TIGHAR
Amelia Earhart Search Forum => General discussion => Topic started by: Ric Gillespie on May 10, 2013, 01:16:59 PM
-
One of our researchers has raised an interesting question.
"We believe it is likely that Betty listened to the transmission on 5 July. Prior to that
do you know if she might have learned thru the media that Earhart had reported
her navigator was seriously injured (per the credible signal on 2 July heard by
Larremore)?
If it appears that Betty could not have known about what appears to be a significant
injury to Noonan, then that piece of information both strengthens the authenticity of
the Notebook per hearing Earhart, and the validity of the Notebook wherein "the man"
appears to behave in ways indicative of a possible injury to his head."
The answer is surprising.
1. Mabel Larremore on the night of July 2nd (Message 27 in the Catalog (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/ResearchPapers/Brandenburg/signalcatalog2.html#ID30800LE)).
"She stated that her navigator Fred Noonan was seriously injured. Needed help immediately. She also had some injuries but not as serious as Mr. Noonan.” As far as we know, Mabel's account never appeared in the press.
2. Nina Paxton on the morning of July 3rd (Message 47 in the Catalog (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/ResearchPapers/Brandenburg/signalcatalog2.html#ID30800LE)).
We've judged as credible the initial July 1937 newspaper account of what Paxton heard. That article makes no mention of injuries but Nina told her increasingly embellished story many times over the years to anyone who would listen. In 1962 she reported that Earhart had said,” The captain is with me, but unable to walk well due to injuries in landing yesterday.” The credibility of that embellishment is marginal at best.
3. Dana Randolph on the morning of July 4th (Message 81 in the Catalog (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/ResearchPapers/Brandenburg/signalcatalog3.html)).
Randolph's reception "Ship on reef southeast of Howland" was widely reported in the press the next day. It's possible that Betty saw the story if it was carried in the St.Pete papers but Randolph reported no mention of injuries.
4. Mrs. Ernest Crabb on the morning of July 4th (Message 82 in the Catalog (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/ResearchPapers/Brandenburg/signalcatalog3.html)).
Mrs. Crabb's reception was coincident with Dana Randolph's. Mrs. Crabb heard snatches of conversation between AE and FN but no mention of injuries. An account of Crabb's reception appeared in the Toronto Daily Star on July 5th and 6th but the story was not picked up by American newspapers.
5. Mrs. Ernest Crabb early morning of July 5th (Message 140 in the Catalog (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/ResearchPapers/Brandenburg/signalcatalog4.html)).
Mrs. Crabb heard snatches of conversation between AE and FN but no mention of injuries.
6. Betty Klenck later on morning of July 5th (Message 142 in the Catalog (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/ResearchPapers/Brandenburg/signalcatalog4.html)).
Betty heard snatches of conversation between AE and FN. No overt mention of injuries but Betty's transcription implies that Noonan is behaving in a matter consistent with a traumatic head injury and that AE has an injury that causes her to cry out in pain.
6. Mrs. Ernest Crabb early morning of July 6th (Message 161 in the Catalog (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/ResearchPapers/Brandenburg/signalcatalog5.html)).
Mrs. Crabb heard snatches of conversation between AE and FN but no mention of injuries.
7. Thelma Lovelace early morning of July 7th (Message 170 in the Catalog (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/ResearchPapers/Brandenburg/signalcatalog5.html)).
“We have taken in water, my navigator is badly hurt; (repeat) we are in need of medical care and must have help; we can’t hold on much longer.”
Reference to "we" needing medical care implies that she is also injured. Lovelace's account never appeared in the press.
So, to summarize:
• Larremore, Klenck and Lovelace independently describe or imply severe injury to Noonan and less severe injury to Earhart.
• All three women came forward with their stories many years after the event and had no knowledge of each other.
• None of the accounts of post-loss radio receptions that were reported in the press in 1937 - whether credible, uncertain, or not credible - included mention of injuries. Among the not credible reports, expressions of desperation ("can't hold on much longer") were common but there was no mention of injuries.
• Paxton's 1962 description of Noonan's knee injury is not consistent with the type or severity of injury reported by Larremore, Klenck and Lovelace.
-
Ric
Given the fact Amelia's round world flight was main headline news at the time. And it was headline news that Fred Noonan was her navigator.
Have you ever asked Betty why she writes "MAN, HE, HIM etc instead of Fred ?
Did Betty actually know the name of Amelia's navigator ?
Sorry if this has been brought up before :)
Thank's Richie
-
In Finding Amelia, Ric makes the following observations about Nina Paxton’s 1937 newspaper account about hearing Earhart:
“The entire propagation path between the Paxton’s location and the search area was in daylight and the probability for her…to have heard a transmission from the Earhart Electra was less than one in ten million. Improbable is not the same as impossible, of course, and extraordinary events do occur. There is nothing, however, in Nina Paxton’s claims that argue for her credibility. All the elements of Earhart’s situation, as Paxton first described it, can be found in press accounts published in the newspapers in the days before Paxton contacted the newspaper.”
Ric suggest in his post above that Paxton’s 1962 recollection that Noonan had an injury incurred during landing that made it difficult to walk was of marginal credibility, at best. Ric doesn’t explain why he thinks so, but in Finding Amelia, Ric says that in 1943 that Paxton claimed that Earhart made specific references to the Marshall Islands in her radio message. Also, she went on to repeat these claims in the ‘60s, and also claimed that she heard secret messages from Hitler.
Additional potential credibility-busters:
According to the 1937 newspaper article (as quoted in the post-loss radio catalog (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/ResearchPapers/Brandenburg/signalcatalog2.html)) “Mrs. Paxton claimed to have heard Earhart say “down in ocean,” then “on or near little island at a point near …,” then something about “directly northeast,” and “our plane about out of gas. Water all around. Very dark.” Then something about a storm and that the wind was blowing, “will have to get out of here,” “we can’t stay here long.”
According to Bob Brandenburg’s tide analysis, the tide level was about 0.45 meters below the bottom of the Electra’s wheel at the time; also it was 8 in the morning at Gardner--daytime. So, Paxton’s remarks about ‘Water all around’, ‘getting dark’, ‘will have to get out of here’ don’t seem to make a lot of sense without vigorous arm waving. Same goes for the ‘down in ocean’ quote; if the plane went in the ocean, it wouldn’t be able to transmit.
I leave it to forum readers to decide for themselves, given all of the above, how much weight should be given to Paxton's 1937 report of hearing Earhart and her later remarks about Noonan's injures.
-
One of our researchers has raised an interesting question.
"We believe it is likely that Betty listened to the transmission on 5 July. Prior to that
do you know if she might have learned thru the media that Earhart had reported
her navigator was seriously injured (per the credible signal on 2 July heard by
Larremore)?
If it appears that Betty could not have known about what appears to be a significant
injury to Noonan, then that piece of information both strengthens the authenticity of
the Notebook per hearing Earhart, and the validity of the Notebook wherein "the man"
appears to behave in ways indicative of a possible injury to his head."
One problem I see with this argument is that we don’t know that Fred was injured. If we did, then the fact that Betty’s notebook suggested Fred was injured would be somewhat interesting, but even then, it isn’t a great leap to think that someone might have been injured in making an emergency landing on a remote island.
Should reports of Fred being injured strengthen the authenticity of the report? Have a look at An Avalanche of Psychics (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Jennings_Article/Psychicsarticle.html). People claiming psychic powers reported injuries to Fred and/or Amelia. A July 5 telegram about the visions of an ‘Eminent Psychic’ reads “PLANE PRETTY WELL CRACKED UP BUT BOTH ARE SAFE. MISS EARHART IN BETTER SHAPE THAN NOONAN”. Sounds a lot like Betty’s notebook doesn’t it? Also, there is this: “A woman from Detroit sent a series of unique sketches she called “human radio wave pictures” depicting Amelia Earhart dragging Captain Noonan ashore on a barren island. The woman is an architect with two university degrees, and she was impelled to draw the pictures by a power she could not explain.” One of her drawings show an injured/dead Noonan on the reef, being attended to by Amelia. Another of her ‘human radio wave pictures’ (received on the fourth harmonic of Amelia’s brainwaves, perhaps?...) shows what is labeled ‘a box of some sort’. The castaway was found with a sextant box! This truly is a piece of occult information, isn't it? This Detroit woman couldn’t have known that a skeleton with a sextant box would be found by Gallagher, so the fact that she ‘saw’ this box, AND also 'saw' an incapacitated Fred, enhances the credibility of her visions, doesn’t it? I think most of us will agree the answer is ‘No’.
-
In Finding Amelia, Ric makes the following observations about Nina Paxton’s 1937 newspaper account about hearing Earhart:
“The entire propagation path between the Paxton’s location and the search area was in daylight and the probability for her…to have heard a transmission from the Earhart Electra was less than one in ten million. Improbable is not the same as impossible, of course, and extraordinary events do occur. There is nothing, however, in Nina Paxton’s claims that argue for her credibility. All the elements of Earhart’s situation, as Paxton first described it, can be found in press accounts published in the newspapers in the days before Paxton contacted the newspaper.”
Finding Amelia was written in 2005. Bob Brandenburg and I completed the Post-Loss Signals Catalog in 2012. Remember, in the Catalog, "credible" does not mean "proven to be authentic." Deciding what to do with Nina Paxton was difficult but we ultimately decided that her initial report had to go in the "credible" column because there is nothing in it that automatically disqualifies as being a genuine reception of an Earhart transmission.
Ric suggest in his post above that Paxton’s 1962 recollection that Noonan had an injury incurred during landing that made it difficult to walk was of marginal credibility, at best. Ric doesn’t explain why he thinks so, but in Finding Amelia, Ric says that in 1943 that Paxton claimed that Earhart made specific references to the Marshall Islands in her radio message. Also, she went on to repeat these claims in the ‘60s, and also claimed that she heard secret messages from Hitler.
I'm happy to explain why I think Paxton's 1962 recollection is of marginal credibility. By then she had a track record of questionable, if not downright ridiculous, embellishments to her original account and her description of Noonan's injury is at odds with what I consider to be the more credible reports by Larrmore, Klenck and Lovelace.
Additional potential credibility-busters:
According to the 1937 newspaper article (as quoted in the post-loss radio catalog (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/ResearchPapers/Brandenburg/signalcatalog2.html)) “Mrs. Paxton claimed to have heard Earhart say “down in ocean,” then “on or near little island at a point near …,” then something about “directly northeast,” and “our plane about out of gas. Water all around. Very dark.” Then something about a storm and that the wind was blowing, “will have to get out of here,” “we can’t stay here long.”
According to Bob Brandenburg’s tide analysis, the tide level was about 0.45 meters below the bottom of the Electra’s wheel at the time; also it was 8 in the morning at Gardner--daytime. So, Paxton’s remarks about ‘Water all around’, ‘getting dark’, ‘will have to get out of here’ don’t seem to make a lot of sense without vigorous arm waving. Same goes for the ‘down in ocean’ quote; if the plane went in the ocean, it wouldn’t be able to transmit.
"Down in ocean on or near a small island" could describe being on the reef without excessive arm waving. Even at low tide there is water "all around," both to seaward and landward. "Getting dark" could be describing a severe local squall. Having been there under those circumstance I can tell you that it gets very dark. "Will have to get out of here" is interesting because it implies there is somewhere to get out of here to, i.e. on shore.
I leave it to forum readers to decide for themselves, given all of the above, how much weight should be given to Paxton's 1937 report of hearing Earhart and her later remarks about Noonan's injures.
It's always up to forum readers to decide for themselves. I'm personally comfortable with Nina being in the credible column for her initial report but not her later embellishments, such as her description of Noonan's injury.
-
Ric
Given the fact Amelia's round world flight was main headline news at the time. And it was headline news that Fred Noonan was her navigator.
Have you ever asked Betty why she writes "MAN, HE, HIM etc instead of Fred ?
Did Betty actually know the name of Amelia's navigator ?
Sorry if this has been brought up before :)
Betty was not an Earhart fan. She didn't know that she had anyone with her, let alone that he was her navigator and that his name was Noonan. Betty didn't even get Amelia's married name right. She wrote Putman instead of Putnam.
-
One problem I see with this argument is that we don’t know that Fred was injured. If we did, then the fact that Betty’s notebook suggested Fred was injured would be somewhat interesting, but even then, it isn’t a great leap to think that someone might have been injured in making an emergency landing on a remote island.
You miss the point. The fact that three independent witnesses describe hearing descriptions of the same situation suggests they got their information from the same source.
Should reports of Fred being injured strengthen the authenticity of the report? Have a look at An Avalanche of Psychics (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Jennings_Article/Psychicsarticle.html). People claiming psychic powers reported injuries to Fred and/or Amelia. A July 5 telegram about the visions of an ‘Eminent Psychic’ reads “PLANE PRETTY WELL CRACKED UP BUT BOTH ARE SAFE. MISS EARHART IN BETTER SHAPE THAN NOONAN”. Sounds a lot like Betty’s notebook doesn’t it? Also, there is this: “A woman from Detroit sent a series of unique sketches she called “human radio wave pictures” depicting Amelia Earhart dragging Captain Noonan ashore on a barren island. The woman is an architect with two university degrees, and she was impelled to draw the pictures by a power she could not explain.” One of her drawings show an injured/dead Noonan on the reef, being attended to by Amelia. Another of her ‘human radio wave pictures’ (received on the fourth harmonic of Amelia’s brainwaves, perhaps?...) shows what is labeled ‘a box of some sort’. The castaway was found with a sextant box! This truly is a piece of occult information, isn't it? This Detroit woman couldn’t have known that a skeleton with a sextant box would be found by Gallagher, so the fact that she ‘saw’ this box, AND also 'saw' an incapacitated Fred, enhances the credibility of her visions, doesn’t it? I think most of us will agree the answer is ‘No’.
It's a bogus comparison. If three people who don't know me personally and don't know each other tell you that, on separate occasions, they overheard me talking about my horse - you would be justified in concluding that I probably have a horse. If three people who don't know me personally and don't know each other tell you that, on separate occasions, they dreamed of me on a horse you would probably think it was an interesting coincidence. Larremore, Klenck, and Lovelace had quantifiable ability to legitimately obtain the information they related. The psychics did not.
-
To repeat what I said above, there is nothing remarkable in imagining that Amelia or Fred would be injured in an emergency landing on an island; 'Are the passengers and crew safe?' is the first thing we all think of when we hear about a plane crash, isn't it?
Larremore et. al. needn’t have gotten information from a common source (e.g., Amelia), they merely had to have had similar, quite understandable, expectations about injuries sustained by the Electra crew upon making an emergency landing, and applied these expectations to whatever it was they heard (or later remembered hearing*) on the radio.
The story of the two psychics shows that even people who clearly didn’t hear Earhart could come up with injured crew stories that sounded like those reported by Larremore et. al. The psychics didn’t need to have received information from a common source, and they didn’t need to have really heard the Electra (obviously they didn’t), to tell their stories. The same can thus be said about Larremore, Lovelace, and Klenck.
---
* note: Larremore and Lovelace’s didn’t tell their stories till the 1990’s, therefore there was plenty of time for their recollections to be influenced by later media accounts. Betty’s statement that the man she heard ‘complained of his head’ is also a decades-old recollection.
-
My take is that Fred was injured during the forced landing because the Electra's lat longs did not dominate the post loss transmissions. The aircraft's fix would have eliminated the need for so many retransmissions and avoided so much of the coast guard's northwest of Howland uncertainty. Certainly the desperate referencing of the Norwich City wreck would have been unnecessary.
I also think some sort of touchdown trouble occurred on the Electra's port side that prevented taxiing to a location clear of the tide line.
From Betty's Notebook, Amelia attempts to identify her position and reports everything written on the paper(s) in front of her hoping that someone will be able to make sense of it all.
This implies some difficulty Fred was experiencing in relaying the simple Gardner Island lattitude and longitude to her from wherever he was inside the Fuselage.
Either Fred had been unable to shoot the sun and stars after touchdown, or his figures subsequently became unintelligible to Amelia.
-
My take is that Fred was injured during the forced landing because the Electra's lat longs did not dominate the post loss transmissions.
Tim and Al,
You both make some very logical, and I believe, sound points. Your arguments, in combination with what we might glean from the radio messages, reinforce my contention that AE and FN never made it to the Seven Site, or for that matter, very far from the Electra or off the reef toward the beach at all, between the time of their landing and July 5 when the transmissions ceased. It would seem to me that they elected to stay with the craft in attempting rescue through radio contact, given what little survival equipment and resources they had with them, and the likely nature of their landing.
-
To repeat what I said above, there is nothing remarkable in imagining that Amelia or Fred would be injured in an emergency landing on an island; 'Are the passengers and crew safe?' is the first thing we all think of when we hear about a plane crash, isn't it?
Let's accept that premise.
Larremore et. al. needn’t have gotten information from a common source (e.g., Amelia), they merely had to have had similar, quite understandable, expectations about injuries sustained by the Electra crew upon making an emergency landing, and applied these expectations to whatever it was they heard (or later remembered hearing*) on the radio.
That's certainly a possibility.
The story of the two psychics shows that even people who clearly didn’t hear Earhart could come up with injured crew stories that sounded like those reported by Larremore et. al. The psychics didn’t need to have received information from a common source, and they didn’t need to have really heard the Electra (obviously they didn’t), to tell their stories. The same can thus be said about Larremore, Lovelace, and Klenck.
Also true.
---
* note: Larremore and Lovelace’s didn’t tell their stories till the 1990’s, therefore there was plenty of time for their recollections to be influenced by later media accounts. Betty’s statement that the man she heard ‘complained of his head’ is also a decades-old recollection.
Ditto.
Let's test your hypothesis. You feel that the fact that Larremore, Klenck, and Lovelace described injuries is unremarkable and insignificant because, when hearing of a plane crash, our first concern is for the safety of the people. We would, therefore, expect that people making up or imagining stories about hearing from the people on the plane would include references to injuries.
There were 36 reported receptions of post-loss messages - 16 by hams and 20 by casual listeners - that were alleged to contain intelligible voice. Of those, only 3 (8%) made reference to injuries. Those 3 happen to be among the 10 receptions alleged to contain intelligible voice which have been judged (by other criteria) to be credible. Whether or not you accept our judgments of "credible" or "not credible," your hypothesis doesn't hold up. 92% of the reported post-loss receptions that could have contained information about injuries didn't. The 3 that did described or implied the same distribution and severity of injuries among the crew members.
It's hard to argue with your basic premise - that the first thing we all think of when we hear about a plane crash is the safety of the crew. The fact that, in the case of the presumed Earhart crash, such a tiny percentage of a fairly sizable number of alleged receptions mention injuries is, itself, remarkable.
-
You both make some very logical, and I believe, sound points. Your arguments, in combination with what we might glean from the radio messages, reinforce my contention that AE and FN never made it to the Seven Site...
You have to deal with all the evidence. You can't be selective. If you can offer convincing evidence that they never made it off the reef, you don't need to explain who the castaway was or where the stuff found at the Seven Site by Gallagher and by TIGHAR came from. If you can't, you do.
-
Hi All
Ric
I believe if you re-read Will's sentence you will see what he meant,
Will. reinforce my contention that AE and FN never made it to the Seven Site, or for that matter, very far from the Electra or off the reef toward the beach at all, "between" the time of their landing and July 5 when the transmissions "ceased"
Ric not sure if i have read a post on this before but, Have Tighar searched the vicinity of the sign's of recent habitation site for fred's remain's ?
Thank's Richie
-
The last credible transmission is on the sixth...
...what was the date of the Navy flyover?
-
The planes from the Colorado searched on July 9th per Lambrecht's Report (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Lambrecht's_Report.html)
A specific location of the "signs of recent habitation" was not described in Lambrecht's report.
The Bevington Object (http://tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/2013Vol_29/February_2013/The_Object_Formerly_Known_As_Nessie.pdf) looks like the Electra's landing gear, IMO
The closest point ashore from the Bevington Object, and maybe a little north, seems like a good area to look for Camp Zero and evidence of Fred Noonan, if he made it to shore.
Assuming injuries kept one or both in the plane and the plane floated off near the Bevington Object, useful items could have floated ashore south of it. A camp could have been made close to where items were salvaged. Sort of like Noland did in Castaway, stacking up salvaged items and making first camp there. So it seems logical to start looking just near the notch close to the Bevington Object and extend the search south from there, staying close to shore and near tree lines for shade.
I hope Niku VIII does inlcude looking for Camp Zero.
-
I believe if you re-read Will's sentence you will see what he meant,
Will. reinforce my contention that AE and FN never made it to the Seven Site, or for that matter, very far from the Electra or off the reef toward the beach at all, "between" the time of their landing and July 5 when the transmissions "ceased"
You're right Richie. Sorry Will. I misread your post. I agree that AE and possibly FN were not at the Seven Site until some time - maybe weeks - after the the radio transmissions stopped.
Ric not sure if i have read a post on this before but, Have Tighar searched the vicinity of the sign's of recent habitation site for fred's remain's ?
I don't know where the signs of recent habitation were seen. Do you?
-
The last credible transmission is on the sixth...
...what was the date of the Navy flyover?
Tha last credible transmission was actually on the evening of July 7th. The Navy flyover was on the morning of the 9th.
-
I'm just a spectator in fact, but I have a question: What if the first camp was near the spot where the plane landed - then for whatever reason FN was the first to succumb from injuries and/or dehydration/starvation, let's say she was able to help him to the shore first. But since AE probably didn't have a shovel with which to dig a substantial grave or at least deep enough to keep the crabs from his body, would she not have deserted that site and move her camp to the opposite end of the island? Near a decaying body would not be pleasant to make a camp. Is this what you folks are thinking is a reason the 7 site is so far away?
Just a thought.
-
I'm just a spectator in fact, but I have a question: What if the first camp was near the spot where the plane landed - then for whatever reason FN was the first to succumb from injuries and/or dehydration/starvation, let's say she was able to help him to the shore first. But since AE probably didn't have a shovel with which to dig a substantial grave or at least deep enough to keep the crabs from his body, would she not have deserted that site and move her camp to the opposite end of the island? Near a decaying body would not be pleasant to make a camp. Is this what you folks are thinking is a reason the 7 site is so far away?
Just a thought.
The first camp, if there was one, was almost certainly on shore at the nearest place to the plane that offered good shade. We call this theoretical site Camp Zero. The move to the Seven Site could be motivated by many factors. The area near the plane is on the lee side of the island and does not get the cooling easterly breezes. It's a beastly hot place. Also, there is no easy access to the lagoon for fishing and clams. The selection of the Seven Site was probably the result of exploring the island for the best place to shelter, get food, collect water and watch for rescue.
-
Thanks, Ric, for your prompt reply.
I wish I were independently wealthy, because I'd certainly finance a speedy expedition back to Niki for you. I believe in what you're doing and hope for a definitive conclusion of this mystery.
-
Thanks, Ric, for your prompt reply.
I wish I were independently wealthy, because I'd certainly finance a speedy expedition back to Niki for you. I believe in what you're doing and hope for a definitive conclusion of this mystery.
Thanks Jerry.
-
I’d like to bring up significant additional point about Thelma Lovelace, who, like Betty Klenck, Mabel Larremore, and yes, those two psychics, reported injuries to Fred and/or Amelia.
Thelma Lovelace said she heard: “We have taken in water, my navigator is badly hurt; (repeat) we are in need of medical care and must have help; we can’t hold on much longer.”
The text of the March of Time (http://tighar.org/wiki/The_March_of_Time) broadcast includes the line “SOS…SOS…position 281 north Howland…can’t hold out much longer…motor sinking in water….very wet…”
Notice a similarity? What Lovelace reported hearing sounds to me a lot like the March of Time broadcast, and therefore I don’t find her reported reception to be credible. I think she conflated a March of Time broadcast she heard with her own expectations of an injury to Fred, quite in line with my earlier suggestion on this thread.
I think Ric should agree with me on this because in the post loss catalog, he concludes that Mrs. Joe Arnold (post-loss catalog (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/ResearchPapers/Brandenburg/signalcatalog5.html) entry # 177) and Mr. and Mrs. Roland (entry #178) had mistaken a March of Time broadcast for messages from Earhart because they reported hearing this same ‘Can’t hold out much longer’ line from the March of Time script.
Also, there is Charles Miguel, clearly a hoaxer, who reported on July 6 (entry #162) “NRUI NRUI KHAQQ TWO EIGHT ONE NORTH HOWLAND CANNOT HOLD MUCH LONGER DRIFTING NORTHWEST WE ABOVE WATER MOTORS SINKING IN WATER.” In dismissing Mr. Miguel Ric once again points out that “Parts of this alleged signal are identical to the phrasing in the signal “281 NORTH HOWLAND CALL KHAQQ BEYOND NORTH DONT HOLD WITH US MUCH LONGER ABOVE WATER SHUT OFF,” heard at Wailupe the previous day and widely reported in the press.”
-Alf
-
Thelma Lovelace said she heard: “We have taken in water, my navigator is badly hurt; (repeat) we are in need of medical care and must have help; we can’t hold on much longer.”
The text of the March of Time (http://tighar.org/wiki/The_March_of_Time) broadcast includes the line “SOS…SOS…position 281 north Howland…can’t hold out much longer…motor sinking in water….very wet…”
The March of Time broadcast was on July 8. Lovelace said that she heard what she heard on July 7. In my correspondence with Thelma in 1991 I asked:
"It is easy to see how you can place the time of day (before 8 a.m.) you heard the broadcast by reference to the time your husband had to be at work. But how do you know it was July 7th?"
She replied:
"As I remember, my husband - and the people I repeated the story to - all answered that she had been missing five days. My husband even said, 'Maybe it was a "show"; a take-off of the event.' I remember I was annoyed at him for saying that."
Of course, she may have had the date wrong but we can't assume she did without evidence that she did. Thelma claimed that she rejected, at the time, the idea that she had heard a radio show. Anyone who has heard the March of Time broadcast (TIGHAResearchers have received audio recordings of the show) knows that the narration, music and commercials would make it pretty hard to mistake it for a genuine distress call.
Notice a similarity? What Lovelace reported hearing sounds to me a lot like the March of Time broadcast, and therefore I don’t find her reported reception to be credible. I think she conflated a March of Time broadcast she heard with her own expectations of an injury to Fred, quite in line with my earlier suggestion on this thread.
I think you have it backward. The radio show contained phrases gleaned from various published accounts of alleged post-loss receptions. Some variation on "can't hold on much longer" occurs in almost every reported message, credible or not. It's appearance in clearly bogus reports is a classic example of what we might call "expectation bias." You suggested that the same phenomenon may have accounted for reports of injuries - except, as I have shown, that didn't happen. Only Larremore, Klenck and Lovelace (and, yes, two psychics) mentioned injuries.
I think Ric should agree with me on this because in the post loss catalog, he concludes that Mrs. Joe Arnold (post-loss catalog (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/ResearchPapers/Brandenburg/signalcatalog5.html) entry # 177) and Mr. and Mrs. Roland (entry #178) had mistaken a March of Time broadcast for messages from Earhart because they reported hearing this same ‘Can’t hold out much longer’ line from the March of Time script.
We ascribed Arnold and Roland to the March of Time broadcast because they both heard what they heard on the date and at the time when the March of Time show was aired.
Also, there is Charles Miguel, clearly a hoaxer, who reported on July 6 (entry #162) “NRUI NRUI KHAQQ TWO EIGHT ONE NORTH HOWLAND CANNOT HOLD MUCH LONGER DRIFTING NORTHWEST WE ABOVE WATER MOTORS SINKING IN WATER.” In dismissing Mr. Miguel Ric once again points out that “Parts of this alleged signal are identical to the phrasing in the signal “281 NORTH HOWLAND CALL KHAQQ BEYOND NORTH DONT HOLD WITH US MUCH LONGER ABOVE WATER SHUT OFF,” heard at Wailupe the previous day and widely reported in the press.”
Classic example of what I was referring to above. The radio show contained phrases gleaned from various published accounts of alleged post-loss receptions.
-
Ric,
On numerous occasions on this forum it has been pointed out that decades-old recollections are not reliable. You say “she may have had the date wrong but we can't assume she did without evidence that she did”. The fact that she repeats wording from the March of Time broadcast is in fact that very evidence--that, some fifty years later, Lovelace quite understandably got her date wrong.
I find it odd that you would argue here that it would be hard to mistake the March of Time for a genuine distress call, when you suggested as much yourself about two receptions in the post-loss reception catalog, those of the Rolands and of the Arnolds. I further note that the March Of Time Ameliapedia article
(http://tighar.org/wiki/The_March_of_Time) gives yet another example of just such a misunderstanding: “On 8 July 1937, less than a week after Earhart’s Lockheed Electra 10 was lost, the radio operator of an Inter-Island Airways plane (now Hawaiian Airlines) heard a radio transmission he thought was from Amelia Earhart sending an SOS to ships at sea. After reporting this to authorities, it was passed to searchers. Later it was learned he actually heard a shortwave relay of the March of Time dramatization of the Earhart disappearance being sent to Hawaiian radio stations”
I also mentioned the reported reception by Charles Miguel. On July 6 Miguel reported hearing “NRUI NRUI KHAQQ TWO EIGHT ONE NORTH HOWLAND CANNOT HOLD MUCH LONGER DRIFTING NORTHWEST WE ABOVE WATER MOTORS SINKING IN WATER.” In dismissing Mr. Miguel you said that “Parts of this alleged signal are identical to the phrasing in the signal “281 NORTH HOWLAND CALL KHAQQ BEYOND NORTH DONT HOLD WITH US MUCH LONGER ABOVE WATER SHUT OFF,” heard at Wailupe the previous day and widely reported in the press.”
So, even if Thelma didn’t hear the March of Time broadcast, ‘can’t hold much longer’ was widely reported in the press at least one day before July 7, the day Thelma said she heard Earhart. Thelma could have heard or read the ‘cannot hold much longer’ news accounts prior to July 7, as you say Charles Miguel did. I don't see why you would abandon your own reasoning, Ric.
-
The analysis is allowing the following contingencies:
1) The press was mistaken and some people claiming radio receptions from Earhart parroted the mistaken or fictitious accounts.
2) The March of Time was mistaken in its dramatization of press reports at the time of Earhart's disappearance and some people claiming radio receptions from Earhart parroted the mistaken dramatization, itself based on mistaken or fictitious press accounts.
One needs, I believe, to allow room for the possibility of an additional contingency:
3) The March of Time and press reports parroted what some people claiming radio receptions from Earhart actually reported hearing when they heard it, and at least some of these reports represent things actually heard on the radio by the hearers (who were not hearing the March of Time.) March of Time was on July 8. Given that no reported receptions, other than 80718HD from the official search, were given the rating of credible on or after July 8, I think it shouldn't be too difficult to rule out March of Time as a factor. Unless of course, these hearers obtained advance copies of the radio play on the internet.;D Am I missing something?
Joe Cerniglia
TIGHAR #3078 ECR
-
On numerous occasions on this forum it has been pointed out that decades-old recollections are not reliable. You say “she may have had the date wrong but we can't assume she did without evidence that she did”. The fact that she repeats wording from the March of Time broadcast is in fact that very evidence--that, some fifty years later, Lovelace quite understandably got her date wrong.
Once again, your logic escapes me. You see Lovelace's reference to one phrase that is similar to a phrase used in the March of Time broadcast to be evidence that she misremembered the date but the same or similar phrase occurs in multiple reports that are documented to predate the March of Time broadcast. As I said before, it's obvious that the radio show contained phrases gleaned from various published accounts of alleged post-loss receptions - not the other way 'round as you contend.
I find it odd that you would argue here that it would be hard to mistake the March of Time for a genuine distress call, when you suggested as much yourself about two receptions in the post-loss reception catalog, those of the Rolands and of the Arnolds. I further note that the March Of Time Ameliapedia article
(http://tighar.org/wiki/The_March_of_Time) gives yet another example of just such a misunderstanding: “On 8 July 1937, less than a week after Earhart’s Lockheed Electra 10 was lost, the radio operator of an Inter-Island Airways plane (now Hawaiian Airlines) heard a radio transmission he thought was from Amelia Earhart sending an SOS to ships at sea. After reporting this to authorities, it was passed to searchers. Later it was learned he actually heard a shortwave relay of the March of Time dramatization of the Earhart disappearance being sent to Hawaiian radio stations”
I leave it to those who have heard the recording of the actual show to judge how difficult it is to distinguish it from a genuine distress call - but people manage to miss the obvious all the time - even on this forum.
I also mentioned the reported reception by Charles Miguel. On July 6 Miguel reported hearing “NRUI NRUI KHAQQ TWO EIGHT ONE NORTH HOWLAND CANNOT HOLD MUCH LONGER DRIFTING NORTHWEST WE ABOVE WATER MOTORS SINKING IN WATER.” In dismissing Mr. Miguel you said that “Parts of this alleged signal are identical to the phrasing in the signal “281 NORTH HOWLAND CALL KHAQQ BEYOND NORTH DONT HOLD WITH US MUCH LONGER ABOVE WATER SHUT OFF,” heard at Wailupe the previous day and widely reported in the press.”
So, even if Thelma didn’t hear the March of Time broadcast, ‘can’t hold much longer’ was widely reported in the press at least one day before July 7, the day Thelma said she heard Earhart. Thelma could have heard or read the ‘cannot hold much longer’ news accounts prior to July 7, as you say Charles Miguel did. I don't see why you would abandon your own reasoning, Ric.
It's interesting to track the phrase "can't last [or hold on] much longer" in the reported messages. Is there reason to think it is a phrase Earhart actually used or is it a phrase that propagated from one bogus report to another? The earliest version occurs on the morning of July 5 when Ernest Henderson in Auburn, WA (Catalog entry #119) hears AE say "50 -128 - QQ - waterlogged - can't last much longer." We have judged the report to be not credible, mostly because of the reference to "waterlogged" but it occurs to me that "128-QQ" could very easily be KHAQQ.
About two hours later, Navy Radio Wailupe hears the famous 281 message (Catalog entry #125) that includes both "KHAQQ" and the phrase "don't hold with us much longer." (The word "don't" is almost certainly "won't.") We've judged the 281 message to be genuine and, given its proximity and similarity to #119 we may want to reconsider the credibility of Henderson's report.
The 281 message got lots of press and, after that, several reports such as Miguel's included some version of the phrase.
So yes, I think there is reason to believe Earhart used some version of the "can't last much longer" phrase but because it was reported as part of the 281 message it also became popular with hoaxers. A version of the phrase in Lovelace's account, therefore, could have been said by Earhart or could be other reports influencing Lovelace's memory. What tips the credibility scales in her favor is her reference to injuries.
-
Reading the thread I have to say I agree with Al's take on all this. I took a few hours off last week at work to deal with an issue at home and now this week I'm doing my time sheet and I can't remember which day it was! So, to be sure 50 years later what day you heard a radio broadcast seems a pretty incredible feat.
I agree with Ric about expectation bias. Thelma's husband thought she was mixed up, and he knew what kind of information they were getting in the household and as her husband he could judge Thelma better than we can today.
The Amelaipedia article about the March of Time also says that according to Frederick Hooven "There were excited reports from many places". It also says that Captain Friedell's report describes a listener in Hawaii who also confused the March of Time broadcast for a real emergency broadcast. Sounds a lot like the famous 'War of Worlds' broadcast also around that time that fooled a lot of people.
Also, those two psychics said Fred was injured and if they could come up with this story I don't see why Thelma couldn't. Also Nina Paxton said Fred was injured, and Ric says that isn't credible so that is another example of people reporting Fred injured when he wasn't. Since she said so many strange things, like that she heard a secret Hitler broadcast and that it was dark during daytime, that water was all around when the reef was dry, I don't think anything she said is credible (do you really need to tell people 'water all around' when you're on an Island?
-
Reading the thread I have to say I agree with Al's take on all this.
Okay, so you and Al would but Lovelace in the "not credible" category. How about Larremore and Klenck who also reported injuries?
Do you feel they are credible?
-
Is the audio to the March of Time program available anywhere? As an avid fan of radio drama, as well as avid follower of TIGHAR, I'd be interested to hear it myself.
While I am amused at the thought that some people at the time may have actually believed the War of the Worlds dramatization, I think the confusion that could stem from that particular March of Time broadcast would have been a more serious issue given its timing. Were there any ramifications for the MoT people because of it?
-
Is the audio to the March of Time program available anywhere? As an avid fan of radio drama, as well as avid follower of TIGHAR, I'd be interested to hear it myself.
The March of Time audio recording is copyrighted. It was very difficult to get and we can only distribute our copy for research purposes - so we can only send it to TIGHAR members who have joined at the TIGHAResearcher level. You recently renewed as an Associate Member. If you upgrade your membership to TIGHAResearcher we can send you the audio CD of the entire March of Time program of July 8, 1937.
While I am amused at the thought that some people at the time may have actually believed the War of the Worlds dramatization, I think the confusion that could stem from that particular March of Time broadcast would have been a more serious issue given its timing. Were there any ramifications for the MoT people because of it?
[/quote]
-
This thread began with the question of whether people might have heard through the media that Fred Noonan or Amellia were injured. The issue here is what Ric calls “expectation bias”, i.e., if Betty Klenck, Mable Larremore, or Thelma Lovelace were exposed to the idea that Fred or Amelia were injured upon making an emergency landing through their exposure to newspapers and radio, these media sources may have influenced what the three women reported they they heard on the radio.
Of course, there is no reason that the three of them could not have had this idea themselves, as I've previously pointed out--remember the two psychics and Nina Paxton. Nevertheless, I happened to looked at the script of the March of Time broadcast (http://tighar.org/wiki/The_March_of_Time) last night and I see that on page 6 there is a scene where George Putnam is speaking to Mrs. Noonan. Putnam says to Mrs. Noonan: "Either they were hurt on landing and may die, or they weren’t hurt and may be picked up. I think the messages prove they’re still alive!”.
So here we have an instance of a widespread radio program that might have created expectation bias in the case of Thelma Lovelace and Betty Klenck. I note here that we don’t know the date Betty recorded what she heard as previously discussed elsewhere (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1153.msg24480.html#msg24480)on the forum. Betty didn’t record the date of her listening session so she could have been listening any weekday on the week of July 5, or the following week for that matter, so as far as I can tell we can't assume Betty's listening date was prior to the MOT broadcast date.
As discussed above on this thread, the date Thelma Lovelace heard whatever it was she heard is unclear—the date given in the post loss catalog relies solely upon her recollections 50 years after the event in question
-
So here we have an instance of a widespread radio program that might have created expectation bias in the case of Thelma Lovelace and Betty Klenck. I note here that we don’t know the date Betty recorded what she heard as previously discussed elsewhere (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1153.msg24480.html#msg24480)on the forum. Betty didn’t record the date of her listening session so she could have been listening any weekday on the week of July 5, or the following week for that matter, so as far as I can tell we can't assume Betty's listening date was prior to the MOT broadcast date.
As discussed above on this thread, the date Thelma Lovelace heard whatever it was she heard is unclear—the date given in the post loss catalog relies solely upon her recollections 50 years after the event in question
Elsewhere we've discussed at length why July 5 makes the most sense for when Betty heard what she heard. Thelma Lovelace had a clear recollection of what day she heard what she heard and explained why. Maybe we have the dates right, maybe we don't - but we can't change them without a good reason. That Larremore, Klenck and Lovelace all remembered hearing Earhart before the date of the March of Time broadcast and that all three not only described injuries but the same pattern of injuries - Noonan severe, Earhart minor - is remarkable. In my opinion, the possibility that all three made the same leap of imagination after hearing the March of Time broadcast (which none of them remembered hearing) is less likely than the possibility that all three heard Earhart.
-
Elsewhere we've discussed at length why July 5 makes the most sense for when Betty heard what she heard.
Where was that discussed, Ric? What is the rationale?
-
Elsewhere we've discussed at length why July 5 makes the most sense for when Betty heard what she heard.
Where was that discussed, Ric? What is the rationale?
Ric's comments on March 27, 2013, in another topic (Betty & Bob) (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1153.msg24297.html#msg24297) may be what you're seeking, Al.
-
Some other threads on the forum bear upon the issue of whether Betty really heard a transmission from the Electra and are thus relevant to the discussion here.
According to Betty’s Notebook (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Notebook/notebook.html) we don’t know what day Betty recorded her notes. The relevant quote goes:
A 15 year old girl – whom we’ll call “Betty” for now – was living in St. Petersburg, Florida in the summer of 1937. One afternoon in July – the exact date is not known – at about 3 p.m. Betty was sitting on the floor in front of her family’s radio console.
As discussed in the ‘Betty and Bob’ thread (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1153.0.html) Betty’s notebook has Amelia saying ‘waters high’, ‘waters knee deep’, ‘we can’t bail out’, and ‘knee deep over’ all at a time when Bob Brandenburg’s tide reconstruction has the reef dry – sea level was half a meter below the Electra’s wheels according to Bob’s tide reconstruction. The discrepancy is true of subsequent days as well.
Also on that thread, Bob’s Brandenburg’s analysis of the probability of Betty’s radio receiving a transmission from the Electra Harmony and Power, (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1153.msg24385.html#msg24385) indicates that on July 5, that probability of a reception was about 1 in 800 during the 2100 to 2130 GMT time interval; about 1 in 330,000 during the 2130 to 2230 GMT interval; and 1 in 50,000 during the 2230-2314 GMT interval. Those are not very good odds. The odds of Betty hearing the transmission on subsequent days are vastly poorer, more in the 1-in-a-billion range during the middle of her listening period.
We do not know the model of shortwave radio Betty was listening to. Many shortwave sets could not reach the frequency that it Tighar hypothesizes Betty was listening on, and we also don’t know if Betty’s radio was one of the ones that could tune to the 4th harmonic of the Earhart transmission frequency. This was discussed here (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,883.0.html).
So there are a number of reasons to think that the garbled message Betty heard was not a broadcast from Amelia:
-Betty’s notes don’t agree with Bob’s tide height reconstruction;
-According to Bob’s radio analysis, the odds of Betty hearing Amelia and Fred were quite low on July 5 and much lower on subsequent days.
-We don’t know if Betty had a radio that could receive the 4th harmonic of Earhart’s transmission frequency; many shortwave radios did not.
-
Elsewhere we've discussed at length why July 5 makes the most sense for when Betty heard what she heard.
Where was that discussed, Ric? What is the rationale?
Ric's comments on March 27, 2013, in another topic (Betty & Bob) (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1153.msg24297.html#msg24297) may be what you're seeking, Al.
Bruce,
I think Ric makes a good case for ruling out the weekend since Betty’s dad was at work (I think the 5 day work week was already the norm by ‘37).
But Ric’s explanation for why the date was July 5 is simply speculation about Betty’s notes about a very garbled radio message (which incidentally includes a ‘waters high’ remark at a time when Bob Brandenburg’s tide reconstruction indicates the reef was dry underneath the Electra).
Isn’t there anything more solid to go on than this for Ric’s assumption that July 5 was the date?
-
In the Betty and Bob thread, I posted several possible reasons (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1153.45.html) for why Betty's notes may not agree with the Tide Anaylsis. I think either one of them, or combination of them, would allow for Betty to hear what she said and for the Tide analysis at the time she heard it. I don't think it's hard to believe that the plane could move to a lower point on a reef due to tidal and/or wind forces, or move back and forth if it could taxi.
Regarding why the 5th. Like Ben said "According to Bob’s radio analysis, the odds of Betty hearing Amelia and Fred were quite low on July 5 and much lower on subsequent days" That explains why the 5th is a reasonable date when you combine that point with the point that the weekend was before that date. It's low on the 5th, but possible.
If we don't know what kind of radio Betty had, and even if many radios could not recieve the signal, that does not make her not credible IMO
-
We do not know the model of shortwave radio Betty was listening to. Many shortwave sets could not reach the frequency that it Tighar hypothesizes Betty was listening on, and we also don’t know if Betty’s radio was one of the ones that could tune to the 4th harmonic of the Earhart transmission frequency. This was discussed here (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,883.0.html).
Betty's exact model could never be known with certainty without a time machine but when shown a photograph of the Zenith Stratosphere 1000Z (http://www.digitaldeliftp.com/DigitalDeliToo/dd2-Research-Radios-Pt-4.html#), she recognized it as the one her family had owned, according to Brandenburg's paper (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/30_BettyHarmonic/30_Bettyharmonic.html). That first link says the 1000Z was perhaps the best radio then commercially available. Even slightly later models had ample reception range to have included any of the feasible harmonic frequencies in Bob Brandenburg's paper. Bob says it was "very capable." Looking at the photos of the wiring and circuitry, this seems like an understatement.
From the photos included in the link, I think it would be difficult to forget a radio like that one. I wonder if even the Coast Guard had anything like that.
From the site:
Stratosphere 1000-Z (Chassis 2501)
Country: United States of America (USA)
Manufacturer/Brand: Zenith Radio Corp.; Chicago, Illinois
Year: 1935 – 1936
Type: Radio or Tuner
PrincipleSuperhet with RF-stage; IF-Freq. 485 kHz
Tuned circuits: 9 AM circuit(s);
Wave bands: Broadcast, Short Wave(s) and Police.
Power type and voltage: Alternating Current supply (AC) / 117 Volt
Loudspeaker/pwr.out: 3 Loudspeakers / 16 W
Model: Stratosphere 1000-Z (Chassis 2501)
Material: Wooden case
Shape: Console with any shape - in general (details vary).
Dimensions (WHD): 30 x 50 x 19 inch / 762 x 1270 x 483 mm
Weight: 275 lbs.
Valves / Tubes: 25
Notes: The Zenith Stratosphere 1000-Z was introduced in December 1934 for the wholesale market. Like the Scott line of deluxe consoles the Zenith Stratosphere 1000-Z used also a chrome-plated chassis. The 1000-Z has 5 bands covering 535 to 63600kc but the 63600 kc were soon dropped to 45000 and later to 32000 kc. The Stratosphere 1000-Z comes with 3 speakers; has two subchassis: lower 2501-P power supply, upper 2501-C control (receiver). It was designed in 1933 and 1934. There are several interesting books about Zenith and some articles about the Stratosphere 1000-Z. It was a milestone for the radio industry of that time.
Price in first year of sale: $ 750 USD
Collectors' prices: $ 75,000 - $ 125,000 USD
Circuit diagram reference: Rider's Perpetual, Volume 6 = 1935 and before
Reference: The Radio Museum.org
On a personal note, I spoke with Betty by phone two years ago. She asked me to call after I friended her on Facebook (Betty keeps up with the times.) I don't know if you've ever had someone from her generation (a grandmother perhaps) grab you by the sleeve, look you in the eye and tell you that something is as true and as plain as can possibly be, but that's the impression I got. You could feel the temperature drop in the room when she said, calmly, simply, quietly, "I know." She knows, I thought, and we'd know too if we'd been sitting there. The anguished cries she heard were no radio play cueing up a word from our sponsor. This was real.
Joe Cerniglia
TIGHAR #3078 ECR
Betty knows what she heard and she's held on to that.
-
I think Ric makes a good case for ruling out the weekend since Betty’s dad was at work (I think the 5 day work week was already the norm by ‘37).
But Ric’s explanation for why the date was July 5 is simply speculation about Betty’s notes about a very garbled radio message (which incidentally includes a ‘waters high’ remark at a time when Bob Brandenburg’s tide reconstruction indicates the reef was dry underneath the Electra).
Isn’t there anything more solid to go on than this for Ric’s assumption that July 5 was the date?
On March 27 I wrote:
"On the first page of notes, one of the first entries is an apparently garbled phrase (spoken by Amelia, according to Betty's later recollection) "W40K Howland port or W O J Howland port." Whatever Earhart actually said, she was apparently attempting to get a response from Howland. Noonan, in the context implied by the rest of the notebook, is irrational and panicky. He makes the comment "waters high." He's frightened and he wants to abandon ship. Apparently seeking to calm him down, AE says "Here , put your ear to it." Put his ear to what? Probably the headphone ear piece. She has been calling Howland and hears a response. She wants Noonan to hear it so that he will calm down. This would be occurring at or very shortly after 21:30 GMT.
At 21:30 GMT and again at 21:35 GMT on July 5, ITASCA sends a transmission to Earhart in Morse code. If Earhart heard it she wouldn't be able to understand it but it would be an encouraging sign.
Monday, July 5 is the only day on which we see this kind of possible correlation between Betty's notebook and the Itasca log."
That's "simply speculation," but any interpretation of Betty's transcription is "simply speculation." If you'll read what I wrote you'll see that my speculation that the date was July 5 is based not on the garbled phrase "W40K Howland port or W O J Howland port." but on the AE's admonition to Noonan "Here, put your ear to it.", a matching entry in the Itasca log, and the fact that July 5 is the only day on which we see this kind of possible correlation between Betty's notebook and the Itasca log. Unless you have speculation about the date that is better than that, your dismissal of the July 5 as the most probable date for Betty's reception is simply troll-ism.
The troll continues to roll when you try to discredit the entire transcription by noting the a clearly irrational and panicky Fred Noonan makes reference to water depths somewhere (it's not at all clear where) that don't agree with Bob Brandenburg's calculation of the actual conditions. That makes about as much sense as saying the notebook cannot be a record of an actual call from Earhart because Noonan is alleged to have said, "Hello Bud" and there was clearly no one named Bud for him to greet.
-
Betty's exact model could never be known with certainty without a time machine but when shown a photograph of the Zenith Stratosphere 1000Z (http://www.digitaldeliftp.com/DigitalDeliToo/dd2-Research-Radios-Pt-4.html#), she recognized it as the one her family had owned, according to Brandenburg's paper (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/30_BettyHarmonic/30_Bettyharmonic.html).
Joe is right but his link is to an early version of Bob's paper Harmony & Power. An updated version is here (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/ResearchPapers/Brandenburg/HarmonyandPower.htm).
Betty's Notebook has been exhaustively vetted over a period of more than a dozen years. It's always worth re-examining previous research and assumptions but trolls are not interested in rational review. Their agenda is to debunk. Trolls pick at little things and don't do their homework before making grand dismissive statements. They waste our time and we have much more important things to do than play whack-a-troll.
-
I just went over and looked at the old Stromberg-Carlson radio we have here that I've mentioned before.
It says"Short Wave......5.6 -18 megacycles
Aircraft..............1.7-5.6 "
Broadcast........ .53 -1.7 "
This is a regular old household radio like a lot of people had in their homes and I would guess the same as Betty's.
This one has the green "Eye" for tuning, so I would count it as good quality...it stands 43 inches high and 28 inces deep in a nice wooden cabinet with a huge speaker!
The last time we used it was before 1970.
In those days I had a lot of flying to do at "break-up" time when the ice went off the lake and I had freight staked up in the cabin waiting for the first trip of the season to some of the cabins across the Bay.
This time it was a Chocolate Lab puppy that we kept for about a week waiting for the lake to open and the puppy chewed the electric plug off the radio cord and we just never have gotten around to fixing it...it is such a neat old radio, and I have a log cabin I built with axe I'm proud of, so it is Alaskan Decor these years ...along with old snowshoes , etc.
All this talk has me ready to blow the dust out of the cabinet and fix the plug and see what music is out there ...!?!
The shortwave radio I used to talk to the airplane, before we went to Marine VHF. is the one I picked up Darwin on at times; not this one.
Bill
-
Isn’t there anything more solid to go on than this for Ric’s assumption that July 5 was the date?
On March 27 I wrote:
"On the first page of notes, one of the first entries is an apparently garbled phrase (spoken by Amelia, according to Betty's later recollection) "W40K Howland port or W O J Howland port." Whatever Earhart actually said, she was apparently attempting to get a response from Howland.
Two questions:
While approaching Howland, Earhart failed to hear all but one of Itasca’s messages to her. So, why would Earhart have been able to hear Itasca once she landed on Nikumaroro?
If Earhart heard a message from Itasca, why would she reply to Howland, instead of Itasca? In all her radio transmissions while approaching Howland, she never tried to reach Howland (did she even have knowledge that there was a radio team on Howland listening for her?).
-
While approaching Howland, Earhart failed to hear all but one of Itasca’s messages to her. So, why would Earhart have been able to hear Itasca once she landed on Nikumaroro?
The only time during the approach to Howland that Earhart heard Itasca was when she was trying to take a bearing with her loop antenna. That should have tipped her off that she had an antenna problem, not a receiver problem - but she didn't make that connection. Having failed to "get a minimum" with the loop (because the frequency was way too high) she switched back to the missing belly antenna to listen for replies to her voice messages and, of course, heard nothing.
Upon landing at Gardner and getting out of the airplane it seems reasonable to assume that she noticed that the belly antenna was gone. At some point it may have dawned on her that the loop is not just a direction-finding device, it's a receiving antenna (duh!) - not as sensitive as the belly wire but capable of receiving signals nonetheless.
If Earhart heard a message from Itasca, why would she reply to Howland, instead of Itasca? In all her radio transmissions while approaching Howland, she never tried to reach Howland (did she even have knowledge that there was a radio team on Howland listening for her?).
Good question. As evidenced by her pre-flight communications from Lae, Earhart was pretty confused about arrangements at Howland and aboard Itasca. She thought there was a meteorologist aboard Itasca (there wasn't). She knew Richard Black was the head of the support expedition and would be on Howland but she thought he was the captain of the Itasca (he was a Dept. of Interior employee). I don't know whether she knew there was a radio on Howland.
-
Ric wrote:
It's interesting to track the phrase "can't last [or hold on] much longer" in the reported messages. Is there reason to think it is a phrase Earhart actually used or is it a phrase that propagated from one bogus report to another? The earliest version occurs on the morning of July 5 when Ernest Henderson in Auburn, WA (Catalog entry #119) hears AE say "50 -128 - QQ - waterlogged - can't last much longer." We have judged the report to be not credible, mostly because of the reference to "waterlogged" but it occurs to me that "128-QQ" could very easily be KHAQQ.
I was looking at old pictures of the Norwich City and a few things came to mind. If the Electra was half on and half off the reef (maybe caught on something) like the NC was, then phrases like can't last much longer, waters knee deep, and waterlogged might make more sense at a time when the reef was supposed to be relatively dry.
Also is there any way for the old pictures of the NC (1935, 1937, 1938) to be enhanced to see whether the words Norwich City is still legible on the top, front side of the ship? Have you already done that and I'm just behind the times?
In the Betty DVD (which was well worth the money to buy, and I recommend you do, too :), Betty says that the [panicky] man was the one saying Marie, Marie, but did anyone notice that Betty herself, when reading from the Notebook, said 'Marry' (as in will you marry me) instead of Marie at least 3 times? (at 28:37 and 58:53). Marry sounds a lot like Mary B, what Fred called his wife.
-
Also is there any way for the old pictures of the NC (1935, 1937, 1938) to be enhanced to see whether the words Norwich City is still legible on the top, front side of the ship? Have you already done that and I'm just behind the times?
Gloria, a spirited discussion of that question (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,331.msg3142.html#msg3142) ensued after a posting on that topic in March 2011.
-
Gloria, a spirited discussion of that question ensued after a posting on that topic in March 2011.
Thanks so much, Bruce! I did read that whole thread, but nowhere in those musings did anyone talk about enhancing an earlier photo, (maybe by Jeff Glickman? Is such a thing possible?) I know I shouldn't have put that note on that thread, but I didn't know where else to put it, and I didn't think the thought deserved its own thread...so I threw it in there...and you caught me!
-
Gloria...I ran across these photos last night as I was wondering about the same question alot of people had asked in conjunction with Betty's notebook and why N.Y kept coming up. If you think about it and you're already half dead from thirst and dehydrated your speech would slur too. So try saying Norwich City and New York City really fast and see the resemblance. Anyway, here are some photos. The one with the name of the ship is the one where it hit the bridge several years before it ran a ground on Gardner. Hope it helps!!!!
-
Thanks, Randy!
-
Regarding the Dehydration mentioned. The injuries may be Fred was suffering from heat stroke, which he may have died from. Symptoms of heat stroke (http://www.activebeat.co/your-health/10-signs-and-symptoms-of-heat-stroke/7/) include severe headache and mental confusion. Heat stroke could be fatal.
From Betty's Notebook (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Notebook/notebook.html) the “man”(Fred) appears to be confused and was complaining of the heat. Betty noted he complained of his head after he said “let me out of here” .
“Let me out” could imply Amelia was blocking Fred’s way out. The Electra’s hatch set up has Amelia blocking Fred’s access to it in their normal seating.(Unique information supportive of Betty). A possible explanation for Amelia’s “ouch” is Fred may have tried to climb over Amelia to get to the hatch above her and stepped on her or hurt her somehow trying to get out of the hot plane and get some air.
“Where are you going” could imply that Fred tried to go out the back and Amelia asked this because she suspected he could not get out that way. Perhaps the rear port door was blocked because it was facing the waves on the edge of the reef, yet the starboard engine was clear to run. (A NE orientation) The plane may have been in the process of going over and was very close to the edge and “slipping”. An earlier outgoing tide, slope of the reef and prevailing winds seem like they would support an orientation where the plane was facing NE during a process of moving SW. Also the change in location from high to low could explain the “knee deep” statement versus the tide constraint of a higher location during earlier signals. Graphics in pdf attached. (edit: sorry the elevations show the door on wrong side and text is cut off)
As discussed previously, Amelia may have received a foot or ankle injury at some time based on the parts of a man’s and woman’s shoe found with of one set of bones. That injury could have occurred sometime after the landing. For example from a fall on the reef. From E.W. Lee's report (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/New_Zealand_Survey_Report/gardnerreport.html) “The reef is excessively slippery – it is extremely difficult to walk on it unladen – and as a result of the frequent falls” they lost supplies
-
Now that more evidence has become apparent my updated impressions of July 5th 1937 are:
1. The pressing need for communication placed Fred in the right seat of his own accord.
2. Bill de Cleef's analysis that the starboard engine needed to run at 1200 RPM or higher to activate the cut out relay so the battery(ies) could be recharged.
3. Fuel was not yet at the crucial level because there had been an attempt to preserve the as yet untouched 100 octane tank.
4. The high RPM, low battery voltage, perceived encroaching high tide and Fred's failure to observe the ammeter trapped Amelia in the left seat.
5. Amelia could not instantly vacate her seat at Fred's whim without potentially abandoning control i.e. allowing the high power setting of the starboard engine to cause repositioning of the aircraft which was already precariously located.
6. The "ouch" and expletives indicate that Fred did evacuate the Electra.
7. The intensity of the heat prioritised Fred's exit from the cockpit in both time and method, i.e the local open hatch was far more appealing than going deeper into the searing heat of the fuselage to exit via the rear door.
8. Fred was not being detained to protect him from wandering into the rotating starboard propeller. He was in the right seat of his own volition, evidenced by his desire to transmit.
-
You know what Rick says about being at the seven site does make a lot of sense when compiled with what Edgar Casey had to say. Edgar was I guess the best of the psychics at the time in the world. G. Putnam paid Edgar for 2 readings about AE/FN. From what I read he said that he was sure Amelia Died on or around July 21rst and he said that FN was already dead at the time from injuries sustained in the landing. Where he is off is he thinks the island was north west of Howland. http://hamptonroads.com/2009/11/did-edgar-cayce-know-where-amelia-ended
I don't believe in this stuff just found it interesting since the subject has arisen.
-
Here is a better link to the Edgar Cayce story. What I find intriguing is what Edgar says almost matches Tighar's Hypothesis so far almost perfectly. When Tighar has cut their own path with their evidence naturally, it matches up with what Cayce said as well. I know things just conveniently worked out this way. I still find it interesting.
http://www.edgarcayce.org/are/blog.aspx?id=6479
-
Here is a better link to the Edgar Cayce story. What I find intriguing is what Edgar says almost matches Tighar's Hypothesis so far almost perfectly.
I'm not averse to the sixth sense, one anecdote having stated that Amelia divined the sites of two aircrashes, but Cayce's info seems as vague as it is anxious to please.
Details of Amelia's demise are contrasted with the prediction that she will complete the world flight safely while the authorities fruitlessly search the area he advises.
-
Actually, Cayce's fantasies are way off the mark from what the available genuine evidence suggests. This is the way psychics work. People ignore the inaccuracies and focus on the coincidental hits.
-
I see what you all mean by "trolls", they seem to be everywhere when you look at it that way. Even the hardware store is not free of them. There are other variables that some might not consider. I have been behind the controls of a little airplane in the air so I can't speak from experience but, what if the plane didn't have enough power to get all the way up the high tide mark in the first place? I mean it probably only can push the plane through so much sand and dirt. Really doesn't look as if that plane was set up for 4x4 ing. So then Bob's tide report is a great thing to have because it makes us aware of other things but if the plane couldn't make it to the high water mark then know one could really know where the water level would have been. There is good information to make the assumption that the plane did get to the water mark. If I am thinking of this wrong or backwards please feel free to comment.
-
Actually, Cayce's fantasies are way off the mark from what the available genuine evidence suggests. This is the way psychics work. People ignore the inaccuracies and focus on the coincidental hits.
I am not sure if I am doing this correctly as far as quotes go, I am still learning this site. I have noticed psychics do that. I just never really new how to explain or put into words how they operate. That is why I get hung up on Cayce. There must me more to the story than I can find to read about. Is there more to this story? I know he was off about where they were as far as being northwest of Howland Island. I think what he did say does support Tighar's hypothesis for the most part. Do you think I read to much into it? You won't hurt my feelings be honest.
-
I think what he did say does support Tighar's hypothesis for the most part. Do you think I read to much into it? You won't hurt my feelings be honest.
Nothing Cayce said supports TIGHAR's hypothesis because nothing Cayce said is evidence. Whether or not some of it turns out to be true, it's all just stuff he made up.
-
That is true. I really don't believe in that sort of thing but sometimes they hooks in me. Sorry
-
The record file for FNs maritime career seems to have got the name of one the ships he served on incorrect.
http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/09_Noonan/09_Noonan.html (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/09_Noonan/09_Noonan.html)
NOTE: Much of the maritime history is from a personnel service records file for “Subject, Noonan, Frederick Jos., Deck Officer.” File number 3-A-1. This file from US Shipping Board, Emergency Fleet Corporation, Operating Department Division. This file and related information came from the National Archives.
1927 & 28 Irona – Oct. 7-May 25. Rated 3rd Mate. United Fruit Company.
Should read:
Company Name: United Fruit Company / Great White Fleet
Ship Name: SS Iriona
-
After giving this a great deal of thought my take on this is as follows.
Sometime during the rollout the port gear broke off. The impact fedback through the brakes and caused AE's foot injury by some interaction between her foot and the rudder pedals. The gear collapse caused impact injury to Fred.
The Electra came to rest with the port wingtip on the deck and the Electra was left immobile.
During the July 5th transmission, Fred could not help but witness the port wingtip because the fuselage was tipped in that direction, providing an unrestricted view of both water and wingtip.
-
Incredible.
-
I also think the gear collapse was caused by encountering the backwash from a rogue wave that drew the Electra into an area AE had been trying to avoid.
-
I also think the gear collapse was caused by encountering the backwash from a rogue wave that drew the Electra into an area AE had been trying to avoid.
Oh my, I think I might have just had a heart attack. Would someone call Life Alert for me. I can't reach my button. :o
-
I also think the gear collapse was caused by encountering the backwash from a rogue wave that drew the Electra into an area AE had been trying to avoid.
This is a classic example of what I was talking about. Having decided that there was a gear collapse, you now have decided what caused it. You have built a second story on your house of cards. You seem to believe that the harder you think about something the truer it becomes. It doesn't work that way Tim. You can't prove a hypothesis by thinking about it. You need evidence.
-
Cards. *PUFF*
Sorry, just something about all this... I know I should behave.
-
I also think the gear collapse was caused by encountering the backwash from a rogue wave that drew the Electra into an area AE had been trying to avoid.
Why not throw in a rogue, walking whale to devour the airplane occupants?
-
Okay now. Correction is one thing. Ridicule is another.
-
I am beginning to wonder if having a certain 3 letter first name makes a person more susceptible to the acceptance or belief of the more outlandish or hard to believe ideas? Just speculating is all.........
-
Thank you Jeff Lange! That made my day. :D
-
Now-now, says the self-flagellant in the hair shirt...
-
This is a classic example of what I was talking about. Having decided that there was a gear collapse, you now have decided what caused it. You have built a second story on your house of cards. You seem to believe that the harder you think about something the truer it becomes. It doesn't work that way Tim. You can't prove a hypothesis by thinking about it. You need evidence.
Again, I think it self evident.
1. AE and FN's injuries are stated in the notebook.
2. A landing/rollout impact is probable cause for same.
3. If Nessie was that cause, then the kinetic energy of the decelerating airframe could have hammered the gear hard into the crevice rather than simply levering it in by tide action as the TIGHAR video shows.
4. The gear was planted in so hard that it persisted in situ for months (Bevington photo).
5. Something caused the Electra to make that impact. Wave action is a probable cause and heavy yawing in an attempt to veer landward possibly caused the gear to hit sideways.
None of that seems any less probable than the TIGHAR video, only a reposition of the events.
Otherwise you have defend the case that Nessie and the injuries were 2 separate events when only one is evident.
-
This is a classic example of what I was talking about. Having decided that there was a gear collapse, you now have decided what caused it. You have built a second story on your house of cards. You seem to believe that the harder you think about something the truer it becomes. It doesn't work that way Tim. You can't prove a hypothesis by thinking about it. You need evidence.
Again, I think it self evident.
1. AE and FN's injuries are stated in the notebook.
2. A landing/rollout impact is probable cause for same.
3. If Nessie was that cause, then the kinetic energy of the decelerating airframe hammers the gear hard into the crevice rather than simply levering it in by tide action as the TIGHAR video shows.
4. The gear was planted in so hard that it persisted in situ for months (Bevington photo).
5. Something caused the Electra to make that impact. Wave action is a probable cause and heavy yawing in an attempt to veer landward caused the gear to hit sideways.
None of that seems any less probable than the TIGHAR video, only a reposition of the events.
Otherwise you have defend the case that Nessie and the injuries were 2 separate events when only one is evident.
And once again you have 'jumped the shark'. Nothing in your post is evidence or fact. Particularly Betty's notebook and the Bevingtion Object that have not been authenticated to a substantial degree as to being the smoking gun. The rest again is just speculation on your part without the evidence to back up your theory.
-
Maybe Earhart cut her foot on the coral.
Maybe Fred's head bothered him because he couldn't believe that he sat in the back while Earhart got him into the fix of his life.
Maybe Fred gnawed Earhart's foot off.
-
1. AE and FN's injuries are stated in the notebook.
No injuries are stated in the notebook. We interpret some of the transcribed entries to be references to injuries.
2. A landing/rollout impact is probable cause for same.
Possible, yes. Probable, in my opinion, is going too far. Having spent time on that reef I can tell you that there is plenty of opportunity to get hurt.
3. If Nessie was that cause, then the kinetic energy of the decelerating airframe could have hammered the gear hard into the crevice rather than simply levering it in by tide action as the TIGHAR video shows.
Yes, that could have happened or the gear could have simply washed into a groove after it separated from the aircraft and gotten hung up.
4. The gear was planted in so hard that it persisted in situ for months (Bevington photo).
That appears to be true, but how can we possibly know what it takes to get the gear stuck firmly enough to stay there for three months?
5. Something caused the Electra to make that impact. Wave action is a probable cause and heavy yawing in an attempt to veer landward possibly caused the gear to hit sideways.
I agree that wave action is the most likely cause of aircraft movement sufficient to cause the gear to collapse.
None of that seems any less probable than the TIGHAR video, only a reposition of the events.
Agreed. There are lots of possibilities. The folly is in thinking we can do anything more than try to narrow the possibilities.
Otherwise you have defend the case that Nessie and the injuries were 2 separate events when only one is evident.
If Nessie is landing gear wreckage and if there were injuries, why couldn't they be two separate incidents?
-
If Nessie is landing gear wreckage and if there were injuries, why couldn't they be two separate incidents?
They could be, but where is the evidence?
-
If Nessie is landing gear wreckage and if there were injuries, why couldn't they be two separate incidents?
They could be, but where is the evidence?
There is none that I can think of, just as there is no evidence that they were caused by a single incident. Lots of scenarios are possible.
-
The lesson here to me is that while so many things are possible, and so many ideas are attractive to adhere to, they are all conjecture until one has firm evidence in-hand.
There is to me also a difference in how these scenarios may offer traction toward testing the hypothesis / solving the mystery, or not. I'm not sure this level of discussion actually moves the effort forward at this point; perhaps it will be useful one day to interpret more fully 'what happened'. Until we have a true smoking gun in-hand, this level of discussion is all just so much speculation, IMHO.
-
The lesson here to me is that while so many things are possible, and so many ideas are attractive to adhere to, they are all conjecture until one has firm evidence in-hand.
There is to me also a difference in how these scenarios may offer traction toward testing the hypothesis / solving the mystery, or not. I'm not sure this level of discussion actually moves the effort forward at this point; perhaps it will be useful one day to interpret more fully 'what happened'. Until we have a true smoking gun in-hand, this level of discussion is all just so much speculation, IMHO.
Mr. Neville, while it may be good fun to play cat and mouse with this subject, as I indicated down thread there is no evidence or proof that Amelia Earhart or Fred Noonan were ever injured as a result of a crash on Gardner Island, said crash is a bone of contention in and of itself. I would highly recommend closing this thread unless and until tangible evidence is shown to the contrary. Science doesn't embrace speculation.
The logic of science boiled down to one, essential idea. It comes from Richard Feynman, one of the great scientists of the 20th century, who wrote it on the blackboard during a class at Cornell in 1964.
Think about what he's saying. Science is our way of describing — as best we can — how the world works. The world, it is presumed, works perfectly well without us. Our thinking about it makes no important difference. It is out there, being the world. We are locked in, busy in our minds. And when our minds make a guess about what's happening out there, if we put our guess to the test, and we don't get the results we expect, as Feynman says, there can be only one conclusion: we're wrong.
The world knows. Our minds guess. In any contest between the two, The World Out There wins. It doesn't matter, Feynman tells the class, "how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is, if it disagrees with the experiment, it is wrong."
This view is based on an almost sacred belief that the ways of the world are unshakable, ordered by laws that have no moods, no variance, that what's "Out There" has no mind. And that we, creatures of imagination, colored by our ability to tell stories, to predict, to empathize, to remember — that we are a separate domain, creatures different from the order around us. We live, full of mind, in a mindless place. The world, says the great poet Wislawa Szymborska, is "inhuman." It doesn't work on hope, or beauty or dreams. It just...is.
-
...as I indicated down thread there is no evidence or proof that Amelia Earhart or Fred Noonan were ever injured as a result of a crash on Gardner Island, said crash is a bone of contention in and of itself. I would highly recommend closing this thread unless and until tangible evidence is shown to the contrary. Science doesn't embrace speculation.
Ahhh, but it does. Science begins with speculation. We imagine something that might be true and then we try to figure out whether or not it IS true. It's fine to imagine that there might have been an arrival crash that separated one of the land gear assemblies and caused injuries. That imagined scenario sends us on a hunt for evidence to either support or reject that possibility. If we find neither then the possibility stands as merely that - a possibility. But the exercise still has value.
-
...as I indicated down thread there is no evidence or proof that Amelia Earhart or Fred Noonan were ever injured as a result of a crash on Gardner Island, said crash is a bone of contention in and of itself. I would highly recommend closing this thread unless and until tangible evidence is shown to the contrary. Science doesn't embrace speculation.
Ahhh, but it does. Science begins with speculation. We imagine something that might be true and then we try to figure out whether or not it IS true. It's fine to imagine that there might have been an arrival crash that separated one of the land gear assemblies and caused injuries. That imagined scenario sends us on a hunt for evidence to either support or reject that possibility. If we find neither then the possibility stands as merely that - a possibility. But the exercise still has value.
Then are you saying Mr. Gillespie that the Niku hypothesis is speculation and not theory? Or are we dealing in semantics?
-
Then are you saying Mr. Gillespie that the Niku hypothesis is speculation and not theory? Or are we dealing in semantics?
I suspect we're dealing with semantics. How does speculation differ from theory? How does a hypothesis differ from a theory?
-
Then are you saying Mr. Gillespie that the Niku hypothesis is speculation and not theory? Or are we dealing in semantics?
I suspect we're dealing with semantics. How does speculation differ from theory? How does a hypothesis differ from a theory?
Isn't a theory a hypothesis that has been proven?
-
Isn't a theory a hypothesis that has been proven?
I think you'll find that most dictionaries consider theory, hypothesis and speculation to be synonyms - all meaning the same thing: "a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained."
A theory/hypothesis/speculation that is considered to be conclusively proven is a law or a fact, such as Newton's Laws of Motion or the fact that the Earth revolves around the Sun.
-
Isn't a theory a hypothesis that has been proven?
I think you'll find that most dictionaries consider theory, hypothesis and speculation to be synonyms - all meaning the same thing: "a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained."
A theory/hypothesis/speculation that is considered to be conclusively proven is a law or a fact, such as Newton's Laws of Motion or the fact that the Earth revolves around the Sun.
I've not seen where speculation is a synonym for theory or hypothesis though I've seen where theory and hypothesis have been said to be the same thing. The more a hypothesis is tested and holds up, it is better accepted as a theory. I am reminded however, Einstein's theory of relativity has withstood over a hundred years of testing. Let us not chase this around the room with the laser pointer and agree to disagree on the premise that they are one in the same.
-
Whoaaa... You two are way over my head!
I was just contemplating garden variety BS!!!
-
Isn't a theory a hypothesis that has been proven?
Actually, a theory is a framework that generates one or more hypotheses. One does not "prove" a hypothesis, but rather tests the hypothesis against facts to see if it withstands the testing or else fails. The more an hypothesis is able to survive the testing, the more the theory is accepted as valid.
Quoting the Wikipedia entry for "theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory)",
A theory is not the same as a hypothesis. A theory provides an explanatory framework for some observation, and from the assumptions of the explanation follows a number of possible hypotheses that can be tested in order to provide support for, or challenge, the theory.
An hypothesis is a tool for examining the validity of a theory. An hypothesis is tested, not proved. It may fail the testing, which does not necessarily disprove the theory. Or the hypothesis may pass rigorous testing, but that does not prove the theory, it only provides strong support for the validity of the theory. But the hypothesis is never the theory; rather, it is a tool for testing the theory.
In TIGHAR's case, the theory is that AE and FN did not simply vanish into thin air, but that they were able to use their combined skills in piloting and navigation to reach a safe haven. This theory has led to the Nikumaroro Hypothesis, with many aspects (i.e., sub-hypotheses) to it that can be tested. Because some treat hypothesis and theory as synonyms, that leads to arguments such as we see in this thread.
Ultimately, even if every aspect of the overarching hypothesis were to be discredited, the theory that spawned the hypothesis might still be correct. That is perhaps the most frustrating thing about testing each aspect of the Nikumaroro Hypothesis, because finding the "any idiot artifact" that would establish the proof (or disproof) of the theory is elusively hard. Merely failing to "disprove" the Nikumaroro Hypothesis won't prove the theory, and I fear that there are those who think that "failure to discredit the hypothesis" says that the hypothesis (or the theory) has been proven. But I repeat: one does not prove the hypothesis -- the hypothesis and its testing are used to bolster the validity of the theory. So it is important to distinguish between the actual theory versus the hypotheses used to test it. In fact, in testing an hypothesis, it might fail the test but in the process the "any idiot artifact" might be discovered that conclusively proves (or disproves!) the theory.
In short, a theory is not an hypothesis that has been proven, since an hypothesis is just a testing tool for the theory.
-
In short, a theory is not an hypothesis that has been proven, since an hypothesis is just a testing tool for the theory.
Exactly Mr. Thomas, and do I hear an 'Amen'?
-
That makes sense to me.
-
In TIGHAR's case, the theory is that AE and FN did not simply vanish into thin air, but that they were able to use their combined skills in piloting and navigation to reach a safe haven.
I would say that TIGHAR's theory is that AE and FN reached, and died on, Gardner Island (now Nikumaroro). Whether they got there by skill or dumb luck is probably unknowable.
-
Amen!
What Ric said, too.