find them.
So yeah, it's day 3 or 4 or 5, nobody's coming to the rescue, nobody's acknowledged getting my distress signals, nobody's appeared on the horizon, and FN is dying on me, and I'm AE. What am I going to do? I am gonna find out if anybody else is on this fricking island. I'm going to feel pretty stupid if, LOST-style, there's someone else hiding out in a hut on the other side and I never went to find them.
Why wait for day 3, 4 or 5 why not the day they landed, day 1, or first thing the next day, day 2, at the latest? Why wait til you are hungry and thirsty, go find help now. In reality, isn't that what you would have done?
How long do you think it would take to walk all the way around the island? Read Bevington's journal (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Bevington_Diary.html). He managed to walk the entire circuit, without any water or food, starting at 9 am and finishing at 3:30 pm, a total of only six and half hours and they were doing investigations along the way. The slowest members of his group took three hours longer. So there is no reason to believe that they could have only made it as far as the "7" site before giving up.
gl
In summary then I see four possible fates for Earhart and Noonan of which only one can be right. Which is to say the remains of the Electra can only be in one place. As I said the evidence of the post-disappearance messages is at best are problematic because they do not give a location - if genuine they could have come from a reef or uninhabited island in the Gilberts to the north-west as much as from Gardner Island.
I've said it before that the material evidence found on Gardner (shoe parts, compact mirror and that one fragment of aircraft skin) is interesting but are not conclusive. The account by the settlers of the PISS about plane wreckage is interesting but unverified and "Nessie" at present could be anything. The skeletal remains were initially identified physically as a male and probably a person of Pacific Islander heritage - the recent re-identification is not based on the physical evidence and is at best only a hypothesis. After all a male Polynesian castaway on Nikumaroro is as likely, given the documented cases of Pacific Islanders being carried long distances by storms and surviving and one could have suffered that fate and come ashore on Nikumaroro sometime in the early 30s or even late 20s.
So my position in this matter is undecided and will only be decided if material evidence that is irrefutable (skeletal and subsequent DNA or dental verification, the actual wreck of the Electra or parts thereof or something else of similar certainty) is found to indicate their landing and subsequent death on Nikumaroro or elsewhere. Frankly at this stage, given the evidence available, the actual fate of Earhart and Noonan is not yet demonstrated. Everything else, however emotionally compelling, is hypothesis.
All of which aside I wish TIGHAR every success in finding the crucial evidence, as I do to anyone else investigating the fate of the lost aviators.
:)
Hi Malcolm...glad to have a chance to engage with you too. I respect your opinion, etc.
"Fred, according to Betty you're injured, so you better wait here. Keep a sharp lookout for any planes or boats. Try to stay in the shade a bit but don't go very far into the bush, you need to be able to get out and wave if something comes by."
Hell no, that's not what I would have done. While there's a visible landmark (plane), an outside tether to the world (radio), and means to operate (battery/remaining gas), I am staying right by that plane. I have a limited window to run the radio before the juice runs out and (as may have become increasingly evident) the plane itself disappears. Add to that the supposition that FN was injured, which may have prevented them from, say, splitting up...no way. Leaving the area of the plane would be completely idiotic.
Hi Malcolm...glad to have a chance to engage with you too. I respect your opinion, etc.
Hello Adam
I think even TIGHAR admit that the radio messages only provide very scant evidence of Earhart and Noonan's location. The extrapolation to Gardner Island using them really only hinges on the 157/337 line transmission.
The skeletal re-examination without access to either the bones or scaled photographs does not provide anything other than an informed guess. Currently, despite TIGHAR's rather hopeful thinking following that re-examination that they are of a white female (ergo Amelia Earhart), I have no reason to doubt Dr Hoodless's original conclusion. That is not to say I am closed to further proven evidence or examination of the island, just that as someone with a background in field archaeology and bone recovery I see nothing in the new claim that conclusively overturns his findings.
I won't reiterate the four hypotheses as I see them but I can say that currently the physical evidence produced so far, from my experience in archaeology, is too scant to make Nikumaroro any more certain than any of the four competing hypotheses. The key to proof is the recovery of the Electra wreck - and once more nothing conclusive has been found so far.
Therefore as to offering hypotheses about the hypothetical movements of our hypothetical crash survivors who are suffering from hypothetical injuries I prefer to abstain. All it will turn into is an exercise in fantasy like the identification of aircraft fragments on the ROV footage when one doesn't even have a scale with which to work out sizes of what are, to all intents and purposes, amorphous chunks of coral debris.
"Fred, according to Betty you're injured, so you better wait here. Keep a sharp lookout for any planes or boats. Try to stay in the shade a bit but don't go very far into the bush, you need to be able to get out and wave if something comes by."
Hell no, that's not what I would have done. While there's a visible landmark (plane), an outside tether to the world (radio), and means to operate (battery/remaining gas), I am staying right by that plane. I have a limited window to run the radio before the juice runs out and (as may have become increasingly evident) the plane itself disappears. Add to that the supposition that FN was injured, which may have prevented them from, say, splitting up...no way. Leaving the area of the plane would be completely idiotic.
"What are you going to do, Amelia?"
"I'm going to see if I can find some help."
"Why don't you wait til tomorrow?"
"Because I'm worried that I may be weaker and unable to do it tomorrow due to hunger and thirst, today is my best shot."
"How long will you be gone, I don't like being left alone."
"Well, the island didn't look too big when we were landing so I will see if I can walk all the way around it, that way I can't miss finding help if there is someone on the island. I"ll be back before sundown, after all, I can't get lost, it is an island after all."
gl
Rescue is days away unless there is a village at the other end of the island in which case it is only a few hours away. And you might be able to get some medical attention for poor Fred, he can't wait several days, he'll die unless he gets some medical care immediately. And where did you come up with the busted ankle, even Betty didn't claim that?
So how does making a script to match this scenario make it any less nonsensical? They've just crashed the plane on a reef, but they're got gas and a working radio, and the whole world's waiting for word from her. Rescue is days away even if the distress call goes out immediately. Fred's injured, and Amelia just goes, well hell, the whole world can wait, suck it up Fred, I'm going to poke around on the off chance there's someone here instead of phoning for help until I run out of gas? On my possibly busted ankle, on no sleep whatsoever?
Seriously, man...you're a pilot, right? You're saying after you lost contact with the tower and you land your plane in an unknown location and incur injuries with the crew, and you're just going to ignore the radio, dump your injured navigator to fend for himself and limp off on a day trip?
Please don't ever fly my plane.
... There's some evidence that Hoodless felt slighted and intercepted the bones so as to make the evaluation himself, which is suggestive to me, though hardly conclusive...
1. It's fun. It's also just people on a message board.
2. People thinking out of the box, and with a firm grasp on the big picture, very often arrive at the correct answer where people who consider themselves experts, and so blind themselves to answers that are before them, but may conflict with long-standing biases or lie beyond the narrow focus of their own sense of expertise, do not.
:)
Well, you have four competing hypotheses, a good deal of evidence, some of which you choose to completely discount (as opposed to approaching with open-minded skepticism) for what seem to be totally arbitrary reasons, has been amassed in favor of one, and as far as I know little or none for the other three. I respect your opinion, and I agree that nothing is conclusive. I simply submit that your means for reaching it is not as scientific nor as objective as you would have us believe.
Dr Hoodless was a experienced doctor, he also was conversant with the physical anthropology of Polynesians. He was not some village general practitioner viewing his first set of skeletal remains.
They don't have these partial remains at all yet they say that Dr Hoodless was completely wrong and that the skeleton was instead that of a slender tall white woman who just happens to match Amelia Earhart's physique.
3. The New Britain hypothesis where according to http://www.electranewbritain.com/ an Australian army patrol in 1945 found the wreck of a twin engined aircraft that was not a military type and was unknown to the US military to whom it was reported. Far fetched? possibly but as we don't know at what point Earhart and Noonan actually felt that they were lost then they may have flown a reciprocal course back. I am not convinced myself but the C/N on the metal tag on the engine mounts is quite compelling.
Quote3. The New Britain hypothesis where according to http://www.electranewbritain.com/ an Australian army patrol in 1945 found the wreck of a twin engined aircraft that was not a military type and was unknown to the US military to whom it was reported. Far fetched? possibly but as we don't know at what point Earhart and Noonan actually felt that they were lost then they may have flown a reciprocal course back. I am not convinced myself but the C/N on the metal tag on the engine mounts is quite compelling.
Very far fetched. The fact they that were nearly at Howland (signal strength 5 in radio logs) and the fact that they said "We must be on you but cannot see you" discounts that entire theory. Given the fuel consumption, they probably could not travel in excess of 500SM after arriving where they thought Howland was.
Paper tiger / straw man. You are NOT accurately describing what the forensic anthropologist said (http://tighar.org/wiki/Bones_I). This is a basic failure of reasoning and courtesy on your part. She said there are reasons to think that Hoodless may have been mistaken because his measurements, run through a modern forensic system, suggest that a different analysis is probable.
Malcom: "5. The next expedition to Nikumaroro needs to find unequivocal material evidence."
Or what? I won't be giving up and you can't make me... :D
The Gardner search will find legs as long as there are enough people of enough means who believe in it to make a search happen. Is it anyone's intent to kill such a creature for us sad folk who would persist? Perish the thought - it's still a free country.
I think it's totally subjective, and I told you why. Your detailed response, which I think displayed a bit of confusion about some of the facts of the case, rather reinforced that impression. But hey, man, that's great. We're all here to kick around ideas and valid criticism is a part of that. But you have to be able to take it as well as dish it out -- if someone takes the logical basis of your criticisms apart, that's just what you should expect. If you're not used to having that done, I am sorry. But it is a two-way street.
LTM, as they say... :)
That is still a hypothesis unsupported by any physical skeletal material - if the next expedition finds any further remains then it can be properly tested against actual skeletal material.
In archaeology and physical anthropology second guessing previous findings without having the original material present is very risky - probably is not certainly.
QuoteIn archaeology and physical anthropology second guessing previous findings without having the original material present is very risky - probably is not certainly.
That's exactly what our forensic anthropologist said. She indicated a probability, based on Hoodless's measurements and run through a modern forensic database. She did not claim certitude. ...
You criticize TIGHAR for saying something it has never said. When I point this out, you then make exactly the same point I made. Kar's argument is based on probabilities. That means that it was not ever and is not now a claim to certainty on her part or TIGHAR's.
3. The New Britain hypothesis where according to http://www.electranewbritain.com/ (http://www.electranewbritain.com/) an Australian army patrol in 1945 found the wreck of a twin engined aircraft that was not a military type and was unknown to the US military to whom it was reported. Far fetched? possibly but as we don't know at what point Earhart and Noonan actually felt that they were lost then they may have flown a reciprocal course back. I am not convinced myself but the C/N on the metal tag on the engine mounts is quite compelling.
Scenario: Plane lands on reef edge, landing is rough enough to injure but not incapacitate occupants. After recovering some strength the crew disembarks and pilot injures ankle negotiating reef flat. Walking in the surf is very difficult so life line is tied off from plane to trees along the shore. Radio calls begin and continue for several days. Crew explores vacinity of shore around airplane, find boats and debris from Norwich City. Tides continue to rise until plane is torn off the landing gear and is submerged in the surf. Crew forced to shore. Search Planes fly over. Crew unable to draw attension for whatever reason, asleep? exploring in bush? unable to walk quickly enough? In time castaways move to "Seven Site" where one or both perish under the ren tree....I have attached two photos from the Purdue collection. The first photo show what the Electra must have looked like standing on its legs so that the engines were high enough to be run to provide the electrical power so that Earhart could send out radio messages. The second picture is of the plane after it crashed on takeoff from Hawaii.
I have attached two photos from the Purdue collection. The first photo show what the Electra must have looked like standing on its legs so that the engines were high enough to be run to provide the electrical power so that Earhart could send out radio messages. The second picture is of the plane after it crashed on takeoff from Hawaii. ...
Your only reason to believe that Noonan was injured is the message that Betty claimed to have heard. See Brandenberg's original analysis of the probability of Betty hearing Earhart. (https://tighar.org/smf/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=625.0;attach=1952) This shows only a one chance in 878 and that only existed for the first half hour. In the next hour the probability of Betty actually hearing Earhart dropped off to only 1 chance in 344,827! For the last 15 minute period the probability increased to 1 chance in 50,000. The current listing for the Betty reception doesn't break it down into these three periods but it makes sense that the periods mentioned in the first Brandenberg table also hold true for the current listing, so after the first half hour the chance of Betty continuing to hear Earhart dropped off to Brandenberg's new estimate contained in the new listing (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/ResearchPapers/Brandenburg/signalcatalog4.html#ID52130KK)of one chance in one-million-four-hundred-ninty-two- thousand-five-hundred and thirty seven (1,492,537) yet the claim is that Betty heard Earhart for an hour and 45 minutes. Or to put it another way, even Brandenberg, using all of his electronics acumen, ends up showing that the odds against Betty being able to hear Earhart for the period that she claimed is 1,492,536 to 1. Wait a second, isn't Betty the same person who claimed to have won the Mega Millions Lottery last week? Wait, no, that was somebody else. So do you really believe that Betty actually heard that Noonan was injured?
gl
You believe that Noonan was injured during the landing on the reef at Gardner island, a landing that would have ended up with the plane in the position shown in the first photo. However, when the aircraft ended up looking like it does in the second photo, Earhart, Manning and Noonan all walked away without injury. This crash was sufficient to rip off both main landing gears and did substantial other damage to the airframe. I don't know, but it seems to me that if Noonan was not injured in the crash at Luke field then it is very unlikely that he was injured in the controlled landing on the reef. And, keep in mind, nobody had any warning of the impending crash in Hawaii so as to brace themselves to avoid injury but there was plenty of time to prepare for the landing on the reef, it did not come as a surprise, making it even more unlikely that Noonan sustained any injuries there.
Your only reason to believe that Noonan was injured is the message that Betty claimed to have heard.... So do you really believe that Betty actually heard that Noonan was injured?
...any responsible person who is spending someone else's money has the obligation to recognise that the answer may not be where they are looking. That's how the real world of funding for scientific activity works - do you have a reason why it shouldn't be the same for this matter, other than the somewhat nebulous reason of faith?
I can presume therefore that you are happily providing part of the funding and you are happy to continue to - if so that is your right and no one should deny it. But if there are people who have contributed to help solve the mystery because the TIGHAR hypothesis seemed to them to be a possible solution do they have the right to say enough is enough because no final solution has emerged which, unfortunately, is the current situation. In the end if cut off points are not declared then it develops into a sort of research Ponzi scheme. :)
You're too funny, Malcolm - ....
But I think 'ponzi' is a ridiculous term to bring to these pages.
...and you're either missing the point of how TIGHAR really operates, or you are disingenuously injecting a nay-saying spirit here.
LTM -
I have not criticised TIGHAR, I have however criticised the taking of that data by some to claim certainty - different thing.
In archaeology and physical anthropology second guessing previous findings without having the original material present is very risky - probably is not certainly.
We know more today than Hoodless did in 1941. It seems quite reasonable to "second-guess" his conclusions, even though the "guessing" done by contemporary anthropologists arrives only at probabilities, not certainties.
You believe that Noonan was injured during the landing on the reef at Gardner island, a landing that would have ended up with the plane in the position shown in the first photo. However, when the aircraft ended up looking like it does in the second photo, Earhart, Manning and Noonan all walked away without injury. This crash was sufficient to rip off both main landing gears and did substantial other damage to the airframe. I don't know, but it seems to me that if Noonan was not injured in the crash at Luke field then it is very unlikely that he was injured in the controlled landing on the reef. And, keep in mind, nobody had any warning of the impending crash in Hawaii so as to brace themselves to avoid injury but there was plenty of time to prepare for the landing on the reef, it did not come as a surprise, making it even more unlikely that Noonan sustained any injuries there.
gl
As has been mentioned before in this thread, this is all speculation and as such shouldn't be taken as Gospel truth.
...
... It's just for fun so lets see your idea of what happened!
I think it's totally subjective, and I told you why. Your detailed response, which I think displayed a bit of confusion about some of the facts of the case, rather reinforced that impression. But hey, man, that's great. We're all here to kick around ideas and valid criticism is a part of that. But you have to be able to take it as well as dish it out -- if someone takes the logical basis of your criticisms apart, that's just what you should expect. If you're not used to having that done, I am sorry. But it is a two-way street.
LTM, as they say... :)
Hello Adam
Nowhere have I seen where you have taken the logical basis of my comments apart. All you said was that I discounted some of the evidence without much comment. Some things are so vague in their material associations with the hypothesis or provide so little diagnostic evidence that comment is unnecessary. I commend TIGHAR for noting these limitations in its discussion of the items - it is a pity that some of their supporters appear unable to do the same.
Initially I was asked what my hypothesis was concerning the fate of Earhart and Noonan, which I answered by providing a brief synopsis of the four main hypotheses and which I qualified by saying honestly that I felt that there was insufficient evidence available for me to make a choice of any of them. To support my concerns I briefly mentioned the problem of the archaeology of the finds on Nikumaroro, as archaeology is the specific discipline in which I have some experience - Masters, Ph.D, fieldwork in various parts of the world etc.
My main fault it appears, is that I have not unequivocally accepted the Gardner Island hypothesis although as I recall I have never said that I don't accept it. All I have ever said is that it, like the others, remains unproven. If you find that hard to understand then there is no more I can say to make it clearer to you.
Day one is all about staying put, you have shelter, food, water and a means of communication.
Day 5 and yes you cut loose and look for shelter, water and food.
Not so clear is when it might have sheared off the airplane, if that was the case. The airplane could have been pinned to that spot in the early few days by the gear, and later separated - damaged trunnion mounts, etc. finally yielding to forces from the sea and wind.
Day 5 and yes you cut loose and look for shelter, water and food.
You fly to an island, possibly circle it and then put down. If it was inhabitated wouldn't the islanders come and look for you? Especialy if you can walk around the island in less than a day?
Um, no, Malcolm. Again you confuse evidence with proof, equal consideration of evidence with blind acceptance...which is exactly the basis by which I did, indeed, question the scientific basis for your conclusions...as opposed to having an opinion or a theory you like, which everyone has a right to.
The issue is simply that you discard, or attach must less evidentiary weight to, compelling data points that support the TIGHAR hypothesis, for no objective reason. You continue to talk about conclusive data, but evidence, as I continue to point out to you, need not be conclusive. It's just information to be weighed.
Scenario: After the landing, A.E. has one thought in her mind: "I hope there will be a search and they will find us!" Therefore she stays NEAR the plane, because the plane would be seen first from above. But then the plane is covered with water, and A.E. knows: "They won't see the Electra, so I must show them I AM HERE!" So she makes a big sign at the beach that could be seen clearly from above. She knows, that is the only way to save her life. SHE MUST BE SEEN!
And what found Lambrecht? No Electra, no S.O.S on the beach, no sign that would show him that A.E. and F.N were there. Nothing at all. And so I ask: WHY?
I just realized that I should not have said, based on Brandenberg's investigation, that there was only one chance in one-million-four-hundred-ninty-two- thousand-five-hundred and thirty seven that the signal would be received in Florida, where Betty lived, strong enough for her to hear it for the period of time she claimed. I calculated this by using Brandenberg's probability of reception, 0.00000067, and taking the inverse of it, 1/0.00000067 which produced the number I listed showing that there was only one chance in one-million-four-hundred-ninty-two- thousand-five-hundred and thirty seven that Betty could receive a signal from Gardner. The reason that I should not have said that there was only one chance in one-million-four-hundred-ninty-two- thousand-five-hundred and thirty seven (1,492,537) is because Brandenberg only gave his probability value, 0.00000067, to a precision of only two digits, two significant figures. Since he showed only two digits it is not correct to show the inverse of that number, one-million-four-hundred-ninty-two- thousand-five-hundred and thirty seven (1,492,537), to a precision of 7 digits even though taking the inverse of 0.00000067 produces exactly one-million-four-hundred-ninty-two- thousand-five-hundred and thirty seven (1,492,537.) So I want to correct my prior statement and instead of stating it to an unwarranted precision of 7 digits, only 1 chance in 1,492,537, I will state it instead to the warranted precision of two digits, 1,500,000 to one or 1.5 million to one. I hope I haven't confused anyone by my use of 1,492,537 to one instead of the more proper 1.5 million to one.
Your only reason to believe that Noonan was injured is the message that Betty claimed to have heard. See Brandenberg's original analysis of the probability of Betty hearing Earhart. (https://tighar.org/smf/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=625.0;attach=1952) This shows only a one chance in 878 and that only existed for the first half hour. In the next hour the probability of Betty actually hearing Earhart dropped off to only 1 chance in 344,827! For the last 15 minute period the probability increased to 1 chance in 50,000. The current listing for the Betty reception doesn't break it down into these three periods but it makes sense that the periods mentioned in the first Brandenberg table also hold true for the current listing, so after the first half hour the chance of Betty continuing to hear Earhart dropped off to Brandenberg's new estimate contained in the new listing (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/ResearchPapers/Brandenburg/signalcatalog4.html#ID52130KK)of one chance in one-million-four-hundred-ninty-two- thousand-five-hundred and thirty seven (1/0.00000067 = 1,492,537) yet the claim is that Betty heard Earhart for an hour and 45 minutes. Or to put it another way, even Brandenberg, using all of his electronics acumen, ends up showing that the odds against Betty being able to hear Earhart for the period that she claimed is 1,492,536 to 1.
gl
Jeff -- Just so we're clear, I was suggesting that Gary's little scenario was totally nonsensical on day one, when we believe they had a working radio and gas and a battery and a plane that was likely to go over the reef at any moment. It makes absolutely no sense that Amelia would abandon the radio and an injured navigator on the off chance there might be someone around, particularly if she was moving slowly. She'd also probably hope that if someone was on the island, they would hear the crash and come to investigate.
Once the plane was over the edge and/or the radio no longer worked, though, yeah -- no problem with Gary's scenario. My issue was with his repeated assertion that that was something they would plausibly do as soon as they landed. No. Way. Plus, not supported by the evidence we have, but that's another issue.
And there is certainly no reason that either Earhart or Noonan were "McGivers" with any knowledge of how to troubleshoot a radio problem or to fix one if they found it.
In fact, there is reason to believe that the transmitter die not work since no transmissions from the plane were heard by Itasca during the three hour flight down to Gardner and it is logical that she was attempting to send messages about her location and plans at that time.
Scenario: After the landing, A.E. has one thought in her mind: "I hope there will be a search and they will find us!" Therefore she stays NEAR the plane, because the plane would be seen first from above. But then the plane is covered with water, and A.E. knows: "They won't see the Electra, so I must show them I AM HERE!" So she makes a big sign at the beach that could be seen clearly from above. She knows, that is the only way to save her life. SHE MUST BE SEEN!
And what found Lambrecht? No Electra, no S.O.S on the beach, no sign that would show him that A.E. and F.N were there. Nothing at all. And so I ask: WHY?
A very good question. I have always thought that staying on the shore near the Norwich City wreck to be preferable to going elsewhere on the island in that short period before lack of food and more importantly water overtook them. The wreck was the most naturally visible feature on the island and anybody flying there would be drawn to it as a starting point for a search. So staying near it is logical.
The largest land mass of Nikumaroro is at the north west corner of the island, it has coconuts and would be a place one could reasonably expect to dig a well with some hope of success. I am not suggesting that they dug a well - it is a possibility they might have briefly considered but the reality is that it would be hard work given their deteriorating physical condition and lack of appropriate tools. Not like in movies where the explorers expiring from dehydration dig frantically with their hands in a nice dry sandy river bottom and are rewarded with a muddy trickle. It would also serve as a good base for exploratory treks around the island - if the bones are Earhart's, something that I remain to be convinced of, then perhaps they are there because she simply collapsed and could go no further while searching for food or water after a rain squall, on a walk, a few days or a week or so after the landing. Why her purported shoe is on the other side of the lagoon is strange - carried there by a crab attracted to the leather? dropped as she succumbed to delirium? Not hers at all? Who knows but I would suggest that walking in bare feet would be both painful and very debilitating so perhaps when that happened both she and Noonan were at the end of their rope.
Noonan could have been with her, after all we are only extrapolating from a garbled and badly recalled radio message that he was injured, and he moved on, preferring not to remain in the vicinity of a rapidly decomposing and hurriedly covered body that was becoming a crab magnet and died somewhere else. All very tragic and good stuff for a reenactment in a TV special but there isn't much real evidence to support it. Just like any other reconstruction of their last days if they made it to Nikumaroro.
Well the problem is that lots of people are assuming that because of the Betty radio message that on Nikumaroro, Amelia is OK and poor Fred is helpless. Now as there is nothing to support that hypothesis how about this one.
Earhart, not the greatest pilot on Earth as we are aware, bounces the Electra down on the reef, in the process breaking off one undercarriage leg, and finally wakes up to the fact that she has got both of them well and truly in the s**t. Noonan a man we all know of some experience in nautical and command matters finally tells her -
"Amelia, this your fault, the radio was working but you have stuffed it by not transmitting long enough at any time for anyone to get a fix and we get ourselves lost. I'm here because your husband was well aware you couldn't navigate to save your life and you would need an expert to get you across the ocean. Now stop fiddling with the radio - no one is listening. Let's get out of this tin can, its hot, a wreck and the next wave will probably drown us in it, and head for the shore."
Once ashore after a couple of acrimonious days Amelia well aware of her limitations, after being really made aware of them by Noonan, storms off to the south of the island and succumbs finally to thirst due to her usual inability to pay attention to detail.
Fred, thoroughly glad to see the end of her, stays near the shore of the north part of the island near the wreck and succumbs himself to thirst and hunger. Being near the shore his body is washed out to sea by a high tide or storm and then disappears.
Works for me.
Back to Lambrecht: As far as I know (please correct me if I'm wrong) nobody ever asked him what he meant with "Signs of recent habitation". I think, it would be very, very interesting to know that. It would have great influence upon our discussion here!You're wrong. A simple search of the TIGHAR site using the keywords "lambrecht interview habitation" reveals he was asked what he meant (Ric gave a brief summary (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,517.msg6607.html#msg6607); also see an entry in the old Earhart forum (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Forum/Highlights101_120/highlights114.html#4)) by Fred Goerner back in the early 1970s. Alas, Lambrecht's response was equally sparse -- he said he saw "markers," but with no further description of what that meant.
Back to Lambrecht: As far as I know (please correct me if I'm wrong) nobody ever asked him what he meant with "Signs of recent habitation". I think, it would be very, very interesting to know that. It would have great influence upon our discussion here!You're wrong. A simple search of the TIGHAR site using the keywords "lambrecht interview habitation" reveals he was asked what he meant (Ric gave a brief summary (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,517.msg6607.html#msg6607); also see an entry in the old Earhart forum (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Forum/Highlights101_120/highlights114.html#4)) by Fred Goerner back in the early 1970s. Alas, Lambrecht's response was equally sparse -- he said he saw "markers," but with no further description of what that meant.
Ok, thanks for the link. But the result is the same: He WAS asked but he had to tell nothing...
Agree - very possible, and Gary LaPook pointed that out as well I believe: if no one was hurt in the Luke Field crash, then why would a lesser impact injure Fred? ...
LTM -
I think on page two of the Mabel Duncklee Letters (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Letters/Duncklee.pdf) She mentions his being injured. I thought I saw where her account has been more or less discounted as low on the probability chart, but isn't it odd that she used the same language as Betty?
But my point of all this is best described in an anecdote: When I was in the Army, I once had the misfortune to see a man GROUND into three distinct and very seperate pieces between the treads of two M-60A1 tanks. He remained alert and continually tried to pull himself erect. He also continued to fight with the very people who were doing everything possible to save his life.As we told our students at Ft. Knox, "A tank is designed to kill people and it doesn't care who." I remember one gristly accident that occurred, I wasn't there when it happened (had I been there it wouldn't have happened!), I arrived just a few minutes later. One M60A1 tank wouldn't start so they were slave starting it with another M60A1. The driver had pulled his tank into position nose-to-nose with the dead tank and had passed the slave cables from his hatch to the driver in the other tank by the guy standing between the tanks holding the cables up (you probably see what's coming.) The operating tank driver revved up his engine to make more juice and the brakes didn't hold and the guy in the middle got pinched in half by the sharp leading edges of the hulls, kinda like a big pair of scissors. He was still screaming when I got there but not for very long. How many times can your tell people that when slave starting a tank you pull the operating tank in at right angles to the dead tank so the guy passing the cable can't get caught in the middle.
Um, no, Malcolm. Again you confuse evidence with proof, equal consideration of evidence with blind acceptance...which is exactly the basis by which I did, indeed, question the scientific basis for your conclusions...as opposed to having an opinion or a theory you like, which everyone has a right to.
The issue is simply that you discard, or attach must less evidentiary weight to, compelling data points that support the TIGHAR hypothesis, for no objective reason. You continue to talk about conclusive data, but evidence, as I continue to point out to you, need not be conclusive. It's just information to be weighed.
Hello Adam.
Tell me which compelling evidence it is that I have dismissed without proper discussion which in your opinion supports the TIGHAR hypothesis. As you will have read in my discussion of the skeletal data reexamination my main concern was the tendency for people to confuse the notion of probable with certainty so your comments regarding my concerns about it show an inability on your part to catch the subtle but vital distinction I was making.
Jeff -- Just so we're clear, I was suggesting that Gary's little scenario was totally nonsensical on day one, when we believe they had a working radio and gas and a battery and a plane that was likely to go over the reef at any moment. It makes absolutely no sense that Amelia would abandon the radio and an injured navigator on the off chance there might be someone around, particularly if she was moving slowly. She'd also probably hope that if someone was on the island, they would hear the crash and come to investigate.
Once the plane was over the edge and/or the radio no longer worked, though, yeah -- no problem with Gary's scenario. My issue was with his repeated assertion that that was something they would plausibly do as soon as they landed. No. Way. Plus, not supported by the evidence we have, but that's another issue.
I said she should look for help on the second day since she only had half a day left after her arrival on Gardner.
Just because you believe that they had a working transmitter based on the reports of later radio receptions, what makes you think that Earhart believed that her transmitter was working? She never got any responses to the messages she sent to Itasca. Just because the radio lights up doesn't mean that it is putting out any signal. Even if it did work, she would have no way to know that, she got no feedback to confirm that it was actually working. In fact, there is reason to believe that the transmitter die not work since no transmissions from the plane were heard by Itasca during the three hour flight down to Gardner and it is logical that she was attempting to send messages about her location and plans at that time. And there is certainly no reason that either Earhart or Noonan were "McGivers" with any knowledge of how to troubleshoot a radio problem or to fix one if they found it.
"Amelia, please go and see if you can find some medical help for me, I'm really busted up and I know I will die before help can arrive from Howland, I can't last more than one or two days. My only hope is that there is someone, somewhere on this island to help me or I am lost."
"There, there, Fred it'll be alright. I want to stay here for five more days and send out radio distress calls."
"Amelia, that radio ain't working, no one ever responded to us, it's busted, go get me some help."
"There, there Fred it will be alright."
"Tell you what Amelia, if I am going to die here because you won't try to get me some help, I am going to use my sextant box to bash in your head, and take you with me!"
gl
Well the problem is that lots of people are assuming that because of the Betty radio message that on Nikumaroro, Amelia is OK and poor Fred is helpless. Now as there is nothing to support that hypothesis how about this one.
My answer to that would be the radio would still be far and away their best shot. But I think you are right that they could not be sure that it was working, though if the belly antenna theory was right and they fixed the problem, then they at least would know they had probably fixed the problem that had hampered them before and it should work. But it's a fair question and I'm glad you brought it up. Though living in Los Angeles as I do, I'd suggest not embarking on a screenwriting career. Though the sextant bash is kind of a nice touch.If they discovered the belly antenna missing after the landing on the reef, splashing through the water, etc, how would they know that I was missing prior to the landing? Which brings up another thing, what antenna did they use for hearing KGMB?
There's evidence that they heard the KGMB broadcast.
But it's very interesing that also in the Saipan or Gilberts hypothesis Fred Noonan is described as being injured after the landing/crash.I think on page two of the Mabel Duncklee Letters (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Letters/Duncklee.pdf) She mentions his being injured. I thought I saw where her account has been more or less discounted as low on the probability chart, but isn't it odd that she used the same language as Betty?
I must admit I have a low probability rating for the Mabel Duncklee account as well, not only for the reasons given. It is the second part of that which is not quoted in the TIGHAR bulletin but appears in the PDF of the letter itself on the TIGHAR files that concerns me. That is the account she gives of her son's experience with which she agrees - he says that Earhart and Noonan are buried by friendly natives on an inhabited island. That to me sounds like it has the Saipan or Gilberts hypothesis rolled in. No identity for the island is given - sounds like scuttlebutt rather than a verified account to me.
Fecal matter (was it positively identified as such) with two different sets of DNA found at site.
Did that in my very first post, my friend. And as for the vital distinction you think I'm missing, that is the exact distinction I keep pointing out you yourself seem to be missing. And round and round we go. So shall we move on?
Fecal matter (was it positively identified as such) with two different sets of DNA found at site.
I'm not sure that a final judgment has been made on the mystery material.
The last research bulletin on DNA (March 2011) (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/59_DNAResearch/59_DNAResearch.htm) indicated it was still an open question.
Attendees could ask for an update at the Symposium (http://www.earhartsearch75.com/), I suppose.
Yes I read that as the bone material was tested and initially produced some mitochondrial DNA but that could not be replicated. If Earhart's is known was it then provisionally compared and what was the result? Or was it sufficient only to establish the existence of mitochondrial DNA which itself was not sufficient to provide a usable sample for comparison?
I suspect that if a match had been found then we would have been told.
so could be from fred noonan then ?
there is no women reported to have died before, or while the island was habitated, is there ?
an Gallagher would surely know if someone had passed away while he was there ?
Did that in my very first post, my friend. And as for the vital distinction you think I'm missing, that is the exact distinction I keep pointing out you yourself seem to be missing. And round and round we go. So shall we move on?
Well I suggest that the quickest way out of a circle is straight cut - don't play games and tell me what vital piece of evidence I have dismissed, as distinct from the ones I have actually discussed.
So far, I don't know about you, but I haven't actually seen any demonstrably vital pieces of material evidence that I haven't discussed.
My answer to that would be the radio would still be far and away their best shot. But I think you are right that they could not be sure that it was working, though if the belly antenna theory was right and they fixed the problem, then they at least would know they had probably fixed the problem that had hampered them before and it should work. But it's a fair question and I'm glad you brought it up. Though living in Los Angeles as I do, I'd suggest not embarking on a screenwriting career. Though the sextant bash is kind of a nice touch.If they discovered the belly antenna missing after the landing on the reef, splashing through the water, etc, how would they know that I was missing prior to the landing? Which brings up another thing, what antenna did they use for hearing KGMB?
There's evidence that they heard the KGMB broadcast.
You're in L.A., too bad, I met Jeff Neville at the Proud Bird restaurant for dinner a couple of weeks ago,
So once again -- fourth time now, right? It's about demanding evidence be conclusive or demonstrably vital to you -- which is both a subjective bar to clear AND misunderstanding what the function of "evidence" is. I don't think the point I've been making, or my effort to make it clear, has really changed since the first time I've posted, and you haven't really struck me is grasping the distinction for whatever reason. So anyhows, I'm tired of talking about it, cool? Or more accurately, I'm tired with taking up thread space with it. These tit for tats get boring for those not titting or tatting.
GAAAAHHHH....and round we go again.
So we can perhaps move on: how about you just say "I now understand that you feel that my evaluation of the evidence is purely subjective, and I disagree." Simple, and refreshingly on point.
I don't want to be one who sees what he wants but does it sort of of look like "SOS"?
I was thinking bird droppings might be a good pigment for paint
Brad..... Your point about everyone thinking what we would do versus what THEY would do is right on the money for me. For example, Malcolm and Gary have imposed the content rule for radio messages. "If there is no position indicated then it must be a hoax". Why? Because that's what they would do. It's what most people would do but why does the military have a training manual that tells you what to say in situations like this? Why do we need nifty acronyms for reporting position? To train you to remember!! Because sometimes, not all the time, people forget the obvious. AND in this case you also assume they know where they are.
Earhart may have been a bit ditzy on the technical side but all her messages tend to be workmanlike.
best of my recollection, fixes, only approximations
And not a mention of suitcases in closets. ;)
And not a mention of suitcases in closets. ;)
How many of her messages give a reliable indication of her position?
So in effect you arguing that the post-loss messages are genuine because they don't give a reliable indication of her position. Well that's one way of looking at it I'll grant you. :)
For now I will stay with what I said in post #136 above which is a far more reasonable assessment of the place of the radio traffic in the hypothesis.
So in effect you arguing that the post-loss messages are genuine because they don't give a reliable indication of her position. Well that's one way of looking at it I'll grant you. :)
The post to which I am replying is #128. Where is #136?
One mistake I believe that most of you are making is that AE, and/or FN spent time at the 7 site. I believe that if AE did land at Gardner, both she and FN were dead by the time of the Lambrecht flight. Neither AE or FN ever visited the 7 site, let alone ever settled it. The 7 site was 'settled' by A) the Norwich city crew, B) the coast guard, C) the settlers, D) some other group, E) some or all the above. The 7 site has been a terribile distraction in finding AE; in terms of time, money resoures, and the uncountable false leads that it has generated. Many of you are a lot more knowledgeable than I am and I hope someone will pick up on this idea. If this line of reasoning is correct, it answers many of our questions.
One mistake I believe that most of you are making is that AE, and/or FN spent time at the 7 site. I believe that if AE did land at Gardner, both she and FN were dead by the time of the Lambrecht flight. Neither AE or FN ever visited the 7 site, let alone ever settled it. The 7 site was 'settled' by A) the Norwich city crew, B) the coast guard, C) the settlers, D) some other group, E) some or all the above. The 7 site has been a terribile distraction in finding AE; in terms of time, money resoures, and the uncountable false leads that it has generated. Many of you are a lot more knowledgeable than I am and I hope someone will pick up on this idea. If this line of reasoning is correct, it answers many of our questions.
As mentioned on the other thread (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,677.msg13392.html#msg13392) it is very odd that if the Seven Site is the Bones Site, Gallagher did not find other camp fires in the vicinity that would have suggested a larger group was in the area otherwise he surely would have reported it. I believe at least 7 fire features were discovered by TIGHAR at the Seven Site.
If Gallagher had wanted to specify that there was only one fire, he could have said, "remains of a fire."
If he had wanted to specify a plurality, he could have used words to do so: "remains of seven fires" or "remains of fires" (as he did with "birds").
It is possible that he (or the radio man) left out "a" because that is common practice in telegraphy.
I don't think it is a knockdown argument to say that because TIGHAR has found seven or more fire features, none of them were the same as what Gallagher saw. Nor do I think that I am obliged by the language of the telegram to imagine that there was one and only one fire site visible when Gallagher searched the area. For me, it's an open question. I understand that you take a different approach to language and will use your own principles of interpretation (known in my trade as "hermeneutics") to come to a different conclusion.
Redirect from the 7 site conversation -Yep and they are so delirious that they keep forgetting that they had already constructed a fire pit so continued to build more and more of them.
If you were in a hot, tropical environment with limited water to drink, sweating inside an aluminum container (i.e. plane) for even a short amount of time, would you not become dehydrated rather quickly? Along with dehydration would come electrolyte depletion, which I believe can cause effects like confusion, delirium, etc. Perhaps even turn a person who is normally competent, intelligent and capable into something less than that - someone who repeats themselves or appears to "babble on" about things not entirely relevant to the situation.
Just a thought -
LTM,
Lisa
... I would think that she might not hav ebeen able to make it to the seven site. If so, then who does the artifacts belong to?
The simplest explanation would be that he found nothing in addition to what he telegraphed.
Yes. But "what he telegraphed" is precisely what is in question in this case.
QuoteIf Gallagher had wanted to specify that there was only one fire, he could have said, "remains of a fire."
If he had wanted to specify a plurality, he could have used words to do so: "remains of seven fires" or "remains of fires" (as he did with "birds").
It is possible that he (or the radio man) left out "a" because that is common practice in telegraphy.
I don't think it is a knockdown argument to say that because TIGHAR has found seven or more fire features, none of them were the same as what Gallagher saw. Nor do I think that I am obliged by the language of the telegram to imagine that there was one and only one fire site visible when Gallagher searched the area. For me, it's an open question. I understand that you take a different approach to language and will use your own principles of interpretation (known in my trade as "hermeneutics") to come to a different conclusion.
It would seem to be common sense, despite the various possible linguistic interpretations of a telegram are concerned, that multiple fires (TIGHAR has found what now, over 7?) would be interpreted as belonging to a potential group of survivors / explorers / vacationers. It is hard to imagine that if he found all of those camp fires located within steps of a skeleton that he would have kept that to himself and not forwarded these details. As Christopher pointed out, Gallagher went so far as to say this castaway (and therefore all the the surrounding evidence of life) were not part of the Norwich survivor group. This does suggest that this poor sod was found alone with left overs from a meal over a fire and the sexton box, sole, and corks on chains.
While there is no slam dunk there is the good ole occam's razor.
The simplest explanation would be that he found nothing in addition to what he telegraphed.
Gallagher, in his October 17, 1940 telegram to the Secretary of the Western Pacific High Commission, says, “Body had obviously been lying under a “ren” tree and remains of fire, turtle and dead birds appear to indicate life.” Ren trees (Tournefortia argentia) are quite common on Nikumaroro, so that is not much help, but for what it’s worth there is
now a rather large ren tree right in the middle of the Seven Site. Near the base of that tree, and at several other dis-creet locations nearby, we excavated numer-ous bird, turtle and fish bones some of which showed clear signs of having been in a fire
QuoteYes. But "what he telegraphed" is precisely what is in question in this case.
Since he ruled out the Norwich City survivors this would suggest that there was no evidence of that group (or another unknown group) in the area.
Granted he had also already made the assumption in his mind that this was a woman based upon the sole of the shoe he had found. Since he knew there were no women aboard the NC that would make sense that he made this deduction.
While there have been interesting artifacts at the Seven Site there has been nothing to tie it to the Bones Site. The "ren tree" would seem to be the key to finding the Bone Site.
Perhaps that area was cleared of all trees as was apparently originally planned so this is irrelevant but it is a thought.
I can't follow you, Heath.
On the basis of the wording of the telegram, it seems that you are now abandoning the idea that any of the fires came from Norwich City survivors. You seem to be saying that Gallagher saw the remains of only one fire, and that therefore there was only one fire on that site prior to 1940. All of the other fire features are now to be attributed to post-1940 activities.
Is that your view?
Except that Gallagher talked about clearing that part of the island to plant coconuts.
It was alive during that expedition as someone was standing in it.
If you look on the main site I think you will find a kite photography image that shows it clearly still standing.
Malcolm Says:
Isn't that interesting, since the folks who were living on Nikumaroro between 1940 and 1965 were Gilbertese Islanders.
Actually, Malcolm, the stuff we're particularly interested in seems to be pre-war American made female related articles that really don't a good reason to be there since the island was predominantly supplied through British channels.
So you are saying that those Gilbertese were all carrying around US pre war stuff like compacts with rouge that got to Niku through unlikely sources such as the British Colonial system, or undocumented sources such as the Coasties.
Certainly possible, but it that really a stronger argument than having the US stuff arrive in the company of a US female that is known to be missing in the area?
No, not a definitive proof. Never said it was, we're just trying to figure out if there is enough reason to keep looking.
Andrew
Requarding the idea of a 'lovers lane' at the seven site proposed by Gary; I think it is the moderator's job to keep all postings to; "within the relm of possibilities". When Marty misses something, which is very rare, it is up to us Tighar members to step in and police the site. My grandfather was in the navy ( which the coast gruard is part of ) during WWII and I remember him telling many people, many times, and usually in front of my grandmother how when he enlisted the navy they not only required him to take a oath of loyalty, but also a vow of casitity. Gary could have, and should have checked that out, it can be easly done by asking any sailor, one preferably with their wife or girl friend, if this vow is still required.I expect that you were being "tongue in cheek." I saw a show on the History Channel awhile ago about the red light district in Honolulu during WW2 and there were photos and movies of thousands of those navy guys lined up on the street to violate their vows.
And don't forget crewmen on the copra schooners "trading on their own account" bringing stuff from one island to another for sale. This would not show up on any manifest. Such crewmen could also be responding to a request from a nikumororian to pick up something special for him on the next voyage, again unrecorded.
For instance has anyone traced cargo manifests to show precisely what items were supplied in that period, or for that matter is it possible that individual items could have come to the island in private mail. There are many possible explanations. What is needed to tie them to Earhart is not more such items because that only multiplies what we cannot confirm, but instead clear positive evidence that Earhart was on Nikumaroro in 1937 and that, I think you will agree, will depend upon much tighter evidence such as something that clearly belonged to either Earhart or Noonan, or bone for DNA identification or a plane wreck or wreckage that is traceable to the Electra.
Tighar through there relentless search of archives, documents, witness statements, and ground work, with the help of forum members have come up with
evidence although not smoking gun, which indicates Amelia Earhart and Fred Noonan died on Gardner Island
what happened when they landed till they died we prob never know
theory wise no other hypothesis comes close evidence wise to Tighar's
And don't forget crewmen on the copra schooners "trading on their own account" bringing stuff from one island to another for sale. This would not show up on any manifest. Such crewmen could also be responding to a request from a nikumororian to pick up something special for him on the next voyage, again unrecorded.
For instance has anyone traced cargo manifests to show precisely what items were supplied in that period, or for that matter is it possible that individual items could have come to the island in private mail. There are many possible explanations. What is needed to tie them to Earhart is not more such items because that only multiplies what we cannot confirm, but instead clear positive evidence that Earhart was on Nikumaroro in 1937 and that, I think you will agree, will depend upon much tighter evidence such as something that clearly belonged to either Earhart or Noonan, or bone for DNA identification or a plane wreck or wreckage that is traceable to the Electra.
gl
My grandfather was in the navy ( which the coast gruard is part of ) during WWII and I remember him telling many people, many times, and usually in front of my grandmother how when he enlisted the navy they not only required him to take a oath of loyalty, but also a vow of casitity.
Here are some statements and questions for the islander fraternisation hypothesis.
Questions for Malcolm and Gary
Can you tell me what the leave rota was for the LORAN guys as this would help show that one may have gone to a US controlled zone where a US compact was available?
Maybe you guys could speak to some ex islanders to gather evidence to prove your theory?
The bartering theory is interesting however if they just traded a box for a nice shiny thing (ladies compact), why would they leave their new prized possession at the Seven Site? If it were found in the Northern area occupied by the natives that would make sense.
... a large ren tree near the center of the site.
Have any attempts been made to determine its approximate age?
Meanwhile, one of the robotic total station teams will be re-mapping
the site, and Josh will be locating, describing, and coring trees,
living and dead.
Is it just a stump or is it alive?
How many did you find?
Sure someone will express a view of the human eye vs digital lens?
How many of you looked at the photo of the 7 site Chris posted and realized that there are people in that photo? Not many is my guess.I'm pretty sure I saw three. But this is not a good example of spotting something from the air as the movement of the plane makes tall objects move against the background of the ground. If you really want a better test you need a stereo pair that show relief which is the most important element (except maybe shine) in spotting things from the air. And the high probability of detection is not mine but comes from the Search and Rescue manual's cumulative probability of detection table so requires several passes, not just one glance straight down. And what about shine, why wasn't Earhart flashing those pieces of aluminum at the planes? And don't forget movement, their moving around would also catch the eye. So this one photo test is very unrepresentative of actual aerial searches.
Here is an experiment for everyone, especially Gary.
Take a look at the 7 site photo, http://tighar.org/wiki/File:Ksevensitekap4.jpg (http://tighar.org/wiki/File:Ksevensitekap4.jpg), but pretend you are in an aircraft so only look at it for about 2-5 seconds, no more.
No fair studying the photo for more than 2-5 seconds about as much time as an aircrew would have to view it as they passed overhead.
Now tell me how many people you can see.
This photo was taken from about 120 ft, so by Gary's methodology the probability of detection should be close to 100%.
There were probably 8-12 people at the 7 sight on the day this was taken. 3 or 4 were on the beach running the kite rig, so we're looking for 4-9 folks at the site, where are they? I'm pretty sure I'm standing on the ground in this photo. Can you see me?
Just another example how hard it is to see people on the ground, and why Gary's estimate of a 85% probability of detection for the overflight of the Navy's aircraft is unrealistically high.
Andrew
How many did you find?I couldn't see any even after looking for a long time.
Here is a link to the helicopter video. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DL9FGsvB3E8)
A better depiction comes from the video of the helicopter tour of the island. I note that from 10:02 to 10:19 it wasn't difficult at all to see the three people in the open wading out to the skiff due to the movement of the helicopter. And then again at 11:57 you can still see the three waders on the east side of the lagoon from a position offshore from the north-eastern shore of the island, a distance of 3,000 feet, a half NM.
gl
... The Navy must have thought that their crews stood of very good chance of finding people ( proviided they were still alive ) or the Navy would not have spent the time and money training crews for missions similiar to this.
To try to get back to the OP on this thread I would consider that even lacking survival training human nature being what it is would lead to certain decisions and actions.
We see this in SAR that even though people are not all the same they tend to do similar things under similar circumstances. Thus history tends to repeat itself.
With a plane down and able to send and receive signals - if the post landing transmissions are accepted - staying close to the plane and trying to stay on a regular contact schedule would be considered. You have a shiny plane and a great big landmark ship nearby. Even if you had landed on some other strip of beach on the island that ship would have been evident as you came in so you know its there and in relative terms everything is nearby on that island.
You may or may not be injured but you don't have extensive resources so you start by living out of the plane - maybe not living on the plane but spending time there with little need to start hauling stuff out that you might need to survive because hope is high that the cavalry will arrive. You might be taking some stuff to shore as needed perhaps and between signal periods have some time to try to figure out where the heck you are and how to tell the world where you are. Maybe do some exploring. Fred takes a sighting and can tell you the latitude but longitude is iffy. Staying in the plane when the sun beats down on it would be torture so some R and R on shore in the shade would be a consideration. Trying to preserve fuel for transmission power would also dictate some actions especially if wondering if the engine will start again.
You are counting on rescue to show up so stick close to the plane. Maybe build a bit of an SOS out on the sand but why bother when you have this great big plane right there like a Winnebego with its hood up waiting for AMA.
If there was any help to be had on that island they would have shown up by now - its a small neighborhood and the local Welcome Wagon would be eager to present you with a fruit basket or two.
It would not take long to establish you were alone - a walk around the area and a check on the interior lagoon would pretty well solve that as the lagoons were often the shortcut between areas on the island. I mean the natives were no fools and as evidenced by other similar but inhabited islands they would use light transit (canoe) across the lagoon rather than walk all the way around. Plus people are messy things and tend to scatter stuff all over the place. Some scouting would tell you pretty quick that the ship wreck was not very recent so no help there.
You are hot and tired and stressed out and thirsty. Might have found the survival stores left from the shipwreck but no telling what condition it is in. I know I would be looking in askance at any canned goods that had not turned into a biology experiment and exploded from being left in that heat and humidity for that long.
The weather starts to turn and the water starts to rise and what was a shallow wade out to the plane starts to become a trial. It gets to the point that you realize that the plane is in peril. Shifting as it gets hit by surf and water creeping high enough to start flooding the rear of the plane (historic tide data suggesting 4 to 4.5 foot tide plus surf). Now its a mad scramble and you are broadcasting an open mike transmission where those that hear you (Betty) can hear a panicked effort to salvage what you can and get your last chance message out. No more calm cool and collected - its do or die time.
I have yet to see anything that would lead me to believe that Fred is terribly injured so the conjecture that he somehow dies while Amelia - the plucky thing that she is - soldiers on alone is not in my story. Maybe she did maybe she didn't - its my conjecture so I get to say LOL.
Winds, surf and tides are making that side of the island less fun (a squall coming onshore with rising tide and surf can be downright brutal) and the plane with your ability to signal is gone - now its time for some serious survival decisions - perhaps too little too late if you had not started serious survival actions earlier.
This is assuming they both didn't just get dragged over the edge right then. I will go with the potential for castaways - I like that scenario better anyway.
By the time planes circle for a brief period the Electra is gone - any SOS coconut sculptures you made earlier on the beach may have been reduced by tide and surf to "signs of habitation ie markings" as noticed by the aerial searchers.
You might be sick or injured - suffering from exhaustion, dehydration and hungry as heck and having a generally less than stellar attention span. You might be inland and under tree cover to get out of the sun. By the time you realize that it really is a plane and get your act together they are gone. Well....crap.
Its all fun to consider and imagine and no harm in doing so and I expect that the conjecture will serve to amuse and motivate until the first hard evidence can be linked to it all and then we can start reverse engineering the whole thing. Until then it will be hard work and eyes on the ground and we can all have fun with the storyline in the meantime.
To try to get back to the OP on this thread I would consider that even lacking survival training human nature being what it is would lead to certain decisions and actions.Why would the longitude determined by Noonan be "iffy"?
Fred takes a sighting and can tell you the latitude but longitude is iffy.
As to longitude I am no nav whiz but it was my impression that to get an accurate longitude a navigator needed an accurate time. There is no guarantee that Fred had an exact time so I was leaving some room for error in my hypothetical narrative. Your experience may indicate otherwise and if required I can easily adjust my conjecture.Yes you do need accurate time which is why they waited an extra day in Lae so that Noonan could get a radio time check on his chronometer. At that point it was off by three seconds so it had not changed very much since his prior check of it. If an additional three second change had occurred in the short time since Lae then this would produce only a 3/4ths NM error in longitude, nothing to worry about.
...or...
They could have survived at least for the ten days that the crew of the Lady Be Good (http://www.qmfound.com/lady_be_good_b-24_bomber_recovery.htm) did, and that crew did it in 130 degree desert temperatures with only half a canteen of water for the eight of them and five of them walked 85 miles, one went 26 miles further and one other made it a total 132 miles through the desert.
These things can be done so there is no reason to believe that if Earhart landed on Gardner that they would not have survived quite a long time.
gl
Personally I find this rapid deterioration and death scenario just a tad too convenient a scenario to explain why the Navy didn't spot them. Which still leaves the fundamental question - where they ever there?
But no water, no food, and 130 degree temperature. How do you train for that?QuotePersonally I find this rapid deterioration and death scenario just a tad too convenient a scenario to explain why the Navy didn't spot them. Which still leaves the fundamental question - where they ever there?
Malcolm,
is that TIGHARS official line? I'm sure that if you read around the main site Ric is of the beleif that they or one of them survived for some time.
Lady be good = trained professionals with disciplain, better chances of collective survival
Well, since you brought this up and because Tom Bryant (and others) just recently tuned into this forum, I suggest that they review our previous discussion of the probability of detection IF Earhart and Noonan had been on Gardner. We discussed this extensively and I posted the actual manual that is used to compute the cumulative probability of detection so anyone interested can do the computations for themselves.
In addition, as a trained airborne SAR Incident Commander, I can tell you that the probability of detection that I would assign to such a search - i.e. spotting a person on the ground during a couple of passes over the dense vegetation of Nikumaroro by non SAR trained personnel flying in open cockpit biplanes - would be extremely small.
Andrew
This is a hypotheses we're working on here, something that is not yet proven, but a scenario that has to accommodate all the known facts, "wonky" or not. If all the facts were as binary as you prefer to make them, it would be a lot easier. The signs of recent habitation and the fact that no persons were seen by the Navy overflight are two facts that are easily dealt with in the area of messy reality between your sanitized binary ends.
Andrew
Those naval aviators were trained observers not just people grabbed out of the crew for the task so I would allow them some professional expertise and I expect that you should do so also.
Martin, I do not have any Navy training manuals to refer to, but I would be very surprised if both the pilots and the observers were not selected by the navy in part because of their excellent eye sight. Probably much, much better than the aveage TIGHAR member that was challaged to " find the people from heli tour ". I would like to think it logical to believe that these air crews where also trained to spot many things, things such as people on ships, or land waving them "off" or giving them other signals.
All I'm trying to do is to establish the right category for the act of faith that you and Malcolm share.
I reviewed some older posts made my Andrew before I got involved on this forum and found that Andrew had used the POD table in a more reasonable manner here, (https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,253.msg2331.html#msg2331) the exact same way I used it in my prior posts on this subject. He assumed a one mile search visibility (I had used a four mile search visibility, which I still think is correct) and half mile track spacing (as had I) and came up with a 10% POD for spotting a person in the thick brush for one pass using the same method with the POD tables that I had used, (my calculation resulted in 30%.) He then correctly used the cumulative POD table to show that the POD would rise to 20% after three passes. Let's use Andrew's numbers. The track spacing would actually have been less than 0.5 NM because the strip of land is much narrower than that so the POD per pass would actually have been greater than 10%. (See diagram of search tracks here. (https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,253.msg12707.html#msg12707))Continuing the cumulative POD calculation, the three planes had enough time, 18 to 28 minutes according to Ric, for each of them to complete 3 to 5 complete circuits of the island. Each pass by each of the planes is an additional search for cumulative POD purposes so there were actually 9 to 15 passes, not the three that Andrew stopped his calculation at. Even using the low 10% per pass assumed by Andrew, the cumulative POD increases to 85% after 9 passes, and this is using Andrew's numbers, not mine, it should actually be higher. So even if they were not able to get to the beach when they heard the planes the POD is still quite high, much higher than Ric and Andrew estimated.
(BTW, Andrew, can you explain how you got the extremely low PODs in reply #6 (https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,517.msg6494.html#msg6494). Do you have other POD tables than the ones I posted that cover these extremely low PODs? If so, please post them. Since you claimed that it takes 4 passes to raise the cumulative probability of detection to just 0.95%, if searching for a person in dense cover, how many passes would it take to raise the cumulative POD to the 80% necessary to end the search? Let's say you had to search for a missing person in heavy cover in a quadrangle five miles on a side. Using your numbers, it would take flying 200 miles just to get to the 0.95% cumulative POD. (0.5 mile spacing means 10 tracks each 5 miles long = 50 miles, times 4 passes = 200 miles.) A Cessna 172 flying at 90 mph would take two hours and 15 minutes and there would be additional hours for flying to and from the search area and for making the turns at the ends of each track. A Cessna 172 costs about $120 per hour so this search would cost at least $300 and would produce less than a one percent probability of finding the missing person so it must cost about a zillion dollars to raise the POD to the 80% necessary to end the search. In your experience, Andrew, what track spacing was used for searching for persons in the woods of Colorado and how many passes were made prior to ending the search? Do you have any of your work sheets that you used for planning such searches that you could scan in and share with us?)
gl
No act of faith, in fact I haven't indulged in an act of faith for as long as I can remember.
Those naval aviators were trained observers not just people grabbed out of the crew for the task so I would allow them some professional expertise and I expect that you should do so also.
... I am used to using my sight to find objects in unusual places. It is a matter of experience, not magic or even any real distinctive ability. Just something you learn.
It is simply a trick of the trade - nothing especially brilliant.
You've told us that you believe in doubting. It's part of your creed.
Here is the act of faith I was questioning:Those naval aviators were trained observers not just people grabbed out of the crew for the task so I would allow them some professional expertise and I expect that you should do so also.
You believe without evidence--at least, without any evidence you have brought into this discussion--that the kind of training given the observers equipped them with "professional expertise." I've asked to see the evidence upon which this assertion is based; without evidence, it is merely an opinion--a belief held without objective evidence in its favor.
What is it about the job description "observer" that you cannot grasp?
If the job description exists only inside your head and is not available for empirical observation by people other than yourself, I'm afraid it has to be categorized as a figment of your imagination.
If the job description exists only inside your head and is not available for empirical observation by people other than yourself, I'm afraid it has to be categorized as a figment of your imagination.
Sorry Marty I am not going into one of those non sequitur discussions of yours.
I suggest that you do a little reading on the role of lookouts and observers in the pre-radar and other electronic location device days prior to 1939.
Now while you may have strong doubts about the sharp eyes of naval observers ...
whether on board a ship or in the air they were there to serve a very express purpose.
Naval observation aircraft were the eyes of the fleet beyond the visual limit imposed by the horizon and part of that work which did include monitoring the fall of shells was looking out for all sorts of things that might pose a threat to the fleet e.g. small vessels, submarine periscopes etc. Now while I happily accept that you adamantly disagree with me concerning the observational skills of the aviators searching for Earhart (it is a discussion forum after all) I, after considering the issue, do not so there we must leave it.
But the fact that the navy fliers did not see Earhart or Noonan has in a perverse way come to be used as evidence that they were on the island but were either too weak or incapable of signalling the aircraft.
That is because the people who are convinced they were there have to find a reason why the navy pilots didn't see them and therefore have to provide an explanation for this.
1. The navy pilots and observers were only trained to see very very large shell splashes so anything less than 70 or 80 feet in height, white and wet was outside their skill set which clearly excludes Earhart and Noonan ...
Therefore those reasons despite being pure guesswork ...
, and all based on the assumption that the US Navy observers were utterly unskilled
, are used to advance the argument that Earhart and Noonan were there.
Call me difficult (go ahead, I don't mind, I have a broad back) but I find it amusing that it can be argued that the undeniable fact that Earhart and Noonan were not seen is undeniable proof that they were there to be seen. It has chutzpah I admit. :)
Ric G. said in another thread "... the observers seem to have been whoever could cadge a ride - one of the three "AVCADs" (Aviation Cadets) or one of the ship's officers"
http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,517.15.html (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,517.15.html)
In my opinion, it serves as part of the conjecture that motivates to seek the evidence that leads to proof and that's a good thing but, for me, it does not offer any defendable argument for on the island or not.
We know the fliers did not see them therefore we know ....they didn't see them.
...
What is peculiar is your perception that someone has made that argument. Now in addition to your fact-free speculation about the nature of the airmen's education, you've started seeing things that aren't there in this thread.
My two cents -I tried the same thing and I can tell you that the "Eye altitude" is not anywhere near to being correct and shows a completely erroneous idea of visibility at various altitudes in a real airplane.
I tried going to Google Earth, typed in "Jones Beach NY" - A very populated place here on the Island. I zoomed to an "Eye Alt" of 1000 ft. Try it.... Then try and spot a person on the beach. They are there, you just have to look for them. Very hard to see. I am not sure if this same type of image would be the same type viewed from the search place..
Jk
Here is what Andrew wrote: (https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,253.msg2331.html#msg2331)
I reviewed some older posts made my Andrew before I got involved on this forum and found that Andrew had used the POD table in a more reasonable manner here, (https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,253.msg2331.html#msg2331) the exact same way I used it in my prior posts on this subject. He assumed a one mile search visibility (I had used a four mile search visibility, which I still think is correct) and half mile track spacing (as had I) and came up with a 10% POD for spotting a person in the thick brush for one pass using the same method with the POD tables that I had used, (my calculation resulted in 30%.) He then correctly used the cumulative POD table to show that the POD would rise to 20% after three passes. Let's use Andrew's numbers. The track spacing would actually have been less than 0.5 NM because the strip of land is much narrower than that so the POD per pass would actually have been greater than 10%. (See diagram of search tracks here. (https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,253.msg12707.html#msg12707))Continuing the cumulative POD calculation, the three planes had enough time, 18 to 28 minutes according to Ric, for each of them to complete 3 to 5 complete circuits of the island. Each pass by each of the planes is an additional search for cumulative POD purposes so there were actually 9 to 15 passes, not the three that Andrew stopped his calculation at. Even using the low 10% per pass assumed by Andrew, the cumulative POD increases to 85% after 9 passes, and this is using Andrew's numbers, not mine, it should actually be higher. So even if they were not able to get to the beach when they heard the planes the POD is still quite high, much higher than Ric and Andrew estimated.
Looking at spotting Earhart and Noonan in the open, on the beach or reef, and using Andrew's one mile search visibility and 0.5 mile track spacing, the POD table shows a 35% POD for one pass. (I had computed 75% using the four mile search visibility.) This increases to 60% after the second pass,(using Andrew's numbers) 70% after the third pass (one circuit of the island by the three planes), 80% after the fourth pass, 85% after the fifth pass and 90% after the sixth pass (two circuits by the three planes). Since the track spacing was actually less than 0.5 NM the POD would actually be higher for each pass and with possibly 15 passes the cumulative POD would be above 90%.
So IF Eahart was on Gardner there was a high probability that they would have been spotted even if they were in the bush and a very high probability if they were in the open which supports my contention that they were never there.
gl
Sorry Marty but once again your point by point dismissal is as usual not coming even close to answering my comment that "Call me difficult (go ahead, I don't mind, I have a broad back) but I find it amusing that it can be argued that the undeniable fact that Earhart and Noonan were not seen is undeniable proof that they were there to be seen. It has chutzpah I admit. :) "
And given the level of fruitless circular discussion on this particular issue I think that I have pretty much got that right.
As for the belief in the capability of Naval observers it is I who is arguing that they were performing well within their remit while it is you who believes that they were not simply because you just see them as shell splash spotters. You claim I haven't backed my claim, which I think I have, ...
... while equally I can assert that you haven't backed your claim that they were incapable of seeing a couple of stranded people.
Once again it becomes circular and such arguments are silly.
Also this failure to sight them relies as I have continued to point out on a string of unproven assertions -
The list goes on so when I say half tongue in cheek that it would seem "that it can be argued that the undeniable fact that Earhart and Noonan were not seen is undeniable proof that they were there to be seen." I think I have pretty much summed up that component of the Nikumaroro hypothesis at present.
Aerial observation techniques were highly developed during the "Great War" and there is no reason to think that the Army kept these techniques secret from their brothers in the Navy. Navy aviators did not just spot shell splashes they also scouted for other ships such as "the enemy."
And this was not the first search for lost airmen conducted from planes. In 1927 planes were use to search for the missing pilots of the planes competing in the Dole Derby so search and rescue techniques were already developed ten years prior to the Earhart search.
Whatever disparagement of the skills of the Navy aviators the defenders of the Gardner hypothesis feel compelled to make, the commanders of the Colorado and the Lexington felt otherwise and they had current knowledge of the skill and training that the aviators possessed. If the commanders did not believe that the aviators had the necessary skill to spot Earhart then there would have been no reason to launch the search planes.
Any time a piece of evidence points away from the TIGHAR hypothesis, the defenders of the faith jump up to disparage it.
I have never claimed that the failure to spot them on the island proved that they were not on the island. Even with a high probability of detection, it is just that, a probability, and it is never a certainty.
But it does provide one more piece of evidence on the not TIGHAR end of the scale, it doesn't prove it.
The TIGHAR enthusiasts pile everything they can find on the island (unless it has a clear date on it of 1938 or later) on their end of the scale as additional evidence of Earhart being on the island so it is certainly fair for me to bring up evidence pointing in the other direction.
As for u Malcolm to dismiss the Niku Hypothesis before all options have been exhausted is just bizarre, considering your a DR e.t.c
I However admire your timing of joining the site an disproving the Tighar Hypothesis when
1) Tighar are in the news
2) The One person who would put you straight (apart from Marty :) ) is busy else were
Based on evidence none come close to Tighar's
:)
QuoteAlso this failure to sight them relies as I have continued to point out on a string of unproven assertions -
You have not stated my position fairly. I make none of the assertions you listed. I noted that the fact that the naval personnel did not see them may be accounted for on two different grounds: if they were on the island, then something kept them from being see; if they were not on the island, then that explains why they were not seen.
I happen to be a believer, but I think malcum is pointing out that after 23 years of searching, thousand of man hours working on this hypothesis, and millions of dollars, we still have zero proof, and he is right.
I agree but, later this year there will be something which will either support or, cast doubt upon the Gardner Island theory. Time will tell.I happen to be a believer, but I think malcum is pointing out that after 23 years of searching, thousand of man hours working on this hypothesis, and millions of dollars, we still have zero proof, and he is right.
Thanks John.
The point remains that they did not see Earhart and Noonan, they were not untrained amateurs and there is a certain air of convenience in the excuses offered to explain the failure to sight the missing pair. None of which however rules out completely their presence at any time on the island, but nevertheless disparaging the aviators' skills and positing unproven scenarios to explain this are not evidence of any acceptable kind.
Further I will state again that there is a tacit intent in the arguments of those who support the Nikumaroro hypothesis to denigrate the capacity of the Naval aviators in order to strengthen their arguments.
I find much of the evidence to be circumstantial and very thin ...
I'm waiting for you to produce evidence of "any acceptable kind" as to the nature of the training received.
I've pointed out before that you are conflating "search visibility" with "scanning range" so please re-read my attempt to convince you of this at my post here. (https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,517.msg6556.html#msg6556)
The thing about missing airplanes is that they generally leave some sort of trace, fire, smoke, smoking hole, broken trees, aluminum debris field, disturbed snow, vultures gathering - something that can be seen from farther away than a single person can be seen. That's why the search visibility in the POD Chart starts at 1 mile, it was developed for missing airplanes and the signs they leave. Gary likes to quote my sample that uses the 1mi visibility, which is probably reasonable if we're looking for the Electra or perhaps a VW. However, in this case we're talking about looking for a person who is not necessarily out in the open, and I don't think a 4 mile, or even 1 mile search visibility is reasonable. I would not use those values if I were managing an actual search for a missing person in heavy cover.
Gary on the other hand, believes he and our Navy fliers (apparently untrained in any SAR technique) can see and recognize a person on the ground under the tree cover from 4 miles away. He apparently has very good eyes.
Andrew
Stop worrying about the training, I've stated that with no training all you have to do is look out the window or door or over the cockpit combing and you see stuff. My anecdote was doing that from army Hueys without any special training and being able to see guys wearing camouflage uniforms.
I'm waiting for you to produce evidence of "any acceptable kind" as to the nature of the training received.
I find the SAR aspect of sighting 'possible' survivors on Gardner Island intriguing. The theory and maths involved has been explained brilliantly. The personnel who carry out these tasks, superb. The equipment and techniques, outstanding.I'm glad you brought this up because what you have described is accurately predicted in the National Search and Rescue Manual so provides further validation of that manual. It turns out that a survivor in the life raft will be able to see the search aircraft much further away than the searchers can be expected to see the life raft. According to table 4-4 and figure 4-3 of that manual, a fixed wing aircraft flying at 500 feet has only a 50% chance of spotting a person in a life raft under the most optimum conditions at 1.4 NM and only a 30% chance at 2.1 NM. In order to raise the POD up to 90% (still not certain) requires the plane to pass within 0.5 NM of the raft. So you can see that from the perspective of the person in the life raft that he expects the plane to see him but the reality is that he is mistaken in this expectation.
That's the theory and, I'm sure it works in practice, sometimes.
And that's the point I would like to add, 'it works in practice, sometimes'.
I say that because during my research into other aircraft lost in the vicinity of Gardner island and, surrounding area. I have noticed that survivors of ditching aircraft who end up adrift on the Pacific ocean have all reported their difficulty in attracting the attention of SAR aircraft that have been sent to find them.
Now, the SAR aircraft and crews are actively looking for the ditched aviators.
The ditched aviators are actively trying to get the attention of the SAR aircraft.
There is no 'cover' to prevent sighting of downed aviators.
life rafts are a bright colour, to stand out from the background, to be seen.
And yet, they were not seen.
I'm sure there could be other factors that prevented sighting, weather? light? but, it would be foolish and, has been shown, that trained SAR teams actively looking and, ditched aircrews actively trying to get noticed, don't always end up meeting each other even in open water conditions.
Gary, I think Andrew has done a great job of summarizing some of his experiences in SAR work, but let me, as an old Army pilot who spent more than 700 hours flying at low levels, usually less than 100 feet, in support of ground troops in Viet Nam put in my 2 cents worth. I also disagree with your pronouncements about how easily people on the ground can be detected. I have over flown friendly troops on the ground for hours at a time and we, my crew and I plus a second ship that was part of our team, frequently only got fleeting glimpses of them when they were in moderate cover and we basically knew where they were.That's because you were flying too low. Look at the POD tables and you will see that the POD improves with higher altitudes and the lowest tabulated altitude is 500 feet and the highest listed altitude is 1,000 feet so at 100 feet or less you can expect the POD to be really bad. The marine search tables include altitudes all the way up to 3,000 feet and the POD for marine searches also increases with altitude. Oh, I just thought of this. The assertion that the bird activity caused the search to be flown at a higher altitude and that this caused the search to be less effective is proven wrong by the POD table since the POD increases with altitude, it does not decrease. (BTW, I've done a bit of flying myself.)
Aerial observation techniques were highly developed during the "Great War" and there is no reason to think that the Army kept these techniques secret from their brothers in the Navy. Navy aviators did not just spot shell splashes they also scouted for other ships such as "the enemy."
I don't doubt that some of the aviators were good at seeing big objects at long range.QuoteAnd this was not the first search for lost airmen conducted from planes. In 1927 planes were use to search for the missing pilots of the planes competing in the Dole Derby so search and rescue techniques were already developed ten years prior to the Earhart search.
The question is whether those techniques (if one search did, in fact, develop S.A.R. techniques comparable to those taught today) for doing a regular visual search for small objects were taught to the Navy personnel who were over Niku.QuoteWhatever disparagement of the skills of the Navy aviators the defenders of the Gardner hypothesis feel compelled to make, the commanders of the Colorado and the Lexington felt otherwise and they had current knowledge of the skill and training that the aviators possessed. If the commanders did not believe that the aviators had the necessary skill to spot Earhart then there would have been no reason to launch the search planes.
The commanders were commanded to go search. They used the resources they had on board. I don't deny their conviction that it would be easy to spot folks on tropical islands from the air. I question whether that is a reasonable conviction, since they hadn't had any practice at doing so in the Great War and the Little War hadn't yet begun to produce wrecks and survivors in the Pacific Theater.
QuoteAny time a piece of evidence points away from the TIGHAR hypothesis, the defenders of the faith jump up to disparage it.
And believers in a different faith jump up to state their creed.
Strange things do happen.
An improbability is not the same thing as an impossibility.
A probability is not the same thing as a certainty.
You credit the six men (like Malcolm, without providing evidence of S.A.R. training) with so much skill that you conclude it is highly unlikely that AE and FN were on the island. I do not give the men or their training that much credit, and rate the odds of them missing AE and FN (if they were on the island) higher than you do.
This is something about which reasonable people may reasonably disagree.
No more faith is involved on one side than the other.QuoteI have never claimed that the failure to spot them on the island proved that they were not on the island. Even with a high probability of detection, it is just that, a probability, and it is never a certainty.
OK. I made the same point above before reading these lines.QuoteBut it does provide one more piece of evidence on the not TIGHAR end of the scale, it doesn't prove it.
That sentence is a train wreck, and it doesn't quite follow from the concession you have just made about probabilities and certainties.QuoteThe TIGHAR enthusiasts pile everything they can find on the island (unless it has a clear date on it of 1938 or later) on their end of the scale as additional evidence of Earhart being on the island so it is certainly fair for me to bring up evidence pointing in the other direction.
Let's use parallel construction: you are also an enthusiast making judgments for which you are responsible. If you call the material you are using "evidence," then you should also call the material used by your opponents "evidence." If the proper description is "bringing up evidence" for what you do, then you should use that same neutral language for what your opponents do.
Otherwise, you are slanting the playing field rhetorically. You say either view could be right, but portray those who view things differently from you as merely "piling up stuff on the scale," while you, the reasonable man, are "bringing up evidence."
The TIGHAR enthusiasts pile everything they can find on the island (unless it has a clear date on it of 1938 or later) on their end of the scale as additional evidence of Earhart being on the island so it is certainly fair for me to bring up evidence pointing in the other direction.
Let's use parallel construction: you are also an enthusiast making judgments for which you are responsible. If you call the material you are using "evidence," then you should also call the material used by your opponents "evidence." If the proper description is "bringing up evidence" for what you do, then you should use that same neutral language for what your opponents do.
Otherwise, you are slanting the playing field rhetorically. You say either view could be right, but portray those who view things differently from you as merely "piling up stuff on the scale," while you, the reasonable man, are "bringing up evidence."
All this argument is silly. It's trying to make a completely plausible event out to be something that's completely unbelievable. Even if something has a 90% chance of happening, there's a 10% chance of it not happening. I personally believe the idea that people doing a few passes over an island, no matter how competent, picking two people out and having a 90% chance of seeing them is laughable...I claim no expertise but again, it's just common sense. The real world does not function perfectly, and very few things have a 90% success ratio, no matter how competent the people involved. But even in that unlikely event, 10% events do happen. Roughly about 1 out of every 10 times.Well, that is your opinion that you admit you have no expertise to base it on. I just referred everyone to the official military and CAP manuals that say you are wrong in your opinion, that's all. It is not my opinion that that there was a high POD, it is the opinion of those who do have expertise in this field, who drafted the manuals for use in the serious business of saving lives. Now if you can come up with some other official publications that support you opinion then please post them.
I never made any claim that the search disproved the TIGHAR hypothesis only that there was a high probability of detection and that this constituted one more piece of evidence pointing away from that hypothesis. And I only quoted the POD tables in the original thread because Ric had claimed in Finding Amelia that the POD tables supported his hypothesis and gave only a 10 to 20% POD meaning that the pilots had an 80 to 90% probability of not seeing Earhart when, in fact, the calculation shows it is much higher, and, instead of supporting the TIGHAR theory it tends to disprove it, see
Malcolm and Gary, is it your assertion that it is fundamentally impossible that AE or FN were unseen by the navy pilots flying overhead? If not, then what is the point of all this back and forth? If there was a 90% chance of being seen or a 35% chance of being seen, it's still perfectly plausible in either case that they were unseen. Asserting a higher probability doesn't really do much of anything. The fact that they were not seen is a data point against the Niku hypothesis. Granted. But to go to such lengths to try and assert that of course they would have been seen...to me, it's just silly. You can't possibly know that. You weren't in the cockpit, you don't have the pilot's eye view, you don't have a sense of the training or imperatives the pilots were functioning under, you have no idea what was going on the ground. You just have your opinions, which are totally valid, but the fact is: they were either there or they weren't. If they were there, they weren't seen. And unless you are prepared to assign a 100% probability to them being seen by the Navy fliers, all this argument accomplishes exactly nothing. It's perfectly plausible that (a) they weren't there or (b) they were there, and weren't seen. If you like (a), then the fact that they weren't seen supports your belief BUT it doesn't really carry nearly as much evidentiary weight against TIGHAR's thesis as you both seem to think it does -- because it's still perfectly possible and even plausible that they were missed even under a 90-10 scenario. And the, to me rather desperate sounding, attempts to blow up the Navy overflight into something like a near-conclusive indictment of the TIGHAR theory sounds a bit strident and silly.
Give it up, guys. However likely or unlikely the Navy overflight was to have found AE and FN, it's a data point for sure, but it's hardly conclusive against TIGHAR. If AE or FN wound up on Niku, it's because of a string of events that, taken on their own, each had a low probability. But if such were not the case, there would be no mystery. Low probability events do happen....though in this case, I think it's a stretch to assert with such confidence that AE and FN being missed is such a low probability event. But to the point trying to be made, it simply doesn't matter.
The examples I gave in my previous post in this thread were based on what actually happened as opposed to what should have happened according to a training manual/book/set of tables/theory/choice of crew/experience etc...I posted a photo I took of Zamperini here. (https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,616.msg12654.html#msg12654)
Some 70 feet down, Zamperini finally forced his way out of the sinking plane, scraping the skin off his back as he squeezed through a hole in the fuselage. He surfaced and caught his breath only to see fire, smoke, and debris on the water. “Swallowing a nauseous saltwater mixed with gasoline, oil, hydraulic fluid, and blood, I somehow managed to inflate my Mae West—my life jacket,” he says. “Then I noticed two crewmen about 20 feet away clinging to the side of a gas-tank float. I managed to grab onto a portion of a nylon parachute cord that was attached to an inflatable life raft. I climbed in, unhooked the oars, and rowed over to pick up our pilot, Russell Phillips, who was badly injured, and pulled him up into the raft. Then Francis McNamara, our tail-gunner, made it in. We were the only three survivors of the eleven-man crew.
“The next two days we saw B-25s searching for us, but they did not notice our flares or dye markers.
http://www.americainwwii.com/stories/luckylouie.html (http://www.americainwwii.com/stories/luckylouie.html)
Peering intently into the distance, all seven men strained their eyes against the dark clouds. Then they saw it, a single-engine pontoon boat flying low through the squall about five miles away. Bartek stood up in the raft he now shared with Rickenbacker and Adamson, Rick steadying him against the crash of the ocean swells, to wave his shirt. All seven men, including Adamson, yelled at the top of their voices. Then the dark clouds obscured the small plane in the distance and it disappeared. The men had gone unseen on the dark waters.
Still, for the first time in nineteen days the doomed men saw signs of life beyond the rims of their raft. A new optimism began to grow.
Day 19
The rain that had refreshed the seven survivors intermittently became more steady with the dawn. By early afternoon the waves had become large, white-capped swells. Water had been collected that might last for several more days. Suddenly Captain Cherry yelled above the howl of the winds:
"I hear a plane. Listen!"
Day 20 & 21
Two more similar airplanes appeared in the distant skies the following day. The men had no way of knowing if they were American or Japanese aircraft, but by this time it mattered little. Besides, neither pilot noticed the three small rafts that floated on the wide expanse of the Pacific Ocean.
Four more airplanes appeared on the distant horizon early the following day, but again the men in the rafts went unseen. During the afternoon the survivors were able to scoop up several small minnows that swarmed around the raft, a most welcome meal at a time when hopes began once again to sag. As the day wore on, no more aircraft were spotted. Rick feared that perhaps the rafts had been near an island base, then floated on past.
http://www.homeofheroes.com/wings/part1/8_newwar.html (http://www.homeofheroes.com/wings/part1/8_newwar.html)
Gary, I think Andrew has done a great job of summarizing some of his experiences in SAR work, but let me, as an old Army pilot who spent more than 700 hours flying at low levels, usually less than 100 feet, in support of ground troops in Viet Nam put in my 2 cents worth. I also disagree with your pronouncements about how easily people on the ground can be detected. I have over flown friendly troops on the ground for hours at a time and we, my crew and I plus a second ship that was part of our team, frequently only got fleeting glimpses of them when they were in moderate cover and we basically knew where they were.That's because you were flying too low. Look at the POD tables and you will see that the POD improves with higher altitudes and the lowest tabulated altitude is 500 feet and the highest listed altitude is 1,000 feet so at 100 feet or less you can expect the POD to be really bad. The marine search tables include altitudes all the way up to 3,000 feet and the POD for marine searches also increases with altitude. Oh, I just thought of this. The assertion that the bird activity caused the search to be flown at a higher altitude and that this caused the search to be less effective is proven wrong by the POD table since the POD increases with altitude, it does not decrease. (BTW, I've done a bit of flying myself.)
And I, Marty, am waiting for you to produce any form of acceptable evidence that the Navy airman were incapable of spotting Earhart and Noonan if indeed they were on the island.
So far you have failed to do so, and as the question of the competence of the Naval aviators has been alluded to by implication, and in some cases directly, in discussions of why in the days following their disappearance Earhart and Noonan were not spotted by the Navy on Nikumaroro then during the fly over, I suggest that you prove conclusively that the Navy personnel were professionally incapable of doing so.
If you aren't aware by now the TIGHAR hypothesis rests on rather shaky ground in regard to the material and documentary evidence ...
... then adding to that flimsy case by imputing that the Navy search personnel were incompetent is an element of special pleading which actually weakens rather than strengthens the case.
In view of that if it was my hypothesis that Earhart and Noonan met their end on Nikumaroro I would simply accept that they were missed by the Navy and leave it at that. The failure of the Navy to find the missing pair on the island is not proof positive that they weren't there, but that is all it is.
Equally however it cannot be turned into proof positive, by adding a frisson of supposed Navy incompetence, that they were.
Stop worrying about the training, I've stated that with no training all you have to do is look out the window or door or over the cockpit combing and you see stuff. My anecdote was doing that from army Hueys without any special training and being able to see guys wearing camouflage uniforms.
That would depend on a number of factors John...
Pilot skills
Dead stick ditching
Sea swell and conditions
There's probably more, maybe someone could add to the list.
The 2 aircraft that I mentioned that went into the Pacific sank within minutes, the plexiglass is no match for the Pacific Ocean. Once the plexiglass went the ocean poured in so fast they barely had time to get the rafts out never mind anything else.
It might be concluded by examining any statistical or anecdotal reports of ANY plane ever floating after crashing or crash landing in the pacific. I can think of only one: Way back when (1950?) a Lockeed constellation airliner passed the point of no return from LA to Hawaii, only to determine it could not reach Hawaii. With a lot of fuel left the airliner coordinated a highly orchestrated daylight water landing near Navy/Coast Guard vessel(s) in a particular location after burning fuel off. There are photos (I believe) of the airliner in the water, like the one that went into the hudson river, with people getting out etc. No fatalities. Or, I could have remembered this entirely wrong.
During WW II there might be some statistics, but I'm thinking the plane would not last long. If it lost even one wing on crash, the rest would sink I'd imagine.
Leon
An optimist may see a light where there is none, but why must the pessimist always run to blow it out?
-Rene Descartes
The center of gravity of a plane can never forward of the wing or even near the front of the wing. The CG of the Electra was limited to to 11.65 inches forward of the wing spar to 2.9 inches aft of the spar, pretty much limited to the middle of the wing's span. The second part of the statement is correct, that the center of buoyancy, with the empty fuselage tanks, is aft of the center of gravity range so the plane would float nose down. The question is how much nose down? This is a difficult thing to model because the buoyancy force is produced by the parts immersed in the sea while a downward force is caused by the parts still out of the water.
"The plane’s center of gravity (CG) was forward of the wing, and virtually all buoyancy was aft of the CG. 10 The unpressurized fuselage was not watertight. If the plane ditched, the nose section, the cockpit, and the space below the cockpit, would flood within minutes 11 and the plane would float nose-down, with the engines and generator submerged and inoperable. The main electrical junction box would flood, short-circuiting the electrical system and discharging the batteries. And the transmitter dynamotor would be submerged and inoperable"
http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/50_HillPaper/50_HillPaperCritique.htm
Mr. Daspit, here is a link that better explains why things float and why they don't: see Buoyancy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buoyancy)I've already done that, see my October 18, 2011 post here. (https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,481.msg6010.html#msg6010) and my my October 27, 2011 post here (https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,481.msg6319.html#msg6319).
Mr. LaPook, In the above link you will find sufficient mathematical formulae for you to expound further on why the Electra would or wouldn't have floated for any appreciable time. Have some fun! ;D
Brad
QuoteIn view of that if it was my hypothesis that Earhart and Noonan met their end on Nikumaroro I would simply accept that they were missed by the Navy and leave it at that. The failure of the Navy to find the missing pair on the island is not proof positive that they weren't there, but that is all it is.
OK. That's all I've ever said.QuoteEqually however it cannot be turned into proof positive, by adding a frisson of supposed Navy incompetence, that they were.
I agree that anyone who defended that straw man would be absurd. I think I've said that already, more than once, in writing.
All this argument is silly. ... to me rather desperate sounding, attempts to blow up the Navy overflight into something like a near-conclusive indictment of the TIGHAR theory sounds a bit strident and silly.
Malcolm
u believe that the new England hypothesis deserves more investigation based on sum guy sayin he found a tag wid simillar numbers to the engine tag of electra which u aint seen for ur self
yet u dismiss Tighar's documented evidence
how does this work ?
Malcolm
u believe that the new England hypothesis deserves more investigation based on sum guy sayin he found a tag wid simillar numbers to the engine tag of electra which u aint seen for ur self
yet u dismiss Tighar's documented evidence
how does this work ?
I think we are talking apples and oranges. In the past you have said that it was hard to spot people on the ground when you were flying at 100 feet or less and at high speed. I pointed out that this is not the best way to spot people because you were well below the optimum altitude. FM 20-150, the National Search And Rescue Manual, has this to say about that:Gary, I think Andrew has done a great job of summarizing some of his experiences in SAR work, but let me, as an old Army pilot who spent more than 700 hours flying at low levels, usually less than 100 feet, in support of ground troops in Viet Nam put in my 2 cents worth. I also disagree with your pronouncements about how easily people on the ground can be detected. I have over flown friendly troops on the ground for hours at a time and we, my crew and I plus a second ship that was part of our team, frequently only got fleeting glimpses of them when they were in moderate cover and we basically knew where they were.That's because you were flying too low. Look at the POD tables and you will see that the POD improves with higher altitudes and the lowest tabulated altitude is 500 feet and the highest listed altitude is 1,000 feet so at 100 feet or less you can expect the POD to be really bad. The marine search tables include altitudes all the way up to 3,000 feet and the POD for marine searches also increases with altitude. Oh, I just thought of this. The assertion that the bird activity caused the search to be flown at a higher altitude and that this caused the search to be less effective is proven wrong by the POD table since the POD increases with altitude, it does not decrease. (BTW, I've done a bit of flying myself.)
Gary, I usually have a lot of respect for your posts but in this case you have, in my opinion, stepped on it so to speak.
First of all, almost all of the Army close air support in Viet Nam was flown at very low altitudes until the Cobra helicopter came along. Although the cobra was normally flown at a higher altitude, usually 1500' or a little higher, in most cases he relied on a scout helicopter down on the deck , in many cases hovering right above the vegetation, to locate targets and mark them with smoke. Only rarely did the Cobra crew actually see what they were shooting at.
In the part of the country that I flew in your chances of survival decreased rapidly in the altitudes from 100' to 300' and then progressively got a little better up to 1500' which we considered to be fairly safe unless there were .51cal machine guns in the area. Army aircrews became very proficient in "scouting" operations at altitudes of 100' and below and received many hours of supervised practice before they were released to preform on their own. I personally had hundreds of hours of experience in this environment and yet you, apparently, pass that off as anecdotal and not worthy on consideration. I find this to be highly offensive. On the other hand you claim to have (expert?) experience, you don't mention how much, as an observer in a Huey that is credible. I am sure you have done a bit of flying yourself but how much of it was directly related to the questions here?
I guess that my whole point is that, in the eyes of one who has been there done that, your charts don't impress me much when it comes to finding people. Finding equipment yes, finding people no.
The Navy "Seawolf" pilots who flew Huey helicopters in the most southern parts of Viet Nam, where most of my experience was, used much the same tactics that the Army did.
By the way, US Air Force Pilots when in this area, with the exception of FACS (forward air controllers), rarely got below 5000' except when they were on takeoff/landing or cruising along at 400kts or more. The fighter pilots had to rely on the FACS to mark their targets with smoke before a strike and complete a BDA (bomb damage assessment) after the strike. On rare occcasions the troops on the ground surveyed the strike area to complete the damage assessment.
Woody,
not sure if it was in the book "shoes" or on the main site (will look later) but during one expedition the ground crew were in the bush when they heard as it passed over them a prop engineed plane. By the time they were out of the bush it was gone.
The interesting thing is they didn't hear it approach due to noise, surf, wind in trees etc..
Marty, since you are concerned about what training the Navy pilots and back-seaters had and how that may have affected their ability to spot Earhart, the National Search And Rescue Manual has this to say about training:
"Scanner effectiveness depends on many factors, including number, training, positions, speed and motion of the aircraft, duration of the search, fatigue and motivation. The effects of these factors and interactions are so complex that it is difficult to gauge their individual impact systematically."
My interpretation of these sentences is that you may be placing too much emphasis on training (or lack thereof) in evaluating the effectiveness of the search as there are many other factors that may, individually or in combination, be more important to your evaluation.
Your mileage may vary.
gl
I certainly do not disagree that training is important but, according to the experts who drafted the manual, not me, there are other important factors too. Looking at the list it appears to me that the other factors militate towards more effective searching in the Earhart case that may make up up for the speculated lack of specific search training. Position = clear view from open cockpit, no reflections from windows, etc. Speed = low speed of search aircraft while searching, long time to see objects on the ground, not "fleeting." Duration = 18 to 28 minutes (according to Ric) and possibly 40 minutes if they used 115 knots between the islands allowing time for at least 3 complete circuits of the island upto 5 circuits (Ric's numbers) and even possibly 7 circuits if they used a higher cruising speed between the islands constituting 9 to 15 to 21 search passes. Fatigue = launched at 0700, so well rested crews and only a little bit more than an hour into the flight when they arrived at Gardner (25 NM from the Colorado to McKean then 67 NM to Gardner @ 90 knots plus short search at McKean or even less than an hour if they cruised at 115 knots between the islands. ) Motivation = EXTREMELY HIGH, everyone wants to be a hero, especially in such a high profile case, pictures in the paper of the guy who spots Earhart, possible medals too, career enhancement. Training = unknown, speculation of lack of search training.Marty, since you are concerned about what training the Navy pilots and back-seaters had and how that may have affected their ability to spot Earhart, the National Search And Rescue Manual has this to say about training:
"Scanner effectiveness depends on many factors, including number, training, positions, speed and motion of the aircraft, duration of the search, fatigue and motivation. The effects of these factors and interactions are so complex that it is difficult to gauge their individual impact systematically."
My interpretation of these sentences is that you may be placing too much emphasis on training (or lack thereof) in evaluating the effectiveness of the search as there are many other factors that may, individually or in combination, be more important to your evaluation.
Your mileage may vary.
gl
Gary, It is a complex thing, but when you discount the effect of training, you are approaching it from the point of view that search effectiveness is high to start with, and degraded by the factors mentioned, and training doesn't matter. That is counter intuitive.
I see it the other way, search effectiveness is poor for the average person, and is improved through training. The purpose of the SAR training beyond proper scanning techniques, is to teach folks how to overcome the factors such as fatigue and boredom, and to understand the ramification of aircraft speed and motion, so that they can stay focused on the task at hand, keep their motivation up, and maximize their effectiveness. Without the understanding they get through training, they are more likely to do a poor job of it.
Like all things, training improves effectiveness. All the statement is intended to indicate is that the factors cannot be judged individually in any "systematic" fashion. I don't think it is saying that training is outweighed by all other factors to the point where it may not be important.
I could use the near exact same language to describe flight training. "Student pilot effectiveness depends on many factors, including aircraft type, training, positions, speed and motion of the aircraft, duration of the flight, fatigue and motivation. The effects of these factors and interactions are so complex that it is difficult to gauge their individual impact systematically."
Do you find that "there are many other factors that may, individually or in combination, be more important" to your student pilot's effectiveness than flight training?
I doubt that you could "systematically gauge" the factors affecting your flight instruction students performance, but how many do not become more effective as pilots through training? Doesn't that indicate that training generally allows one to overcome all other factors?
Andrew
... one cannot predict the result of such an exercise until it is actually carried out. I hope that is clear because if you do not properly understand the process of testing a hypothesis then I might as well not waste key strokes explaining that.
If they had found what they call "the smoking gun" then the matter would be settled, would it not? So if anything I am actually concurring with TIGHAR's demonstrated uncertainty rather than attacking TIGHAR.
It is all very well to be enthusiastic about a hypothesis, but one should never let that enthusiasm blind oneself to the validity of the evidence that is offered to support the hypothesis.
Marty, since you are concerned about what training the Navy pilots and back-seaters had and how that may have affected their ability to spot Earhart ...
... the National Search And Rescue Manual has this to say about training:
"Scanner effectiveness depends on many factors, including number, training, positions, speed and motion of the aircraft, duration of the search, fatigue and motivation. The effects of these factors and interactions are so complex that it is difficult to gauge their individual impact systematically."
My interpretation of these sentences is that you may be placing too much emphasis on training (or lack thereof) in evaluating the effectiveness of the search as there are many other factors that may, individually or in combination, be more important to your evaluation.
Your mileage may vary.
Has there been any thought given to the 'recently inhabited' uninhabited island notion? Specifically, was there any discussion of the possibility that the island was inhabited at, or quickly after the arrival of the plane?
Looking at the list it appears to me that the other factors militate towards more effective searching in the Earhart case that may make up up for the speculated lack of specific search training.
Position = clear view from open cockpit, no reflections from windows, etc.
Put em all together, I'd say decent search.
would do a better job. You have a different set of beliefs and draw a different set of conclusions from the assumptions you make. But it is a conflict of belief against belief, not a conflict of belief against evidence.I agree with you on this, but until someone comes up with a complete syllabus for all the training given to naval aviators in the 1930's, it is just speculation on both sides of this discussion. We know that one of the tasks that these aviators were given was to spot shell splashes and we are assuming that they got training for this but it is possible that they were not, that they were just sent out and told to use their best judgement. Not too plausible? Then is it any more plausible that they were sent out to search for Earhart if they hadn't received some training for that task?
To judge, as you do, that this is an exercise that is "required" by the anecdote is to neglect the laws of aerodynamics, thermodynamics, and radio propagation. ... I judge that the New Britain hypothesis is well and truly falsified; of course, your faith differs from mine.
But, I do have a question , why did they not state clearly in a distrest call Have landed on island with a shipwreck on the west coast cannot liftoff need assistance?
This is location , situation , possibilities , criticality assesment...
I was a FOO in the forces , Canadian ( Forward observation officer ) for correcting and hitting enemy targets and it involves a great deal of training to properly judge the fall of shot and correct. On the sea this is compounded by the earths rotation and the type of projectile, gun and charge size used. If they trained them to fly without crashing they had to train them to hit enemy targets ... :oSee link below. Dana Randolf said he heard "ship is on a reef south of the equator" on the radio. This was documented in the local newspaper at the time. He later said she ALSO said the plane was on a reef SE of Howland.
Likewise the first thing I would have thought after landing on Gardner, after seeing a ship on its west coast waiting for me. From 1000 ft everything looks alive, kinda. That I was in the twilight zone till I figured out that im actually on the wrong island, with a shipwreck and there are no people to greet me or resupply my craft. The shock of that would have been enough after 20 hours of flight. How many islands in the middle Pacific have ships on their west coast ?
But, I do have a question , why did they not state clearly in a distrest call Have landed on island with a shipwreck on the west coast cannot liftoff need assistance?
This is location , situation , possibilities , criticality assesment...
would do a better job. You have a different set of beliefs and draw a different set of conclusions from the assumptions you make. But it is a conflict of belief against belief, not a conflict of belief against evidence.I agree with you on this ...
... but until someone comes up with a complete syllabus for all the training given to naval aviators in the 1930's, it is just speculation on both sides of this discussion.
We know that one of the tasks that these aviators were given was to spot shell splashes and we are assuming that they got training for this but it is possible that they were not, that they were just sent out and told to use their best judgement.
Not too plausible? Then is it any more plausible that they were sent out to search for Earhart if they hadn't received some training for that task?
But, I do have a question , why did they not state clearly in a distrest call Have landed on island with a shipwreck on the west coast cannot liftoff need assistance?
This is location , situation , possibilities , criticality assesment...
Well in the more imaginative reconstructions of the Betty notebook it is claimed that the reference to New York is in fact a reference to Norwich City and that the disparity is due to Betty being an easily confused teenage girl. However I must admit to a frisson of unease about rewriting other people's notes to suit my hypothesis.
Once again Marty you are allowing your predilection for the Nikumaroro hypothesis dominate your capacity to read and understand what I posted. What part of "I have not as far as I can recall accepted the New Britain hypothesis as anything other than a hypothesis that requires testing." is unclear.
As for the rest of your attempt at criticism I cannot see why you would say "If it is valuable to spend money testing hypotheses, put some money where your mouth is (as TIGHAR has) and get up an expedition to New Britain. That would be the archeological thing to do."
When in fact all I said was that so far TIGHAR have not found the smoking gun that they themselves admit they need.
Is it that you claim that they have found the smoking gun? if so, what is it? and you better enlighten TIGHAR management - that will save them a lot of money.
I was a FOO in the forces , Canadian ( Forward observation officer ) for correcting and hitting enemy targets and it involves a great deal of training to properly judge the fall of shot and correct. On the sea this is compounded by the earths rotation and the type of projectile, gun and charge size used. If they trained them to fly without crashing they had to train them to hit enemy targets ... :o"BRAVO TWO ZERO THIS IS BRAVO TWO SIX
Likewise the first thing I would have thought after landing on Gardner, after seeing a ship on its west coast waiting for me. From 1000 ft everything looks alive, kinda. That I was in the twilight zone till I figured out that im actually on the wrong island, with a shipwreck and there are no people to greet me or resupply my craft. The shock of that would have been enough after 20 hours of flight. How many islands in the middle Pacific have ships on their west coast ?
But, I do have a question , why did they not state clearly in a distrest call Have landed on island with a shipwreck on the west coast cannot liftoff need assistance?
This is location , situation , possibilities , criticality assesment...
Once again Marty you are allowing your predilection for the Nikumaroro hypothesis dominate your capacity to read and understand what I posted. What part of "I have not as far as I can recall accepted the New Britain hypothesis as anything other than a hypothesis that requires testing." is unclear.
I understand your sentence.
I disagree with your beliefs.
A hypothesis that depends on magic does not require testing. It requires abandonment.
etc....
Clearly Marty either you do not understand what I posted, or you are deliberately misconstruing it to create a debate bordering on farce.
I understand that Gary did the math for the return to New Britain from '100 miles out, we must be on you but can't see you' vicinity of Howland which made 2 outcomes possible...See my prior posts:
1. They were nowhere near Howland, short by 569 NM - 809NM, in which case they could have returned to New Britain.
2. They were in the vicinity of howland, in which case a return to New britain was impossible.
http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,651.0.html (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,651.0.html)
What about the pilots from Lexington? The Lexington was not an SAR vessel either. Their job was not to spot the fall of shells from the great guns because Lexington had no great guns. Do you think that the pilots that would eventually be assigned to Lexington had different training at Pensacola than the pilots that eventually were assigned to Colorado? I think it more likely that all went through a standard naval aviator training program. Only after they received their assignments would they have gotten specific training for the type of plane that they would be flying. As for the cadets, don't you think they got some training on the way south from Hawaii on how to search and the pilots got the same training as a refresher from their prior training at Pensacola? Doens't this seem reasonable, and what we lawyers call, the standard of care?
The three pilots almost certainly had target-recognition training. Four eyes are better than two in identifying friend or foe. I don't know whether the pilot could direct gunfire, given that he had to fly the plane. I don't know whether they had voice or CW communications with the Colorado.
Then there are the three Cadets:
"On page 7 of the Colorado Lookout (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Documents/ColoradoLookout/page7.pdf), the aviators who took part in the search are listed. “Aviators who took part in the search in addition to Lieut. Lambrecht, were Lieuts. (jg) L. O. Fox and W. B. Short, and Aviation Cadets J. A. Wilson, W. Jordan and R. A. Leake.”
They were on board for some kind of training; I don't think it unreasonable to think it had something to do with finding targets and directing gunfire, along with other tasks necessary to get the planes in and out of the water and the air.
The Colorado was not a S.A.R. vessel. It was a warship getting ready for war. It was pressed into service because it was available, not too far away from where it was needed, and had three aircraft that could (and did) cover a lot of ground. I don't think it all unreasonable to suppose that 1) no one with S.A.R. experience was on board; 2) no one gave them any specific instructions before takeoff, other than to look for an Electra with 36" wheels (if the wheels were 28", then it was manifestly the wrong Electra) and a man and a woman in the vicinity. I doubt that anyone on board would have thought that more than that was necessary to see what there was to be seen.
Since you advanced the theory that they would have been informed of the wisdom gained in the 1927 aerial search (if wisdom was gained), it's up to you to provide the evidence that that wisdom was available and transmitted to them before takeoff. Your hypothesis, your burden of proof.
Clearly Marty either you do not understand what I posted, or you are deliberately misconstruing it to create a debate bordering on farce.
I understand that you think the New Britain hypothesis "requires investigation." I do not agree with that assessment. It is not a viable hypothesis, given what we know about the range of the aircraft and the physics of radio transmissions.
I understand that you have a different belief system from mine. I don't agree with your beliefs, and I understand that you do not agree with mine.
What about the pilots from Lexington? The Lexington was not an SAR vessel either. Their job was not to spot the fall of shells from the great guns because Lexington had no great guns.
Do you think that the pilots that would eventually be assigned to Lexington had different training at Pensacola than the pilots that eventually were assigned to Colorado?
I think it more likely that all went through a standard naval aviator training program. Only after they received their assignments would they have gotten specific training for the type of plane that they would be flying.
As for the cadets, don't you think they got some training on the way south from Hawaii on how to search and the pilots got the same training as a refresher from their prior training at Pensacola? Doesn't this seem reasonable, and what we lawyers call, the standard of care?
Again, until someone comes with the complete syllabus of naval aviator training during the '30s, we are both just speculating.
And the C/N tag on the engine bearer, if true, is just a coincidence?
The difference as I see it between you and I Marty is that you have a belief system that rules out all but Nikumaroro while I have yet to see anything in the Nikumaroro hypothesis that justifies such a leap of faith.
Malcolm, what are you doing?
And, yes, pardon my snarkiness. ;)
And the C/N tag on the engine bearer, if true, is just a coincidence?
Yes.
I doubt whether the testimony about the tag is true.
I doubt whether the testimony is verifiable (which is a separate issue).
I deny that you have made an objective case for either proposition.
If it is true and verifiable, then I would see it as a coincidence. You have provided no evidence whatsoever that constructor numbers were used to identify engine bearers in the 1930s--or at any time in the history of aircraft production.
I cut a deal with the manufacturer of the "CRASHED AND SANK" pins and I will be be taking order for them next month. They come packaged in blister packs that hold one, five, ten, and a hundred. They are also available by the bushel.
I am causally optimistic that Ric will be calling in with pictures of an engine, or at least a propeller and theory 1, for most of us, will be just a ‘bad’ memory. For those members that made the Wash DC meeting and were thinking about buying an electronic pin to wear, I suggest you watch ebay in the coming weeks, I have a feeling that one that reads “CRASHED and SANK” will be coming available shortly.
Proof of construction numbers - I think you should read back on this thread http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,648.15.html (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,648.15.html) .
The rest are your doubts and unsupported by anything that I can see. Best leave it there for your own sake.
Spot on! Here's a mock up of the repair tags we used. They were thin brass with hole at one end for attcahing to component with twisted wire. The information from the aircraft constructors identification plate was stamped into the tag, model number, serial number, date of manufacture (not the aircraft registration number, they come and go). This informed the repair facility exactly which plane it came from. A new component was fitted if cost/time was an issue. Repaired component used on same model, same year, depending on modification notices regarding said component.The C/N 'tag' in question is, according to the New Britain scenario a 'repair tag', not the manufacturers identification plate...
I have been in aircraft engineering for 48 years. I believe the Metal Tag, wired to the tubing on the detached engine and removed by the patrol Warrant Officer was a metal “Repair Tag”, which had been left on the engine mount truss after repair and re-installation. The leaving of repair tags on components does happen, even today. In 1937, the aircraft was repaired where it had been made and workers at the Lockheed factory at Burbank would identify all components removed during the repair as from the build number , “C/N1055", not as from “NRl6020", the civil registration of the aircraft. Items sent for a gas flame welding shop repair would get fireproof metal tags not card tags, just as they would do today.
http://www.electranewbritain.com/Interestbegins2.htm (http://www.electranewbritain.com/Interestbegins2.htm)
That can be the case - which I have also spoken to before (although I've been in the industry a few less years - 35 or so).
It can also be the case that a mount (or similar component) intended for repair gets side-lined and a new or other repaired item gets installed on a given bird, then the original component finds its way onto yet another serial number... not uncommon. In fact, sometimes parts with a given 'ship set' number may get diverted in original production to a ship of a different serial number - I see that commonly on items as significant as whole wing and tail assemblies even today.
That lends a great deal of doubt in my mind about such a tag lending credence to a major search, if such a tag ever existed in East New Britain.
LTM -
Leon, I personally think not only is it possible, but might probably have happened just that way. We know from soundings that there is a second ledge around 800-900 feet down. "Could" have the electra gotten hung up there for a peiod of time? I think so. Just as I'm thinking it hung itself up at the 150 +- foot ledge. I'm not a diver---but I would thing that the deeper you go around the reef, the less current and underwater movements there is. So 'if' the Electra was at the 150 foot level, and is not at the 900 foot level, then something shifted it to make it move. Seismic activity is something to consider.Water movement drops off very fast with depth as any scuba diver can tell you. There can be a hurricane on the surface but 300 feet down it is calm, submariners will tell you that.
Disclaimer: I dont know the actual depths of these ledges, just what If gathered from the tables in the archives.
Tom
What about the pilots from Lexington? The Lexington was not an SAR vessel either. Their job was not to spot the fall of shells from the great guns because Lexington had no great guns. Do you think that the pilots that would eventually be assigned to Lexington had different training at Pensacola than the pilots that eventually were assigned to Colorado? I think it more likely that all went through a standard naval aviator training program. Only after they received their assignments would they have gotten specific training for the type of plane that they would be flying. As for the cadets, don't you think they got some training on the way south from Hawaii on how to search and the pilots got the same training as a refresher from their prior training at Pensacola? Doens't this seem reasonable, and what we lawyers call, the standard of care?
Again, until someone comes with the complete syllabus of naval aviator training during the '30s, we are both just speculating.
I think Malcolm has to provide the evidence to support what he believes in order for others to assess. I'm sure he will either provide this evidence or let us know he can't. He understands the principle.
Actually you will discover if you read my posts on the subject that nowhere have I claimed that the New Britain hypothesis is based on any proven facts.
As for Marty's lack of knowledge about the use of construction numbers by aircraft and other manufacturers' of similarly complex machines as the means to distinguish the resulting assemblies both during manufacture and afterwards. The explanation put simply is it is a means to properly identify these items both during manufacture to make sure hand fitted or tuned items are reunited with the parent equipment, or in later years, when the registration/identification numbers etc. allotted to them after they have left the factory are changed through resale etc.
My main fault it appears, is that I have not unequivocally accepted the Gardner Island hypothesis although as I recall I have never said that I don't accept it. All I have ever said is that it, like the others, remains unproven. If you find that hard to understand then there is no more I can say to make it clearer to you.I think you are being reasonable on that score. But I do think it is clear that AE/FN were there. Where the mystery remains is why and how they got there and what became of them. They need a proper burial.
Concerning Betty's notebook. The problem with recollections of events so long after, even with the notes as an aide memoire is that these become embellished in our minds. Perhaps the panic Betty hears isn't panic but simply Noonan telling Earhart to stop fiddling with the radio and get out of the aircraft because if you stay here any longer you will be drowned. Noonan is not panicking but exercising his authority in the manner of a seasoned skipper. He knows that one good wave or a rising tide can float the aircraft off the reef.
Still I remain sceptical about the Betty diary - not that I am accusing her or others of fraud but that memories play tricks, especially with recollections of an unexpected and garbled radio message. The gist of the messages may be there but the interpretation could be amiss.
So in effect you arguing that the post-loss messages are genuine because they don't give a reliable indication of her position. Well that's one way of looking at it I'll grant you.Funny
She was not a good navigator so she couldn't be allowed to undertake the flight solo so Noonan who was an accomplished navigator, seaman and a pilot himself was hired to be the navigator. He had already achieved a promising position in aviation circles –
Going back to Brad's original reason for the post, here is my scenario of what happened:
The Electra was south of Howland when AE said 'we must be on you'.
They flew north for a bit, then headed south still hoping to find Howland, but would be happy to see Baker, Winslow Reef, McKean, or Gardner.
They were about to head to the Gilberts (which was her plan, as she told Gene Vidal, if they couldn't find Howland) when they sighted Gardner Island, not knowing which island it was.
AE and FN decided that FN would go to the back of the plane for tail weight and had a somewhat rough landing.
FN injured his head badly on landing.
Not too rough for running the engine, they worked the radio for 6+ days, telling anyone who could hear that they were on an island with the wreck of the Norwich City (Betty), and that ship was on a reef south of the equator (Dana Randolph).
While sleeping inland, the plane started to move with the rising tide.
By the time they woke up the plane was headed for the edge of the reef and they weren't able to unload it.
The plane fell off the edge of the reef (every once and a while in the future flinging a part or two back over onto the reef).
On the day of the Lambrecht flyover FN was incapacitated and AE was inland banging a coconut trying to open it.
AE didn't hear the planes right away because of the noise she was making and the fact that her hearing was impaired from the long flight.
As quickly as she could, she got her kite and flew it off Nutiran (ground zero) where it was captured on a picture from someone in the Lambrecht plane who was looking elsewhere on the island when he snapped the shot, then flew away from the island.(had to put that in there :)
On the 10th, FN was in so much pain from the head injury, and knew he was dying. He walked into the lagoon and drowned himself to end the pain.
AE inspected the island and settled at the 7 site because of climate comfort, food access, and access to the beach for sighting rescue, as she didn't want to get caught too far inland as she was when on the northern end of the island during the Lambrecht flyover.
She kept a diary with pencil and paper in FN's sextant box, the paper was destroyed by the time Gallagher came along.
AE carved 'AE and FN' onto a Buka tree in the forest near the 7 site, not yet found.
On the 21st she succumbed to thirst and died with one of her shoes on and one of FN's shoes on because she injured her foot either on landing or on the coral.
Her bones are still on Fiji and may yet be found.
And here is yet another point of view (http://kirkomrik.wordpress.com/).
There is a working link Chris. I clicked on the words "another point of view" and it took me to the web link.
There is a working link Chris. I clicked on the words "another point of view" and it took me to the web link.
I would like to see credible sources that show human remains surviving in that particular tropical, underwater environment for 70+ years. By credible I mean a peer reviewed scientific paper.
I would like to see credible sources that show human remains surviving in that particular tropical, underwater environment for 70+ years. By credible I mean a peer reviewed scientific paper.
Though not peer review or scientific I remember as a young lad in the 1970's watching a Jac Cousteau (sp) documentary about Japanese wartime wrecks in the pacific and being fascinated by the bones etc but alas I can't tell you where that was. I suppose I'm saying it may be possible but only in the right conditions.
And here is yet another point of view (http://kirkomrik.wordpress.com/).
REALLY
How about you should have researched Tighar before you give them one million in stock, That video has been available since 2010 and in all honesty the high res copy only confirms that it is only coral in the video that resembles aircraft parts as for seeing skeletons an banjo's an guitars etc "Really" for the money your paying to sue Tighar i would say Elvis was there too.
O an that sonar image u used was my interpretation of what i see not what Tighar see, So considering you used my image without my consent you owe me one million pound
Thanks
And you thought THIS forum was weird.
... that was written by Lloyd Manley (a TIGHAR member), not by me. Please read more carefully before raising your pen in anger towards me.All,
And here is yet another point of view (http://kirkomrik.wordpress.com/).
This really needs it's own thread under "Alternatives to the Niku Hypothesis".
What I like most on Tim s page is a pic of beautiful Amelia aged 16 which I have never seen before... :)
And here is yet another point of view (http://kirkomrik.wordpress.com/).
REALLY
How about you should have researched Tighar before you give them one million in stock, That video has been available since 2010 and in all honesty the high res copy only confirms that it is only coral in the video that resembles aircraft parts as for seeing skeletons an banjo's an guitars etc "Really" for the money your paying to sue Tighar i would say Elvis was there too.
O an that sonar image u used was my interpretation of what i see not what Tighar see, So considering you used my image without my consent you owe me one million pound
Thanks
Richie, that was written by Lloyd Manley (a TIGHAR member), not by me. Please read more carefully before raising your pen in anger towards me.
Lloyd,Chris, I think a lot of the navigation information was filched from a topic here in the Celestial Choir portion of Forum, "Seeking Comments on New Date Line Theory (https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,291.msg2592.html#msg2592)," that was started by Liz Smith (who Lloyd cites) in 2011, and from Liz's own website, "The Date Line Theory (http://www.datelinetheory.com/)."
where did you get your navigation information from?
I didn't know there were any Monty Python requirements, though I used to quote that movie all the time.
They are made of woodI didn't know there were any Monty Python requirements, though I used to quote that movie all the time.
There are no Monty Python requirements but you do get points for being able to answer some basic questions:
• Why do witches float?
• What else floats?
• What is your favorite color?
• What is the capital of Assyria?
Timothy old chap, I fear the irony of Richie's posting flew over your head! Its probably a cultural thing as British humour is well known for failing when crossing west over the Atlantic. (apart from the great Monty Python)And here is yet another point of view (http://kirkomrik.wordpress.com/).
REALLY
How about you should have researched Tighar before you give them one million in stock, That video has been available since 2010 and in all honesty the high res copy only confirms that it is only coral in the video that resembles aircraft parts as for seeing skeletons an banjo's an guitars etc "Really" for the money your paying to sue Tighar i would say Elvis was there too.
O an that sonar image u used was my interpretation of what i see not what Tighar see, So considering you used my image without my consent you owe me one million pound
Thanks
Richie, that was written by Lloyd Manley (a TIGHAR member), not by me. Please read more carefully before raising your pen in anger towards me.
Lloyd's hypothesis or theory is an interesting read but at the end of the day it is Lloyd's alternate theory and I believe he is willing to defend it. Clearly it has a lot of time invested in it. Tighar's website provides a lot of reference material just as other web sites offer. I am actually pleased to see that people are willing to provide alternates and to receive polite reviews. That's healthy for discussion. I believe that everyone benefits from these alternate ideas as it stimulates thought, makes us review sources and facts, and look for the true answer. Kudos to Lloyd and everyone else, including the Pythonites, for their ideas, comments, suggestions and, yes, the bravery to speak out on these pages. My theory? Perhaps Amelia was a witch and floated home with Fred on her back. :)
And sorry Tim. Your quote was from Fawlty Towers. A John Cleese production. Not Monty Python but definitely another excellent example of Pythonesque style humour.
Well the problem is that lots of people are assuming that because of the Betty radio message that on Nikumaroro, Amelia is OK and poor Fred is helpless. Now as there is nothing to support that hypothesis how about this one.
Earhart, not the greatest pilot on Earth as we are aware, bounces the Electra down on the reef, in the process breaking off one undercarriage leg, and finally wakes up to the fact that she has got both of them well and truly in the s**t. Noonan a man we all know of some experience in nautical and command matters finally tells her -
"Amelia, this your fault, the radio was working but you have stuffed it by not transmitting long enough at any time for anyone to get a fix and we get ourselves lost. I'm here because your husband was well aware you couldn't navigate to save your life and you would need an expert to get you across the ocean. Now stop fiddling with the radio - no one is listening. Let's get out of this tin can, its hot, a wreck and the next wave will probably drown us in it, and head for the shore."
Once ashore after a couple of acrimonious days Amelia well aware of her limitations, after being really made aware of them by Noonan, storms off to the south of the island and succumbs finally to thirst due to her usual inability to pay attention to detail.
Fred, thoroughly glad to see the end of her, stays near the shore of the north part of the island near the wreck and succumbs himself to thirst and hunger. Being near the shore his body is washed out to sea by a high tide or storm and then disappears.
Works for me.
Don't miss the "About" page.
And you thought THIS forum was weird.
I look into those pics attentively and honestly I don´t see those things as described. I will take a rest and try again. What I like most on Tim s page is a pic of beautiful Amelia aged 16 which I have never seen before... :)
The only way to definitively identify the objects in the video is to go there and recover them.
... that was written by Lloyd Manley (a TIGHAR member), not by me. Please read more carefully before raising your pen in anger towards me.All,
The article was written by me and frankly, given the passions on this subject, I fully expected wrath from every corner, including Mr. Mellon. So, no, you can be sure it was not written by Mr. Mellon, Mr. Gillespie or Elvis. I admire the following of principle so I try to say what I really think, unvarnished and as is. Sorry if it upsets anyone. Just my 2 cent opinion.
Tim,
I am not a TIGHAR member, unless you're just referring to having a posting account here?
Lloyd
Re reading Lloyds theory and ignoring the puerile and rude comments of the blog owner I was wondering if there are any examples of Electra sized aircraft that have ditched in the ocean and remained afloat for up to 48 hours?
8 minutes isn't a lot of time though of course it didn't have the additional fuel tanks that are claimed to add buoyancy.
Any other Electra sized examples I wonder, am not enough of a plane fan to even know what models to search for. Like cars I shouldn't imagine that planes are designed for a 48 hour cruise across the pacific.
... now he has Earhart telling the Coast Guard her backup plan was Gardner island, which they ignored of course.
Is this complete hogwash or what? I can find no reference to anywhere "in writing and before the flight" that Earhart
ever mentioned the name Gardner.
Your turn to put it all together and write your own scenario. Try to keep it on topic, it's all theory and we are not trying to argue points or tear ideas apart. If you have a scenario of what happened after the last known radio call lets see it!
I think that the remark about returning to the Gilberts (if AE really made such a remark - as has been noticed before, a third-hand account isn't really satusfactory evidence at all) should be considered in the light of how AE is known to have handled the risks involved in her previous flights. Her attitude seems to have been "all or nothing", and she never seems to have made any serious contingency planning. When she felt that her planes were too heavy, safety equipment was the first thing she discarded. Even on her transatlantic flight in 1932, she didn't carry a life raft. When friends asked her how she felt about the risks, she usually laughed them off.
Also, she doesn't seem to have been very knowledgeable about the routes she flew. In 1932, she had someone else do the detailed planning for her, and stuck to a compass heading because she felt a great circle route was too difficult to handle. She seems to not really have known where she was when she landed. When she had a navigator with her, she seems to have been content to fly whatever course he set.
So even if she actually told Gore Vidal she'd head back to the Gilberts, I think it's fair to assume she hadn't really thought it
through.
Just a thought.
Ok, so Amelia was an alright pilot but Fred was a very good navigator. I’m positive he KNEW where they were. So why would they fly 400 miles past their target? Yes, I do believe they were on Gardener Island and that they died there. My question is why. One possible answer. Our government asks them to. “Hey, Gardner is bigger and has a great place to land. Once you are “lost” we will launch a search that will give us an opportunity to photograph the Japanese progress on neighboring islands and once we are finished we will “find” you and bring fuel so you can be on your way.” But something goes terribly wrong, an unusually high tide washes the Electra off the beach. When the rescue plane flies over a week or so later the Electra isn’t there. “OH CRAP! Let’s pull out and pretend this whole thing never happened.”
Any thoughts?
Any thoughts?Two words: Occam's razor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor)
Any thoughts?Two words: Occam's razor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor)
So what's the point in engaging in "pure fiction" that is completely devoid of any factual support?
Fred was one of the best navigators of his time and I’m confident he knew they were over Gardner so why not continue to fly in the area until they could spot it?
It could be as simple as he was not at the controls and Amelia made the decision to continue on her last known heading and they spotted Gardner Island at some point. It wouldn’t be the first time she went against his advice.
At some point, they had to give up on Howland,
They probably decided together to head for the Phoenix group on the LOP. Both of their lives were at stake. It may have even been Noonan who was insisting they do so - he was the navigator, and one of the best in the world - if he couldn't find Howland, Amelia certainly couldn't either.
It is also highly likely, I say close to certain, that Fred knew it was Gardner. He was an experienced seaman, and the whole marine community of his time knew about the Norwich City disaster, and where she had run aground. So if he saw the shipwreck, he must have instantly realized he was on Gardner. Indeed even before landing the plane, they must have seen the wreck, and Fred would have told AE..."Hey that is Norwich City, she ran aground on Gardner...so this is Gardner Island."
To the post on Fred passing notes on a bamboo pole to AE as their communication method, while they were flying, that is also my understanding.
At this time it does not seem particularly significant.
Is that what you had in mind when you started this thread?
So, Ian, you're imagining this woman- who flew the plane and shunned female norms- landed on Niku and proceeded to fan herself and gripe about the heat while sitting in the shade of a coconut tree using freckle cream watching her man do the hunting and gathering? Really? Perhaps she ate bon-bons while loosening her corset and adjusting her skirts. My goodness- why did she even leave the kitchen?
And then she withered away and died because her man didn't bring her any more food... how, ummm, interesting.
I never thought of putting Amelia into a Victorian romance novel. For me, I'll leave her where she is- a forward-thinking woman who lived her dreams.
LTM~ Who doesn't see Amelia in Gone with the Wind,
Stacy
Ric warned him... ;D
What's the old saw? Hell hath no fury... and no, whatever all she was, AE was no pushover or wall flower.
Welcome aboard, Stacy, glad to see you posting.
... So much to choose from... And it reads like a romance novel. I was expecting the "she fell passionately into his arms" scene, but alas it wasn't there. Maybe next time :)
... So much to choose from... And it reads like a romance novel. I was expecting the "she fell passionately into his arms" scene, but alas it wasn't there. Maybe next time :)
Stacy, if your really want to go down that road, there's always I was Amelia Earhart. And no, I didn't read it, I just ... know these things ... *cough*
LTM, who tries to keep straight what he doesn't know,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 CER
So, Ian, you're imagining this woman- who flew the plane and shunned female norms- landed on Niku and proceeded to fan herself and gripe about the heat while sitting in the shade of a coconut tree using freckle cream watching her man do the hunting and gathering? Really? Perhaps she ate bon-bons while loosening her corset and adjusting her skirts. My goodness- why did she even leave the kitchen?
And then she withered away and died because her man didn't bring her any more food... how, ummm, interesting.
I never thought of putting Amelia into a Victorian romance novel. For me, I'll leave her where she is- a forward-thinking woman who lived her dreams.
LTM~ Who doesn't see Amelia in Gone with the Wind,
Stacy
Ric warned him... ;D
What's the old saw? Hell hath no fury... and no, whatever all she was, AE was no pushover or wall flower.
Welcome aboard, Stacy, glad to see you posting.
Thank you, Jeff, for the warm welcome :) I do enjoy being part of TIGHAR.
I find Ian's post quite humorous. Where to start? The ham sandwich? Crying about sand in her shoes? Or perhaps nagging about the distress signal... So much to choose from... And it reads like a romance novel. I was expecting the "she fell passionately into his arms" scene, but alas it wasn't there. Maybe next time :)
And Jeff, I always find your posts quite informative and relevant- thank you for everything you do!
LTM~ Who's wondering where the sand came from,
Stacy
To the post on Fred passing notes on a bamboo pole to AE as their communication method, while they were flying, that is also my understanding.
I am very tempted to make newcomers pass an entrance exam before we allow them to post on the Forum.
Everybody is welcome to their personal opinions, but not to their personal "facts."
The bamboo pole was used on the first attempt to fly around the world, when there were four souls on board: Earhart, Mantz, Mnning, and Noonan.
On the second world attempt, Fred could sit next to AE whenever he wished. So far as I know, we have no information on how he may have split his time between the workstation and the cockpit, or whether he used the bamboo pole. He had options.
I'm curious what syllabus you'd recommend for this hypothetical entrance exam. Short of "read everything on the site", is there a more systematic approach?
On this thread Gary Lapook shows that FN was moving between the cockpit and the back during the dakar leg of the flight
http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,383.msg5083.html#msg5083
So, Ian, you're imagining this woman- who flew the plane and shunned female norms- landed on Niku and proceeded to fan herself and gripe about the heat while sitting in the shade of a coconut tree using freckle cream watching her man do the hunting and gathering? Really? Perhaps she ate bon-bons while loosening her corset and adjusting her skirts. My goodness- why did she even leave the kitchen?Thank you, Jeff, for the warm welcome :) I do enjoy being part of TIGHAR.
And then she withered away and died because her man didn't bring her any more food... how, ummm, interesting.
I never thought of putting Amelia into a Victorian romance novel. For me, I'll leave her where she is- a forward-thinking woman who lived her dreams.
LTM~ Who doesn't see Amelia in Gone with the Wind,
Stacy
I find Ian's post quite humorous. Where to start? The ham sandwich? Crying about sand in her shoes? Or perhaps nagging about the distress signal... So much to choose from... And it reads like a romance novel. I was expecting the "she fell passionately into his arms" scene, but alas it wasn't there. Maybe next time :)
And Jeff, I always find your posts quite informative and relevant- thank you for everything you do!
LTM~ Who's wondering where the sand came from,
Stacy
Humorous? Are you sure? Hm... I still have the problem with English, but if I uderstood it well, that post is a quite offensive towards Amelia. Perhaps it´s only a foreign language misunderstanding, but...
Can't speak for Stacy, but I took that to mean despite any affront she has a great sense of humor. Maybe 'Ian' does too - we simply don't know him too well... so far as we can tell for certain. Perhaps we'll hear more.
I'm not saying what you write isn't true, but I can't find any source for that info in the forum archives or the Ameliapedia and you do not provide any citation in your message.
I’m also wondering if a forensic analysis on the fish and bird bones has been performed to try to match marks left on them that could be matched to one of the improvised cutting tools found. I’m not sure if that information would be useful other than proving the castaway (s) used the item for that purpose
Hi,
Sorry if I offended anyone. Call me inspired by an incredible story!
And yes it was meant to be light entertainment only. Always good to give the brainiaks around some fodder to quote to I suppose.
To clarify, I think Amelia is quite fantastic, exceptionally brave and you just don't get to within 7000 miles of a round the world trip in 1938 without some incredible persoanl clout and ability at the controls.
I think the idea of them being trapped on that island waiting for rescue very sad and and a great tragedy. Alternatively I think them clinging to sinking wreckage in the middle of the Pacific pretty raw too. But I just don't see that happening. Either way.
I also think FN was more than likely a gentleman who would never ask a lady wrestle and then slit the throat of a passing sea turtle. But when you find the diary I'll be happy to be proved wrong.
So apologies if I upset anyone. Not my intent.
I watched the aerial tour video of Niku...; Gives a good perspective on the difficulties you all face.
Regards
Ian
My apologies.
I've been reading the Forum since 2000.
Some day I will make an entry for "bamboo pole" in the Ameliapedia.
For now, here is a Google search (https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Atighar.org+%22bamboo+pole%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-beta) that turns up some of the material on the website. If you substitute "navigator's station" for "bamboo pole," that may bring up some other hits.
Here is an outline of articles in the Ameliapedia (http://tighar.org/wiki/Earhart_Project#Background_Information) that should give a newcomer a good orientation.
Thanks Ric,'Miracle on the Hudson' comes to mind first, plenty of time to safely evacuate and it never really sank. This is despite the fact that the Airbus has a special "Ditch-Switch" that seals outflow valves and intakes, but was never activated by the crew, a complete load of fuel that did not spill and a passenger panic rear door opening flooding that caused it to float tail low. You will notice that passenger briefing cards now include a note about not opening exits after a ditching unless instructed by the Crew.
8 minutes isn't a lot of time though of course it didn't have the additional fuel tanks that are claimed to add buoyancy.
Any other Electra sized examples I wonder, am not enough of a plane fan to even know what models to search for. Like cars I shouldn't imagine that planes are designed for a 48 hour cruise across the pacific.
"Yes, I've seen something similar and there are images all over the web of human remains underwater but I believe those conditions are very specific to preservation. While this is not my field of expertise I would say that based upon what I can see, the underwater environment that was photographed during the expedition is extremely dynamic and full of seemingly uncountable life forms. To say that something like human remains (a food source) would survive for 70+ years is not something I would be convinced of without credible proof. With my current knowledge of that system I would say near impossible."
I found the following information today regarding the remains of a German submarine crew (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/22/nazi-submarine-found-java-sea-wwii_n_4320031.html?icid=maing-grid7%7Cmaing14%7Cdl20%7Csec1_lnk3%26pLid%3D410259) from 1944. Thought I would share for general interest.