Here it is. If anyone knows how to adjust the default focal length that Google Earth uses, please let me know as I think that's the one thing that is keeping it from fitting more closely. As I mentioned though, it does show the compass heading as being W rather than N (as mentioned in the Tighar archives), my best guess of the altitude that Lambrecht was flying was 1000 ft +- 300. But that's just a guess. I'm a newbie with Google Earth though and I'm sure others can do better.Mark, I did the same thing a couple of weeks ago and my estimate of altitude was 2000-2500ft. It appears to me that you are on the correct heading but a bit low. Just my guess.
(http://lh3.ggpht.com/_mYijN2hQchE/TEjvONZaV7I/AAAAAAAAABc/hepc-L1_SEE/s800/niku_google_earth.JPG)
...If anyone knows how to adjust the default focal length that Google Earth uses...my best guess of the altitude that Lambrecht was flying was 1000 ft +- 300....
Keep in mind that this picture probably is not out the windshield of the aircraft by Lambrecht, he's busy flying the plane, it most likely was taken out a side window by his crewmate.
You may be correct. When Lambrecht left Mckean bound for Gardner his flight plan appears to have been 1000’ altitude direct route to Gardner on a heading of 198 degrees true at about 78 statute miles. If, upon arrival at Gardner on this heading, his observer took the photo looking out the starboard side of the airplane, the probable direction of the camera would be 90 degrees to the heading of the plane or about 288 degrees +/-. It would be logical to assume that the photo was taken at 1000’ since this was the arrival altitude and the probable course of action was then to descend to search the island. There would be no reason to climb to a higher altitude.
Below is an example of the axis along which the photo was most likely taken. It is possible that the photo was taken from an altitude of 2000', but it would have been nearly 3.5 miles offshore to maintain the axis. I would hedge my bets that the photo was taken somewhere in the neighborhood of 800' +/-.
You may be correct. When Lambrecht left Mckean bound for Gardner his flight plan appears to have been 1000’ altitude direct route to Gardner on a heading of 198 degrees true at about 78 statute miles. If, upon arrival at Gardner on this heading, his observer took the photo looking out the starboard side of the airplane, the probable direction of the camera would be 90 degrees to the heading of the plane or about 288 degrees +/-. It would be logical to assume that the photo was taken at 1000’ since this was the arrival altitude and the probable course of action was then to descend to search the island. There would be no reason to climb to a higher altitude.
That would be the logical assumption except while looking at the black and white photo, my sense of height above the ground (AGL) tells me that the photographer just seems to be higher than 1000’. A reference point would be the beach which measure about 65 feet in width or about the width of a four lane highway.
Beautiful lineup--thanks!Thank you...
The Vought O3U-3 was a two-place, tandem seating, open-cockpit biplane. The photo had to have been taken by the observer in the rear cockpit. A photo taken from the front cockpit would show wires and struts in the foreground.
Perhaps the picture was taken after the "repeated circling and zooming failed to elicit an answering wave. . . ." as the flight completed their last circle of the island and prepared to head SE to Caroldelet Reef. I'd think getting a picture would be a low or last priority, waiting until after making one low pass (50') to wake people up, distrub the birds and conduct the rest of the search from 400-500'. Ric's book describs the search in chapter 20; "As in the case of the subsequent search of the rest of the Phoenix Islands one cirlce at fifty feet around M'Kean aroused the birds to such an extent that further inspection had to be made from an altitude of at least 400 feet" (Lanbrecht, "Aircraft Search for Earhart Plane).
He seems to be saying that the same procedure was followed on initial arrival at every search location. I'd think one circle or even a pass down the center of the lagoon would be loud enough to arouse anyone capable of responding, but whether or not they'd be seen from 400-500' on subsequent passes/circles is difficult to say. The picture would be almost an afterthought, waiting until the search was completed. I'd want my eyes looking at the ground until I was sure there was nothing to be seen, then worry about the photography.
One thing that is not completely clear to me is why they would not have taken several bunches of pictures of each reef/island back then?
Hi Erik,
Nice analysis! I think that 1 mile offshore at 1000' seems about right to me too. For what it's worth what I keyed off of was the angle of the lagoon that is off in the distance (see the circled areas below). I placed the viewer at what seemed like a reasonable distance from Niku and then changed the elevation to get the correct angle of the lagoon in the circled areas because I knew that it wouldn't be affected as much by focal length as the shoreline (areas of Niku closest to the viewer). If you position the viewer at 1 mile offshore and at 1000' how well does the shoreline matchup?
According to Lt. Lambrecht's report of his flight on 9 July 1937 (one week after the disappearance) (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Documents/Lambrecht%27s_Report.html)
No offense, but that would seem to contradict "There was one (1) overflight of the island. That doesn't like a whole lot of SAR to me."
... it's not as if they did a single cursory pass at 1,000' AGL and moved on. It would seem from his report that Lt. Lambrecht observed and understood the density of the vegetation and difficulty of traversing the terrain, and took action that he felt sufficient to draw attention to the aircraft, and allow time for someone to appear and respond.
That is precisely the one overflight to which I referred. If you wish to count the two passes as "two overflights," you may.
That is precisely the one overflight to which I referred. If you wish to count the two passes as "two overflights," you may.
I'm apparently missing something here. What are you basing "two passes" on? ??? Again, Lt. Lambrecht's report (which you quote in the thread you linked to below with your discussion with Bill Lloyd) clearly states "repeated circling and zooming".
I still feel certain that an aviator would not dismiss the possibility of an aerial search, even in 1937.
AE and FN had been to Hawaii earlier in 1937 - and even though not a single one ever reached the area, they knew those shiny new long range PBY's were there and could possibly be used to search for them. FN flew with / navigated the first Clipper flights with Pan Am - he was well aware of what a seaplane was. As a master mariner, he was certainly aware of the fact that cruisers and battleships (not to mention aircraft carriers) carried aircraft that were specifically there to increase their search range and capabilities. The USN had been routinely using catapults and aircraft launched from cruisers for well over a decade by the time of the 1937 flight. Heck, when the stranded crew of the SSNC was being rescued, and encountered problems with escaping through the surf in small boats, her skipper suggested to the captain of the SS Trongate:
"The position as to getting over that reef surf appears to be hopeless. The only thing I can see for it is a cruiser with a seaplane to alight in the lagoon inside if possible."
That was in 1929 - eight years before the Electra's disappearance. As far as I know, he was not an aviator. If a non-aviator was aware of the availability of such shipboard aircraft, do you really think it wouldn't occur to AE and FN that aerial assets at least might be used in a search?
I'm not trying to interject "my" logic or thinking into the situation; rather, I am attempting to "put myself in their shoes". And in their shoes, I certainly would have at least considered an aerial search as a very real possibility.
It would appear that you're extrapolating from the comments about McKean ("perfectly flat... with no vegetation whatsoever") and assuming the aviators took the same approach and actions at Gardner - a much larger and more complex location.
If your orders are to "search", you're going to have to do more at Gardner than you would at McKean in order to comply with those orders.
The "repeated circling and zooming" took place over the "signs of recent habitation."
Another assumption that isn't directly indicated by the report ...
But an equally possible assumption is that, having found signs of "recent habitation", they not only zoomed and circled that site, but took a closer look at the rest of the atoll too, just in case the castaways were elsewhere; looking for food and water, gathering firewood, etc.
Lt. Lambrecht's comments about the only other uninhabited island that showed "signs of recent habitation" (Sydney Island) indicated they made "several circles of the island" and "repeated zooms" without eliciting any response. As long as we're extrapolating, that would tend to suggest that they took similar steps at the even larger Gardner Island, as opposed to the more cursory search of the much smaller and relatively featureless McKean Island.
To my eye, the actual count of visits to the island by aircraft vs. the number of ships engaged in the search discredits your certitude.
If you count the number of aircraft involved in the search - the three flown off the Colorado, the PBY (even though it never reached the area, it was dispatched as part of the search effort), and all the aircraft flown off the Lexington, the amount of aircraft involved actually greatly exceeded the number of ships involved.
Facts:
Aircraft visited and searched Gardner Island.
Ships did not.
The vast majority of the areas that were covered in the search were searched by air, not from the deck of a ship.
AE did things that many other aviators would not have done. Would you consistently give the wrong frequencies of your equipment to people who had to use those frequencies to help you land safely at Howland Island? Would you ask for a transmission on 7500 kcs for equipment that was limited to lower frequencies? "Direction finder on plane covers range of about 200 to 1400 kHz." Would you transmit on 3105 kcs if the Coast Guard told you, "Itasca direction finder range 550 to 270 kHz"? Would you transmit too briefly for a direction finder to get a bearing on you?
No sir, I would not have done those things. However, I am an audio engineer with decades of communications experience and training; unlike most people, I deal with different frequencies on a daily basis. But I take your point. AE made some significant mistakes. The failure of AE to avail herself of proper training on the operation of the Bendix RDF, or to perform test flights in order to test that equipment and practice with it, along with the decision to leave the trailing antenna behind were significant factors in their ultimate demise IMHO.
"Believing" in the possibility of an aerial search does not automatically rule out relocating (or searching for water, etc.); the two are not mutually exclusive. However, it would probably influence your actions. In other words, the assumption is that you would conduct that relocation and / or search for water / food with one eye scanning the horizon and sky, and that you would make an effort to leave yourself a ready route to a location where you could be easily spotted or attempt to signal a passing ship or aircraft.
I think that one visit from one flight of aircraft that failed to spot them (a common occurrence, even in our vastly advanced SAR experience!) would probably not cause them to stay put near the leeward reef.
... Considering the density of the native vegetation, that would tend to argue against an extensive search of the island occurring along the way, with their arrival at the Seven Site location prior to the aerial search on 9 July.
... You will understand that it is a much bigger place than it seems, and that a 15 minute flight around the island is woefully inadequate.
haven't seen the South Park episode(s) about Hindsight Man, but I know that he is alive and well in many of us who participate in the Forum.
Does this imply that you have watched South Park? :)
Phil et alAccording to my interpretation of the data, a much different result is derived and suggests much more time on station than you have calculated. My calculations are based on the information contained in the Log Book (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Books/Books/FindingAmeliaNotes/Logs/ColoradoLog.pdf) of the USS Colorado for Friday July 9, 1937. The Colorado was steaming south in a position southwest of Mckean Island and northwest of Gardner Island
I think we've figured out based upon the logs of the Colorado aircraft launch and recovery times, and working the time and distance problem using the typical airspeed of the aircraft involved, that the search aircraft spent less than 15 minutes total time, maybe as little as 10 minutes, over Nikumaroro.
Bill, what are you using as the cruise speed of the Corsairs? I've found their maximum speed, but that's it.The maximum speed is listed at 164 MPH and I have not been able to find an operations manual with a cruise chart for the 03U-3. There is a photo of the airspeed indicator (http://www.voughtaircraft.com/heritage/photo/html/po3u-3_7.html) but the green arc is not discernable. From my experience, cruise power is usually 75% to 85%, therefore that is what I used to estimate a cruise speed.
Also there is a diagram of the flight in Lambrecht’s report.
Also there is a diagram of the flight in Lambrecht’s report.
There is?
“Here signs of recent habitation were clearly visible but repeated circling and zooming failed to elicit any answering wave from possible inhabitants and it was finally taken for granted that none were there.”, This on 9 July 1937.
If your hear approaching aircraft and we'll surmise you're in the thickest jungle part, how long would it take you to make shore or lagoon where you could easily be seen from the air?
Can a waving figure be spotted from aircraft from the far side of the island, say where the SS Norwich City lay and you're at the far east end, lagoon side?
Also, accounts read that the stores left there after SS Norwich City crew was rescued were found to be greatly disturbed but the photo of this taken by NZ folks does not open. Was there an exact inventory of those stores left for future castaways anywhere?
What kind of condition would they be in after 8 years on a tropical island?
I guess it would be a safe bet to surmise that Amelia and Fred were so injured or ill and only 8 days after landing they couldn't respond to the aircraft, or they had already passed.
Thank you Ric for your detailed and thorough response to my post on this subject. Just a couple of quick questions here. Was the Electra equipped with a flare pistol of any kind? Why didn't AEP and FN write something in the sand with wood or rocks on the lagoon side where the tide and surf wouldn't disturb it?
Thanks again Ric and very Happy New Year to you and family...
Yes, I see there is. I had forgotten that. I calculated the possible time over Gardner years ago.Goes to show that Ric has forgotten more about this project than I know! :)
I'm working up a detailed re-analysis of the flight using the Colorado Deck Log, Lambrecht's article (it's not actually a "report") and Google Earth - a very handy tool I didn't have when I did the original analysis many years ago. When I'm done we'll post it as a research bulletin on the TIGHAR website.I used Google Earth and the ruler to measure the distance of each of the four legs of the flight to arrive at a total en route distance of 295 miles. Wind direction and force are in the Colorado Log as well as the positions for launch and recovery.
Colorado's log shows that the ship changed course to begin receiving the returning flight at 10:20 AM.17 The planes had been gone three hours and twenty minutes and had covered 272 nautical miles at their cruising speed of ninety knots.18 They thus spent a total of no more than twenty minutes over their three objectives. A reasonable estimate might be five minutes at McKean, ten minutes at Gardner, and five at Carondelet Reef.Note #18, found on page 264, attributes that information to "Lambrecht answers to Goerner, undated." The distance of 272 nautical miles equates to 313 statute miles, while 90 knots is nearly 104 miles per hour.
That is a better match than I have seen on any of the recent posts. I noticed the wave action is almost identical. You win the prize. what were the specs for the effort?
I used Google Earth and the ruler to measure the distance of each of the four legs of the flight to arrive at a total en route distance of 295 miles.
Wind direction and force are in the Colorado Log as well as the positions for launch and recovery.
It would be a good thing to post a research bulletin. It certainly will not change the results of the search, but it could show a fairly accurate estimate of the flying time available for the Gardner search and it might even show that more time was available that previously thought possible.
Also of interest was an entry in the Colorado Log (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Books/Books/FindingAmeliaNotes/Logs/ColoradoLog.pdf) dated 0945 on Friday July 9, 1937, "Sighted Gardner Island bearing 179.5°, distance about fifteen miles. Sighted wrecked ship a little to the right bearing 180°."
From your experience on Gardner, could you see a battleship 15 miles to the north?
At 0945, Lambrecht should have departed Carondelet Reef on a 330° heading for the 90 mile leg back to the Colorado and would pass within approximately 7 miles of the southeaster shore of Gardner.
If your were at the 7 site could you see a battleship which had now moved further southeast and the sea planes flying at 1000 ft over the water to the east as they went by on the way to the ship?
I used Google Earth and the ruler to measure the distance of each of the four legs of the flight to arrive at a total en route distance of 295 miles.
I did the same and came up with 241 nautical miles (256 statute). I suspect the difference is in our respective calculations of the launch and recovery points.
I'm working up a detailed re-analysis of the flight using the Colorado Deck Log, Lambrecht's article (it's not actually a "report") and Google Earth - a very handy tool I didn't have when I did the original analysis many years ago. When I'm done we'll post it as a research bulletin on the TIGHAR website.
Some comments from earlier discussions:
I found (from the reports and letters) that the fliers were able to spot much smaller (non-aircraft) items from the air. In particular, I found it interesting that they were able to identify loin cloths (or lack thereof) of the natives waving when arriving Hull, rock cairns at Phoenix, and huts amoungst the trees on other islands. Also surprising to read that the natives heard the planes coming upon arrival at Hull and had enough time to gather on rooftops. If the pilots could see such smaller items, they certainly would have had the same capability at Gardner. If the natives heard the planes coming, that would indicate that folks on the ground were able to identify approaching aircraft - most likely from the sounds of the WASPs (engines).
Perhaps the reason they didnt see Amelia and Fred on the search is that they were already gone-----
Perhaps the reason they didn't see Amelia and Fred on the search is that they were already gone-----Gone where???
A few years ago, I discovered the Tighar site and learned about the theories surrounding the disappearance of Amelia Earheart. The more I read, the more convinced I became that the Nikumoro theory holds water, and I follow the developments on the site closely, hoping that one day (soon?) the ‘smoking gun’ will be found proving that the last destination of AE has been found.
There is however one part of the story that still troubles me.
AE and FN landed on the coral flats on Nikumaroro on July 2nd, and possibly continued to transmit radio signals on the 3rd and perhaps even the 5th of July. However, when the search planes from the Colorado flew over the island on the 9th, no sign of the Electra was found.
The discussions in this thread all concentrate on whether or not the planes would have been able to spot AE and FN, I can find no mention of the Electra and why or how it remained undiscovered.
The one explanation I can find for this is that the plane was covered by high tides or in the surf line at the time of the overflight, possibly confused with wreckage of the Norwich City.
But if the tides managed to cover and hide the plane on the 9th at high tide, surely this must have happened on a twice daily basis in the days before – and I find it hard to believe that radio transmissions would have been possible from a plane once it had been swamped by salt water, even if it was above the water level at low tide…
One explanation for the (apparent) sudden disappearance of the plane could be that somewhere between the 3rd (or 5th) and the 9th, heavy weather and accompanying swells broke up and scattered the airframe – but then there must be a record of such weather in the area on those days.
The log of the USS Colorado shows windspeeds of up to 22 mph (with a peak of 27 on the early morning of the 7th) in the days leading up to the 9th – not really that much, nor exceptional, but then the ship did not arrive in the immediate area of the Phoenix islands until the 7th.
So the question is, have other weather data for the period and area been researched to see if this might have caused the airframe to collapse and be largely swept out to sea?
To bad we won't ever know how close AE & FN got to Howland, but I'll bet that it was close. The more that I've learned about FN and his navigational abilities, it wouldn't surprise me if he got within visual range but they just weren't able to pick it out. Pretty tragic.According to this research (http://tighar.org/wiki/Radio_propagation), the Electra was at least 80 and perhaps as much as 210 nautical miles from the Itasca at the time of the last transmission.
so three planes did 30 minutes of loops and passes around niku
hard to imagine two navigators with their wits about them trying to be found ...not being found
i was thinking what would i do.........
and i dont know anything about wilderness survival....
if i got matches i am starting a huge fire i would happily burn the whole island down ....that would be a really big fire
i would use sticks stones and sand and write huge help help signs all over the beach
i stay near the beach where i think help is coming from
if i hear a plane i run to the beach jump up and down and wave and (yell ...which is silly but i do it anyway)
then i find religion
... my best guess of the altitude that Lambrecht was flying was 1000 ft +- 300. But that's just a guess. I'm a newbie with Google Earth though and I'm sure others can do better.
But the cases that do relate are these: we seem to be on a frequent flight path for military chopper flights (probably out of Dobbins). I'll hear the familiar whoop-whoop from my days in Vietnam and yearn to see that wonderful Huey. But there are lots of tall pines in my subdivision, and though my ears have my head swiveling in the right direction, spotting the chopper through the branches is often not possible. I'll run down to the street and try to catch a glimpse that way, with less tree cover, and darn: the sound of the blades just diminishes in the distance, with not a single glimpse. I couldn't see it, and for darn sure, those aboard the chopper couldn't see me either. On the rare occasion when I do catch a glimpse, it's flying about 500' and is just a fleeting image through the pine branches.
Point being: it really doesn't take much to convince me that two forlorn downed aviators couldn't catch a break that day and get spotted by a trio of loud planes flying by at a reasonably low level. It's too easy to not be in the right place at the right time. There are a whole lot of things that would have had to "go right" for the tale to have ended more happily.
In this case, it is unlikely in the extreme that experienced SAR aircrew would’ve missed a 10E in the tidal verge offshore. It’s also unlikely spotters would’ve missed smoke of any kind rising from an uninhabited island. Even footprints on a beach are visible from low altitude.
I would be surprised if AE and FN were at the Seven Site by July 9. I suspect it took them some time to explore the island and figure out the best place to camp. If they were still in the Norwich City area or anywhere south of there, anything that happened off to the east was hidden by the tall buka forest that stands on the island's NW tip.
When you interviewed him did he indicate on the map where the recent signs of habitation where located?
No significant weather during the week following the disappearance. It's a very benign area, especially between May and October.
Visibility of anything on the reef edge depends upon how much surf is breaking. The water is very clear so, on a calm day, even at high tide, a plane hung up on the reef edge should be visible from over head. However, calm days are rare. On a typical day there's enough swell running that the reef edge is completely obscured by surf. The photo taken during the aerial search clearly shows extensive surf on the reef edge.
The cache of provisions left behind by the Norwich City survivors seems to have been left on the south side of the island near the small southern lagoon passage (Bauareke Passage). If AE and FN found it they must have been over there at some point.
The search aircraft also were overflying the shipwreck at a fairly low altitude. The photograph showing the other aircraft flying over the shipwreck from right to left (in the photo) would have put the rear seat observer in a great position to see "Nessie", and surely it would have been recognizable as a strut at that height, distance and angle. Or am I just thinking too hard?You are thinking MUCH too hard!
The search ........ observer in a great position to see "Nessie", and surely it would have been recognizable as a strut at that height, distance and angle. Or am I just thinking too hard?You are thinking MUCH too hard! You have invented a scene where one of the planes in Lambrecht's search has photographed another one overflying the Norwich City wreck. There is NO such photo!
I suspect that you are mis-remembering Photo #5 in Earhart Project Research Bulletin #16 (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/16_ForensicImaging/16_Forensicimaging.html). That photo was taken in June 1941.
It will be helpful (reiterating Marty's past pleas) if everyone will carefully provide a link back to any such story or photo or map or whatever on which they want to base a question or supposition or theory.
This is the view from the same model of plane Lambrecht overflew gardner Island in. Notice how the forward view is obscured by engine+prop. If you followed the surf line around Gardner Island you wouldn't see what was directly in front of you. Your observer behind you would have a better view but again, not a forward view. Only by looking over the side of the plane would you see a plane wreck on the surf line but, if you are flying along the surf line whatever was on the surf line would be in front of, underneath or behind you. You would have a great view of the Island, scrub, trees, lagoon etc... IMHO there is a possibilty the plane on the reef was missed by looking for plane wreckage on land and, the limited visibility offered from the search planes flying along the surf line. Compare this view to that of the tour of Niku in the helio with the nice un-obstructed plexiglass panoramic views to the front.IMHO
http://youtu.be/DL9FGsvB3E8 (http://youtu.be/DL9FGsvB3E8)
(http://tighar.org/smf/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=601.0;attach=2080;image)
Her'e the link to the video where the still from a plane of the same type as the search planes from the Colorado came from. Sideways observation looks like the best from this airplane type. The pilot has a great view of the engine/prop and wings, the observer has a stunning view of the tailplane assembly. Sideways observation was the way to go. IMHO
http://youtu.be/0SornVVsCkc (http://youtu.be/0SornVVsCkc)
Her'e the link to the video where the still from a plane of the same type as the search planes from the Colorado came from. Sideways observation looks like the best from this airplane type. The pilot has a great view of the engine/prop and wings, the observer has a stunning view of the tailplane assembly. Sideways observation was the way to go. IMHOThat is a feature of every airplane (with some very unusual exceptions) that the nose blocks the view of the ground directly in front of the plane. Yet, searches have been conduced from airplanes for many years so it is a problem that has been dealt with by using different techniques to ensure complete search coverage.
http://youtu.be/0SornVVsCkc (http://youtu.be/0SornVVsCkc)
That is a feature of every airplane (with some very unusual exceptions) that the nose blocks the view of the ground directly in front of the plane. Yet, searches have been conduced from airplanes for many years so it is a problem that has been dealt with by using different techniques to ensure complete search coverage.
I'm sure I've seen the Walrus launched from a ship though :-\)
Maybe, but the Spitfire was prettier.Manufactured and designed by Supermarine who went on to build the Spitfire, our life saver. The Spitfire was quite agile too ;)
Not to rob the Spitfire of her place (or presume to know your country's history better than you would), but my understanding has been that a great 'secret' was that the Hurricane was actually the mightier contributor in that effort by her greater numbers and as a solid survivor?
LTM -
Speaking of Spitfires, they just found a dozen of them in their original shipping containers (http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/2186-full.html#206526) buried at the end of the war!
Maybe, but the Spitfire was prettier.
gl
AND they had to find their way back to a moving base before they burned all of their fuel. They had to find the ship again and that ship ain't goin' to be in the same place as it was when they left it. Better be careful drawing those vector diagrams on your Mk 3 plotting board.Quote...still believe that the primary reason for success was the guy sitting in the seat...
So very, very true - they are the ones we can never fully repay.
Gary,
That's a fascinating find of Spitfires - can't wait to see how that shakes out!
The latest version having the Griffon engine reminds me of the P-40N which came out at the end of the war - looked like a 'regular' P-40 but was anything but since it was highly refined and a very fine machine. But, too late for the war effort. There is a prime example near me in Warner Robbins GA at the AF museum there - in the 10th AF section. My dad served in the 10th AF in Burma and loved the P-40N, so he thoroughly enjoyed that visit.
I enjoyed seeing the Spitfire at the 'Proud Bird' restaurant too - excellent memorial to what was just discussed.
Lambrecht photo is interesting and a 'better' one than his working photo in helmet, etc. (in formal sense). He too did his best and I would never fault him or his fellow followers for not seeing AE, if it turns out she was there. So many variables. Those were gutsy guys flying old Corsairs off the cats of battleships.
LTM -
is it known if this search was carried out and if Gardner was searched ?
http://earchives.lib.purdue.edu/cdm4/document.php?CISOROOT=/epurdue&CISOPTR=625&REC=18 (http://earchives.lib.purdue.edu/cdm4/document.php?CISOROOT=/epurdue&CISOPTR=625&REC=18)
http://earchives.lib.purdue.edu/cdm4/document.php?CISOROOT=/epurdue&CISOPTR=608&REC=14 (http://earchives.lib.purdue.edu/cdm4/document.php?CISOROOT=/epurdue&CISOPTR=608&REC=14)
All very emotive however it has not yet been established if Earhart and Noonan were there to be seen. I agree that it would be sad if someone had been too weak to attract the attention of the aircraft flying over, but whether there was anyone on the island at the time has not been established. One way or another that needs to be established by TIGHAR on the next trip to Nikumaroro. Otherwise they risk drifting off into fantasy.
JeffGardner in NOT 281 miles south of Howland. I have attached a chart showing that spot, it is 175 miles from there to Gardner.
i agree but i know, an have gone over an over in my head..
i would try staying awake an trying to get a SOS out for as long as possible, howland is only 300 miles away Noonan had been in enough accidents to know help would come
why did the search party spend so much time searching 281 miles north of howland, when there is no land obvious on map but if u go 281 south, your under 20 miles from gardner island
?
See my prior post (https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,517.msg6513.html#msg6513). Here is a part of it:
Malcolm
In any case, Emily never says she saw aluminum, she only saw a rusty structure, tubular in nature, perhaps as much as 10 ft long with a round thing at the end.
Andrew
Size counts.Dead stick was the probable reason it went pear shaped
That was not a pretty ditching.
As to those who seemingly would like bury this search -
Where then? To chase a tale of someone having seen a serial number on a plate so many miles beyond where the Electra could have reached? Not for me, thanks.
I hear so often how thin our case is - but we do have things in-hand, and a great picture...
LTM -
Oh my... ;)
etc.
LTM -
Perhaps you should have asked why the hi-res pic has not been released.
We keep coming back to these claims about aircraft skin found on Nikumaroro, now faith is a wonderful thing but I actually would like to see a little more hard evidence.
As for the enhanced photo - are TIGHAR positive that it shows an undercarriage leg or is this still not determined. One can read the statement either way. It will be difficult to take seriously if it is another "might be, possibly be" situation. Too many leaps of faith.
]Since we have hotly debated on this thread and others the distances that searchers could see people on the ground, I decided to do a test. I went flying today in a Skycatcher and one of my projects for this flight was to see how far away I could see people on the ground. I have attached two Google Earth images of portions of the flight, the red line is the track of my plane which is recorded every five seconds by one of my GPS. (This was not the entire purpose of my flight and you can see the entire flight track by looking at the third attached GE image.) I had no preconceived idea of what I would find. The first image shows my flight offshore of Ventura California. I was flying towards the south at 1,000 feet and looking towards the beach to see if I could spot people on the beach. I planned to fly closer and closer until I could recognize people, note a prominent landmark near the people that I could spot on Google Earth, and push the button on my second GPS to record my location at the point where I detected the people and this worked out well. From my position offshore I could see people clearly on the section of the beach between the breakwaters. Then I downloaded the GPS data to my computer and used it to to locate my plane on GE and then measured the distance to the people I saw on the beach near the landmark. I was surprised that the distance was so great, 2.48 NM! Later I flew along a road and looked for workers in the fields nearby along with landmarks near them so that I would be able to accurately place them on GE. The second image shows that I could see field workers at a distance of 0.89 NM but it is also possible that if there had been workers farther away that I would have been able to see them at an even greater distance. The crops are a little more than waist high so the vegetation is nowhere as difficult as that on Gardner but it was an interesting test anyway since only the tops of the workers' torsos were visible and yet it was not difficult to see them at close to a nautical mile away.
See my prior post (https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,517.msg6513.html#msg6513). Here is a part of it:
"In my prior post, for simplification, I assumed the strip of land making up Gardner Island between the lagoon and the sea was half a nautical mile wide (3038 feet), but this was an overstatement. In fact, 39% of this donut is less than 700 feet wide and a further 45% is less than 1200 feet wide. Only the northern end of the island is a half nautical mile wide. This means that the search planes flying down the center of the strip of land would only have to search 350 feet either side of the plane (a little bit longer than a football field) for 39% of the circuit and 600 feet for 45% of the circuit. Only on the northern tip, constituting the remaining 16% of the island, would they have to search a quarter mile either side, 1519 feet. You can see then that for fully 84% of the circuit the the distance they would have to look was significantly less than the distance that would allow spotting a bobbing head out on the ocean so should have had a very high probability of spotting an entire person on dry land. Only on the northern tip would the search distance be slightly greater, 1519 feet versus 1215 feet, than you would expect to spot a bobbing head among the waves so you would expect to be able to spot an entire person at this distance. "
And another prior post here (https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,517.msg6594.html#msg6594).
It is hard to conceive of any formation or search pattern that didn't bring one of the planes within a few hundred feet of every spot of dry land on Gardner. And they had time to make three complete circuits each.
gl
]Since we have hotly debated on this thread and others the distances that searchers could see people on the ground, I decided to do a test. I went flying today in a Skycatcher and one of my projects for this flight was to see how far away I could see people on the ground. I have attached two Google Earth images of portions of the flight, the red line is the track of my plane which is recorded every five seconds by one of my GPS. (This was not the entire purpose of my flight and you can see the entire flight track by looking at the third attached GE image.) I had no preconceived idea of what I would find. The first image shows my flight offshore of Ventura California. I was flying towards the south at 1,000 feet and looking towards the beach to see if I could spot people on the beach. I planned to fly closer and closer until I could recognize people, note a prominent landmark near the people that I could spot on Google Earth, and push the button on my second GPS to record my location at the point where I detected the people and this worked out well. From my position offshore I could see people clearly on the section of the beach between the breakwaters. Then I downloaded the GPS data to my computer and used it to to locate my plane on GE and then measured the distance to the people I saw on the beach near the landmark. I was surprised that the distance was so great, 2.48 NM! Later I flew along a road and looked for workers in the fields nearby along with landmarks near them so that I would be able to accurately place them on GE. The second image shows that I could see field workers at a distance of 0.89 NM but it is also possible that if there had been workers farther away that I would have been able to see them at an even greater distance. The crops are a little more than waist high so the vegetation is nowhere as difficult as that on Gardner but it was an interesting test anyway since only the tops of the workers' torsos were visible and yet it was not difficult to see them at close to a nautical mile away.
See my prior post (https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,517.msg6513.html#msg6513). Here is a part of it:
"In my prior post, for simplification, I assumed the strip of land making up Gardner Island between the lagoon and the sea was half a nautical mile wide (3038 feet), but this was an overstatement. In fact, 39% of this donut is less than 700 feet wide and a further 45% is less than 1200 feet wide. Only the northern end of the island is a half nautical mile wide. This means that the search planes flying down the center of the strip of land would only have to search 350 feet either side of the plane (a little bit longer than a football field) for 39% of the circuit and 600 feet for 45% of the circuit. Only on the northern tip, constituting the remaining 16% of the island, would they have to search a quarter mile either side, 1519 feet. You can see then that for fully 84% of the circuit the the distance they would have to look was significantly less than the distance that would allow spotting a bobbing head out on the ocean so should have had a very high probability of spotting an entire person on dry land. Only on the northern tip would the search distance be slightly greater, 1519 feet versus 1215 feet, than you would expect to spot a bobbing head among the waves so you would expect to be able to spot an entire person at this distance. "
And another prior post here (https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,517.msg6594.html#msg6594).
It is hard to conceive of any formation or search pattern that didn't bring one of the planes within a few hundred feet of every spot of dry land on Gardner. And they had time to make three complete circuits each.
gl
gl
This is just one scenario, of what I would think should be very many scenarios, that better answers the question about how the artifacts got to the seven site, than the Amelia Earhart as the castaway of the seven site theory does.
etc................
Gary, since you like to work with numbers so much, you might find this document, Compatibility of Land SAR Proceedures with Search Theory , interesting.
Especially note the conclusions on pdf pages 78, 79 (pgs 72, 73 of the document) which says in part, "In short, none of the POD estimation procedures found in the land SAR literature are compatible with search theory and none can be modified to make them compliant with search theory".
Gary, here we go again. First of all let me again point out that your experiment was accomplished over flat terrain with no overhead cover.What I saw is the same thing that Lambrecht would have seen if Earhart had been on the beach on Gardner so as to that scenario my data is certainly valid. I gathered some data, I do not claim that it is a complete study of search effectiveness. As to the people in the field, I stated: "The crops are a little more than waist high so the vegetation is nowhere as difficult as that on Gardner" so I never claimed that it did replicate the situation on Gardner with overhead cover.
I posted this before: (https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,646.msg14600.html#msg14600)
Second of all let me refer to your oft quoted "Land Probability of Detection Tables", on page 77 of the pdf copy of the National Search and Rescue Supplement, see below. Please note what it says in Para 5.5.1 "The following POD tables used by the CAP and Air Force assume a crash location is more difficult to see in heavy terrain, and the search object is relatively small, such as a light aircraft". I think this is quite clear that the POD's listed are for, at a minimum, a light aircraft and not people.
Third of all let me point out the clothing that AE and FN were wearing in most of the pictures made of them. AE is usually shown wearing either khaki or very dark trousers, either of which tends to blend in with most backgrounds, plus a plaid blouse which would show up very well most anywhere but would be a rather small target. FN is almost always shown wearing dark blue or black trousers and shirt which again would tend to blend in with most backgrounds.
http://earchives.lib.purdue.edu/u?/earhart,904 (http://earchives.lib.purdue.edu/u?/earhart,904)
And lastly, the SAR documents always talk about the condition of the crews as being critical to detection of crash sites. While it does not talk about the attitude or attentiveness of the other crews, check out what Lt(jg) William Short had to say about the search in his log/letter to his father about the search. Especially note his comments about the search in general in his July 5, 1937 entry and the specific comments about the Gardner Island search on July 9, 1937. He gives a good discription of the ship on the reef but apparently fails to even notice the Buka trees on the atoll.
http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Forum/Highlights21_40/highlights26.html (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Forum/Highlights21_40/highlights26.html)
I don't know how to do that, I just zoomed in or out until what I wanted to show fit in the frame.
Gary, I know you have very good eyes, but would you be so good as to give us an estimate of the apparent altitude in your photos when they are brought up on your post. I do not have Google Earth so I cannot zoom in on what you are showing.
This is just one scenario, of what I would think should be very many scenarios, that better answers the question about how the artifacts got to the seven site, than the Amelia Earhart as the castaway of the seven site theory does.Tom King made much out of the many clam shells found at the seven site because they had not been opened in the native fashion but in the standard American fashion so Eahart must have been a castaway opening those clam shells. I was born and raised in Chicago and I have no idea of how to open a clam shell, American or otherwise. Amelia was born and raised in Atchison Kansas, just down the street from Chicago, so why would anybody think she knew the standard American way to open a clam? But of all those Coasties, I'll bet that some were from New England so it is much more likely that it was the Coasties that had the traditional Down East Clam Bake at the seven site than Earhart.
All the artifacts that we have found at the seven site could easily have gotten there without the existence of a castaway.
occam’s razor ?
This may be a trivial question, but does Niku even have rocks? Or chunks of coral that would substitute for rocks?
I don't know how to do that, I just zoomed in or out until what I wanted to show fit in the frame.
Gary, I know you have very good eyes, but would you be so good as to give us an estimate of the apparent altitude in your photos when they are brought up on your post. I do not have Google Earth so I cannot zoom in on what you are showing.
gl
... so why would anybody think she knew the standard American way to open a clam? But of all those Coasties, I'll bet that some were from New England so it is much more likely that it was the Coasties that had the traditional Down East Clam Bake at the seven site than Earhart.
gl
Gary, here is, for your edification, a link to the latest version of the LAND SEARCH AND RESCUE ADDENDUM to the National Search and Rescue Supplement to the International Aeronautical and Maritime Search and Rescue Manual, Version 1.0, November 2011.Thanks for the link and I will read it with much expectation later today! The prior links you posted only took me to the 2001 version and claimed that that was still the current version and the other link went only to the 2005 CAP document. I have spent a lot of time with the maritime search provisions of the 1986 National SAR Manual that does use the "sweep width" method of figuring POD which does make sense. I am interested to see if in the 2011 manual it manages to apply that concept to inland searches as this deals with the problem, that I pointed out on many occasions, that the prior inland search guidance did not deal with the issue of the type of object being sought, a person, a plane, a car...( I wish you had posted this link yesterday so that I would not have had to read through that other 200 page document :P
http://www.uscg.mil/hq/cg5/cg534/nsarc/Land_SAR_Addendum/Published_Land%20SAR%20Addendum%20(1118111)%20-%20Bookmark.pdf (http://www.uscg.mil/hq/cg5/cg534/nsarc/Land_SAR_Addendum/Published_Land%20SAR%20Addendum%20(1118111)%20-%20Bookmark.pdf)
Since we have hotly debated on this thread and others the distances that searchers could see people on the ground, I decided to do a test. I went flying today in a Skycatcher and one of my projects for this flight was to see how far away I could see people on the ground. I have attached two Google Earth images of portions of the flight, the red line is the track of my plane which is recorded every five seconds by one of my GPS. (This was not the entire purpose of my flight and you can see the entire flight track by looking at the third attached GE image.) I had no preconceived idea of what I would find. The first image shows my flight offshore of Ventura California. I was flying towards the south at 1,000 feet and looking towards the beach to see if I could spot people on the beach. I planned to fly closer and closer until I could recognize people, note a prominent landmark near the people that I could spot on Google Earth, and push the button on my second GPS to record my location at the point where I detected the people and this worked out well. From my position offshore I could see people clearly on the section of the beach between the breakwaters. Then I downloaded the GPS data to my computer and used it to to locate my plane on GE and then measured the distance to the people I saw on the beach near the landmark. I was surprised that the distance was so great, 2.48 NM! Later I flew along a road and looked for workers in the fields nearby along with landmarks near them so that I would be able to accurately place them on GE. The second image shows that I could see field workers at a distance of 0.89 NM but it is also possible that if there had been workers farther away that I would have been able to see them at an even greater distance. The crops are a little more than waist high so the vegetation is nowhere as difficult as that on Gardner but it was an interesting test anyway since only the tops of the workers' torsos were visible and yet it was not difficult to see them at close to a nautical mile away.
gl
This is just one scenario, of what I would think should be very many scenarios, that better answers the question about how the artifacts got to the seven site, than the Amelia Earhart as the castaway of the seven site theory does.
All the artifacts that we have found at the seven site could easily have gotten there without the existence of a castaway.
occam’s razor ?
Tom King made much out of the many clam shells found at the seven site because they had not been opened in the native fashion but in the standard American fashion so Eahart must have been a castaway opening those clam shells. I was born and raised in Chicago and I have no idea of how to open a clam shell, American or otherwise. Amelia was born and raised in Atchison Kansas, just down the street from Chicago, so why would anybody think she knew the standard American way to open a clam? But of all those Coasties, I'll bet that some were from New England so it is much more likely that it was the Coasties that had the traditional Down East Clam Bake at the seven site than Earhart.
gl
This is just one scenario, of what I would think should be very many scenarios, that better answers the question about how the artifacts got to the seven site, than the Amelia Earhart as the castaway of the seven site theory does.
All the artifacts that we have found at the seven site could easily have gotten there without the existence of a castaway.
occam’s razor ?
GLP
cn't lay my hands on the exact reference as i'm between locations but I have recently read about AE digging for and eating oysters/clams the American way!!
Tom King made much out of the many clam shells found at the seven site because they had not been opened in the native fashion but in the standard American fashion so Eahart must have been a castaway opening those clam shells. I was born and raised in Chicago and I have no idea of how to open a clam shell, American or otherwise. Amelia was born and raised in Atchison Kansas, just down the street from Chicago, so why would anybody think she knew the standard American way to open a clam? But of all those Coasties, I'll bet that some were from New England so it is much more likely that it was the Coasties that had the traditional Down East Clam Bake at the seven site than Earhart.
gl
No wonder you weren't any more accurate. Look at all that turning you did. LOLYa, I was getting dizzy.
Sounds like you haven't completely lost your touch.
Gary, here is, for your edification, a link to the latest version of the LAND SEARCH AND RESCUE ADDENDUM to the National Search and Rescue Supplement to the International Aeronautical and Maritime Search and Rescue Manual, Version 1.0, November 2011.Thanks for the link and I will read it with much expectation later today! The prior links you posted only took me to the 2001 version and claimed that that was still the current version and the other link went only to the 2005 CAP document. I have spent a lot of time with the maritime search provisions of the 1986 National SAR Manual that does use the "sweep width" method of figuring POD which does make sense. I am interested to see if in the 2011 manual it manages to apply that concept to inland searches as this deals with the problem, that I pointed out on many occasions, that the prior inland search guidance did not deal with the issue of the type of object being sought, a person, a plane, a car...( I wish you had posted this link yesterday so that I would not have had to read through that other 200 page document :P
http://www.uscg.mil/hq/cg5/cg534/nsarc/Land_SAR_Addendum/Published_Land%20SAR%20Addendum%20(1118111)%20-%20Bookmark.pdf (http://www.uscg.mil/hq/cg5/cg534/nsarc/Land_SAR_Addendum/Published_Land%20SAR%20Addendum%20(1118111)%20-%20Bookmark.pdf)
gl
Gary, I too was a little disappointed with what was in the new manual since it does little, if anything, to settle our disagreements. HOWEVER I don't recall saying anything about the document having any new POD tables or about anything else contained therein. I only recall making it available to you.Right. If you dangle a worm on a hook in front of a fish, it's not you fault if the fish bites on it :D
Another purpose for the flight was to take some celestial observations. I chose the day so that the sun and moon would be properly placed to allow getting a fix, unfortunately I didn't allow for the sun being so high, 79°, and the cabin roof prevented getting any sun shots. I did take two observations of the moon, one each with the MA-2 and the A-7 bubble octants. I took ten shots with the A-7 and the average altitude was 17°54' which produced an intercept (error) of 5.7 NM away from my GPS position. I did a two minute average with the MA-2 and the altitude was 20° 00' which produced an intercept (error) of 6.4 NM away from the actual GPS at the time the observation was taken. (This is labeled as "toward" since it was toward the direction of the moon.)
I'm pretty happy with these results because keeping the plane in steady flight is critical for accuracy and I was flying solo without an autopilot so I had to put the plane on heading, level the wings, line up the moon in the octant for a few seconds, check to see if the wings were still level and straighten them up back on heading if necessary, observe the moon for a few more seconds, repeat... plus there is always the problem using the moon when it is not full since you have to estimate where the center of the moon should be and place that in the center of the octant's bubble.
So 6 NM accuracy with all those impediments which is within the expected 7 NM uncertainty of bubble octant observations taken in flight was quite satisfying.
See the attached plots. The red line is the track of the plane as recorded by my GPS
gl
Good video Gary. Being both pilot and navigator at the same time has to be tough. Reminds me of the old "one armed paper hanger" quote.Another link, this time to using a Pioneer octant, the same kind that Noonan had.
Was the Skycatcher domestic or Chinese?
Good video Gary. Being both pilot and navigator at the same time has to be tough. Reminds me of the old "one armed paper hanger" quote.Another link, this time to using a Pioneer octant, the same kind that Noonan had.
Was the Skycatcher domestic or Chinese?
gl
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEW2mzsygbs&feature=youtu.be
Um... I didn't know about any problems, should I be worried?Good video Gary. Being both pilot and navigator at the same time has to be tough. Reminds me of the old "one armed paper hanger" quote.Another link, this time to using a Pioneer octant, the same kind that Noonan had.
Was the Skycatcher domestic or Chinese?
gl
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEW2mzsygbs&feature=youtu.be
Doesn't show what you were doing nearly so well as the other.
You didn't answer my question about the Skycatcher. I was really curious about whether the Chinese had corrected their problems yet.
Has anyone ever looked at the distance covered and probable fuel expended on the July 9 search route?
Woody----The FAA 'might' relax things as far as sport pilots are concerned. Looking for a favorable announcement at Oshkosh.
Tom
Lambrecht reports that he searched "...M’Kean and Gardner Islands, Carondelet Reef and the intervening sea area." He also reports that "...repeated circling and zooming failed to elicit any answering wave from possible inhabitants and it was finally taken for granted that none were there."
Of course we do not know what he means by "repeated." Could it be as little as twice? The dictionary definition suggests three times, but "repeated" is a slippery word. "Finally" is also a slippery, subjective word - a sense of finality could arrive after quite a brief duration, if the searcher felt hurried or skeptical. And "zooming" is great if you are doing it in the right place. But if not, you are certainly wasting precious time, fuel and altitude that you could be using for a broader search. Would zooming really have been necessary? Is the ambient noise level on the island such that only zooming would alert a person? Otherwise, it sounds a lot like joyriding to me.
The pilots were certainly were under many kinds of pressure, like keeping 1,074 other sailors waiting while six men go searching on an apparent long shot (wild goose chase?) for a woman who got lost somewhere in the Pacific. I use the word "woman" consciously in lieu of aviator, as it would be no surprise if the sexism of the era affected the effort expended by the military.
Getting bored so went through a shed load of photigraphs and images on file. The one that struck me as being strange was the Lambrecht photograph from the 1937 over-flight. The lagoon looked different to all the other photgraphs I have seen of Niku/Gardner and the lagoon, it looked larger/fuller?
The Tatiman passage and Nutiran don't seem to have any of the beachfront that is seen from the blue arrows in the foreground despite there being beachfront at the said locations. It may be the quality of the image which is what I first thought but, the lagoon itself looks larger/fuller as if the surf was up and tide was in and, beachfronts gone.
IMHO of course
"...it would be a lot harder to be spotted by the aerial search, especially if the aviators are focused on the beach."
This may be very old news for many here, but may not be for some-
"...Utah resident one of the few still alive who participated in intensive search"
Published: Friday, Feb. 8 2008
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/695251117/The-hunt-for-Amelia-Earhart.html
According to Douglas Westfall, author of "The Hunt For Amelia Earhart"-
"...Airman Richard Beckham flew over Nikumaroro (Gardner) seven days later and said: "We altered course to Gardner Island ... we always went low over the islands at 100 feet ... we couldn't see anyone, and we always scanned the beaches."
http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/amelia-earhart-search-starts-woman-pilot-gone-missing-1937
Was Beckham ever interviewed by TIGHAR?
"...it would be a lot harder to be spotted by the aerial search, especially if the aviators are focused on the beach."
This may be very old news for many here, but may not be for some-
"...Utah resident one of the few still alive who participated in intensive search"
Published: Friday, Feb. 8 2008
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/695251117/The-hunt-for-Amelia-Earhart.html
According to Douglas Westfall, author of "The Hunt For Amelia Earhart"-
"...Airman Richard Beckham flew over Nikumaroro (Gardner) seven days later and said: "We altered course to Gardner Island ... we always went low over the islands at 100 feet ... we couldn't see anyone, and we always scanned the beaches."
http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/amelia-earhart-search-starts-woman-pilot-gone-missing-1937
Was Beckham ever interviewed by TIGHAR?
Mark,
It's not 'old news' to me - had not known of Beckham before this; maybe others have.
His is a fascinating account. As to the '100 foot' altitude - I wonder about that. We have information from the Lambrecht report that tells us they stayed at 400 feet or higher due to experience with bird 'traffic' among the islands. Maybe a zoom or two was conducted to something that low, or maybe that was Beckham's uninitiated judgment of altitude (his first flight was during the search).
It is interesting that he mentions the beach as a focal point; that lends some thought to what Andrew has noted about the beach area and ability to spot someone under the circumstances at Gardner at the time, as we understand them.
Thanks for this information - very interesting.
LTM -
I have often wondered why there wouldn't be a smoldering fire from night before, As they surely would have been out of rash ins by then. If not a fire that kept them warm through the night at least ?
But then maybe they were waiting for matches or lighter to dry out, or some wood too, To rub together
But, again, from what direction would a ship most likely come? Logic says north (toward Howard), but if they are in the NC vicinity, then that becomes problematic.
Sighted Gardner Island bearing 179.5o (True), distance about fifteen (15) miles. Sighted wrecked ship a little to right of island, bearing 180o (True).
AE: Damn! Where did those 3 noisy floatplanes come from Fred? I told you we should have been down there near that shipwreck! Did you see how interested they were in circling it and checking it out? Why didn't they see us up here? We were jumping up and down like crazy, and they never even noticed us. I never expected to see an airplane fly over. Where'd they come from? We've just been expecting a ship to come and find us all this time.
FN: That's it, Amelia! The Navy's looking for us! I saw the markings on them. They're U.S. Navy floatplanes. They have to have come from a ship, probably a big one, too. Let's see if we can spot it on the horizon. It can't be very far away.
AE: Let's run up to the corner of the island and as far up that slope as we can. What is that awful vegetation called, anyway? I sure wish we had a machete.
[a few minutes later]
AE: I don't see any ship. Those damned planes flew off towards the southeast. Why are we looking north?
FN (wheezing): It's the logical direction from where their ship would have come. I don't see anything either. But I'm sure they would have come from the North. We did, and they probably started looking from up there around Howland Island.
AE (angrily): I told you we needed a stack of driftwood to signal with. But no, you had to go and smoke all those cigarettes and use up all your lighter fluid.
FN: I'm sure there's a ship out there that those planes will have to fly back to. Maybe if we keep looking northward, we'll have another chance to be spotted by them.
AE: We need a stack of wood. Remember that place down the shore a mile or so, the one with the taller trees? Let's run down there and start preparing a bonfire. Those planes may rendezvous with your Navy ship off towards the east instead. You can show me your Boy Scout skills. Just find a way to start a fire without your lighter.
[about 90 minutes later, closer to the southeast corner of Gardner Island]
AE: How's that fire-starting going, Fred? I'm keeping my eyes peeled looking for that ship of yours.
FN: I've almost got it. I'm glad I kept my sextant. That inverting eyepiece has come in handy. Keep looking -- do you see a ship yet?
AE: Damn! There they are again, in the distance, those 3 floatplanes! They're flying toward the northwest. See them out there?
FN: And look on the horizon, Amelia. I see the mast of their ship. Looks like a battleship. I told you!
AE: Good old Franklin and Eleanor! They've sent the Marines for us!
FN: They're mostly sailors, Amelia.
AE: Shut up and get that fire smoking, Fred! That cigarette dangling from your lips isn't going to be enough.
AE (beginning to jump up and down and shout): Hey! We're here! Send those planes back if you don't believe me! Don't they have binoculars on battleships, Fred?
FN (coughing loudly): Just keep jumping. They're sailors, and can spot a shapely female even at this distance.
AE: I wish I'd packed a dress instead of all these manly shirts. Let me powder my nose. Do you think this mirror in my compact might help to get their attention? Say, you oughta stop smoking, Fred. It's going to kill you someday.
FN (quietly, to himself): Yeah, if I live that long.
First, very amusing, :DBut, again, from what direction would a ship most likely come? Logic says north (toward Howard), but if they are in the NC vicinity, then that becomes problematic.
Not problematic, but probably advantageous! The wreck of Norwich City was like a beacon to approaching ships. Your logic is correct concerning the approach -- from the deck log of USS Colorado, which was proceeding down from Howland, at 0945 hours (nearly 3 hours after launching the three floatplanes that overflew Gardner Island):Quote from: Decklog USS ColoradoSighted Gardner Island bearing 179.5o (True), distance about fifteen (15) miles. Sighted wrecked ship a little to right of island, bearing 180o (True).
I've been reading a lot of this speculation for some time and I agree that it is easy to think of things that a castaway should have done to make sure a search plane (if they could have guessed there were planes) or a searching ship would have known they were present. However, it seems to be that these speculations are founded on an assumption about the possible castaways that is itself a speculation.Many others, in exactly the same circumstances, have managed to overcome all the speculative problems that you have painted and have left marks of their presence. And you left out that they managed to make many trips out to the plane, start the engine, and send radio messages for several days which is a cornerstone of the TIGHAR theory which, if true, shows that they had their wits about them and is evidence that contradicts your dismal picture.
Specifically, what should we assume about the physical, emotional and mental state of a castaway in AE's situation (if, in our theory, we assume she was present). The Niku theory assumes that after an exhausting, lengthy flight in an extremely noisy cabin at high altitude, AE and FN went through the incredibly scary emotional ordeal of being lost in the middle of the Pacific as fuel ran low. They then (according to this theory) made a "hail Mary" effort to find an Island and happened on Gardner. They may, or may not, have known what that island was (it didn't match the outline in the charts - if they had them.)
They attempted (according to our theory) an incredibly dangerous landing on a reef at low tide. We have no way to know how that landing went. Was it an incredibly rough landing (balloon tires on sharp coral?) Were they injured? Was FN still functioning after the landing?
Then our theory assumes that they made at least one and most likely multiple trips between the lagoon and the reef. We know that the surf - especially on the outside of the reef - was extremely difficult. The trained and well equipped boat crews that rescued the Norwich City survivors had a very difficult time getting ashore and speculated, at one point, that it would be impossible to do so. Some of the Norwich crew died getting ashore (in a storm) but all accounts mention a great number of sharks. Admittedly conditions inside the reef should be far better but seriously folks, we are not talking about Mike Phelps here. We are talking about exhausted, possibly injured, people swimming to and from a wreck that is partially submerged at high tide in an area frequented by sharks.
Now add what their experiences much have been ashore (again, assuming the theory is correct). No or very little available water (one of the other parties that explored the island resorted to drinking water that had been puddled in a guano deposit). Resting - at night or during the day - must have been hellishly difficult because of the predatory crabs. If FN was still functional then perhaps they could have taken turns but even that would have been difficult for exhausted, possibly injured, people. They could try to start a fire to protect against crabs but that, in itself, might not be easy for exhausted, possibly injured, people.
So put that all together and what kind of speculative assumptions should you make? A physically, emotionally and mentally fit AE would have likely left some visible signal. Would an exhausted, emotionally wrung out, possibly injured and potentially panicked AE have done so? Could she even have fallen asleep in the shade of a tree following an unsuccessful search for water?
I think the answer is we don't know. Depending on the assumptions you make, the lack of a signal is very strange or perfectly understandable. Either way, I don't think you can treat the ABSENCE of a signal as proof against the hypothesis. It is simply one more factor to be weighed in the balance with ointment jars, lost skeletal remains and sextant boxes.
Anyway, my two cents. Now I am off to set my DVR to record Sunday night's show.
It does seem strange to me, however, that none of the early post-loss radio signals (other than Betty's) that were reported didn't mention the NC (or we're here near this big shipwreck) in some manner
This is incorrect, each of the bearings were taken on different occasions so you cannot say that they "cross" near Gardner.It does seem strange to me, however, that none of the early post-loss radio signals (other than Betty's) that were reported didn't mention the NC (or we're here near this big shipwreck) in some manner
Welcome to the forum Charles
You may want to read this article about Dana Randolph (http://tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/2005Vol_21/onreef.pdf) who said he heard Amelia Earhart and "ship is on a reef" "south of equator"
About the same time Dana Randolph heard this mesage, Midway and Oahu Pan Am radio and direction finding stations got bearings on signals (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/ResearchPapers/Brandenburg/signalcatalog3.html) that cross near Gardner Island
This is incorrect eadh of the bearings were taken on different occasions so you cannot say that they "cross" near Gardner.It does seem strange to me, however, that none of the early post-loss radio signals (other than Betty's) that were reported didn't mention the NC (or we're here near this big shipwreck) in some manner
Welcome to the forum Charles
You may want to read this article about Dana Randolph (http://tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/2005Vol_21/onreef.pdf) who said he heard Amelia Earhart and "ship is on a reef" "south of equator"
About the same time Dana Randolph heard this mesage, Midway and Oahu Pan Am radio and direction finding stations got bearings on signals (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/ResearchPapers/Brandenburg/signalcatalog3.html) that cross near Gardner Island
gl
Were Frederick Hooven (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Hooven_Report/HoovenReport.html) able to jump into this thread he would tell us that Lt. Lambrecht's search didn't turn up AE and FN because they were no longer there.
Only one week after the emergency landing on Gardner - no plane, no "SOS" written on the beach, no fire, no signal mirror, no NOTHING. Hmmmm.
This is incorrect eadh of the bearings were taken on different occasions so you cannot say that they "cross" near Gardner.It does seem strange to me, however, that none of the early post-loss radio signals (other than Betty's) that were reported didn't mention the NC (or we're here near this big shipwreck) in some manner
Welcome to the forum Charles
You may want to read this article about Dana Randolph (http://tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/2005Vol_21/onreef.pdf) who said he heard Amelia Earhart and "ship is on a reef" "south of equator"
About the same time Dana Randolph heard this mesage, Midway and Oahu Pan Am radio and direction finding stations got bearings on signals (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/ResearchPapers/Brandenburg/signalcatalog3.html) that cross near Gardner Island
gl
Dave,
you say that they saw enough of Gardner to describe acuratly the state of Norwich City etc BUT when they did one circle of McKean Island they also apparently appart from stating 'adobe' for the construction of the buildings give a accurate description?
We dont of course. But I think they said Mckean was devoid of all vegetation. It probably wouldn't take more than one pass to see basically a sandbar and if castaways were standing or lying on a spit of sand.I don't think you meant to use the word "infamy". The most well known use of that word was on December 8, 1941, "Yesterday, December 7th 1941, a date which will live in infamy..." does that ring a bell.
I just trust these pilots were professionals, and really they had a lot to gain by finding them. There were reporters waiting for pictures, with dollars signs for the story, infamy as being "the" guys that finally found the famous missing Earhart. That might boost the career.
In short, I think they would have done their job well, and not half "butted" it. They wouldn't have missed anyone if they were alive. George putnam assured everyone Amelia had plenty of flares, in fact the first news from the Navy was that they had seen the flares and were headed that way. Now the flares turned out to be Meteors, but everyone said she had flares. So if they had flares they would have used them. Or built a fire on the beach, or laid out their rubber raft, or wrote a big SOS in the sand. So either they were dead or never there. I strongly doubt the navy missed two live humans and their wreckage a few days later.
Don't ask me that question, ask the captain of the Colorado. Read his reasoning in his report here (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Friedell%27s_Report.html). I'll give you a hint, you won't find any mention of radio bearings in his reasoning for searching the Phoenix Islands.
Gary, if the messages did not "cross" at Gardner, why was the navy searching the Phoenix Group? At first they were sure she was 200+ miles north, Noonans fellow captains thought he would have turned back, George Putnam was convinced until he died she was lost near the Gilberts...
But anyway back on topic of my question, Why was the Navy so quickly convinced she was in the Phoenix group and did a total about face from their orginal North of Howland search?
It was the radio signals correct?
So are you saying the Navy could not (or mistakenly) triangulated those signals, when in your opinion they could not be triangulated because the messages came at different times?
I only bring these things up when others claim that she landed, sent some radio messages and then just dropped dead.
And again, Gary chimes in with his ever-optimistic best case scenario to show us that because someone somewhere managed to do something despite great stress and contradictory factors, it shows that we should not factor these things in at all. It's amazing that anyone ever crashed a plane or died of starvation, us being a planet of superhuman, infallable MacGyvers impervious to stress and fatigue... :)
Just adding these ideas to the fire...
That's just my point, Gary...they wouldn't make a TV show about such situations if they didn't represent an incredible and unusual story -- a situation where people would otherwise be expected to have a bad outcome. It's right there in the title: "I shouldn't be alive." My problem with your analysis of nearly every situation is your dismissal of mitigating factors simply because someone, at some point, managed to overcome them...therefore it's as if they didn't exist.They are unusual stories in that few people face these situations, they are not unusual stories in that people commonly survive these situations. These are stories about just ordinary people thrust into very difficult situations and surviving. One of the shows was about a guy who survived 76 days, that's right, SEVENTY-SIX days in life raft, all by himself, drifted all the way across the Atlantic and made landfall in the Lesser Antilles. He was hungry and thirsty, he lost a lot of weight, but he was still alive. Earhart and Noonan were not just ordinary people. Noonan had survived having three ships torpedoed out from under him in WW1 so I doubt that he just sat in the corner and cried himself to death on Gardner. Don't come back with the Betty story that he was injured, very unlikely in a plane that ended up standing on its own legs, and the Betty story is like all the other alleged messages, none had a location, no mention of Gardner, no mention of the word "Phoenix" as in the phrase "we are on one of the Phoenix islands, come and pick us up," and from an alleged transmission that even Brandenberg, after applying lots of lotion and massaging his figures for many days, could only give it a one chance in one and a half million that Betty could have heard a transmission from Gardner. So there is no real reason to believe that Noonan was injured and unable to contribute to a joint effort at survival.
... so there is no reason that they would not still be alive when Lambrecht flew over and, in fact, they should still have been there when Maude arrived in October.
No, not assuming, I made reasoned arguments from the facts, both the specific facts about Earhart and Noonan and also the facts developed by the Air Force and the facts of human physiology.... so there is no reason that they would not still be alive when Lambrecht flew over and, in fact, they should still have been there when Maude arrived in October.
Assuming things again, Mr. LaPook? "Would not still" ... "should" ... Those are, I believe, guesses. Along with all of ours. Makes for fun speculation, but that's all that any of us can do, since none of us were there.
LTM, who remembers the old saying about assumptions,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 CER
No, not assuming, make reasoned arguments from the facts, both the specific facts about Earhart and also he facts developed by the Air Force and the facts of human physiology.
gl
I've already stated the facts that support my position that Betty did not hear Earhart and you are they guys that are making the unreasonable assumption that she did in spite of your own expert, Brandenberg, giving it an infinitesimally small probability and the fact that it contains no mention of Gardner or the word "Phoenix."
No, not assuming, make reasoned arguments from the facts, both the specific facts about Earhart and also he facts developed by the Air Force and the facts of human physiology.
gl
but you are assuming. because you pick and choose what you want to believe you make your own history. you reason that because you don't believe betty's signal that there were no injuries. You assume that they had something to boil water in, you assume that they knew you could dig a well (which took several experienced men a couple days to do btw).
How long would an injured person last with no food or water. we could go down this road for ages, it's been done countless times. both sides end up making "reasoned guesses" that have no basis in any fact.
Lambrecht flew over only SEVEN days after they disappeared.Quotethe official U.S. Air Force Survival manual that states that you can survive nine days, at least , with no, none, ZERO, nada, water
"O.K., Fred, I THINK at LEAST nine days have gone by now....whew, we can die now!"
According to this site, (http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2008/06/reported-deaths.html) the last time a person was killed by a meteorite was 1929.
Did they get hit by a meteorite? I don't know if anybody gets killed by one every year, I put that one in to illustrate the ridiculousness of your assumptions.
gl
According to this site, (http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2008/06/reported-deaths.html) the last time a person was killed by a meteorite was 1929.
Did they get hit by a meteorite? I don't know if anybody gets killed by one every year, I put that one in to illustrate the ridiculousness of your assumptions.
gl
gl
Am I the only one who finds the special pleading argument which is adopted to explain why, if Earhart and Noonan were on Nikumaroro, the Navy searchers didn't see them just a little too contrived.
I've already stated the facts that support my position that Betty did not hear Earhart and you are they guys that are making the unreasonable assumption that she did in spite of your own expert, Brandenberg, giving it an infinitesimally small probability and the fact that it contains no mention of Gardner or the word "Phoenix."
One of the main pillars of the TIGHAR theory is that the plane was standing upright which makes injury to the occupants highly unlikely especially when compared to the Hawaiian accident damage in which no one was injured, but you guys make the opposite, unreasonable, assumption all just to support your favorite theory.
As to making a still, they had seven thousand pounds of sheet aluminum to use and you are ignoring the storm that TIGHAR loves (to push the plane off the reef) and the rain water that could be captured. Since the radio messages stopped after only three days then the storm must have occurred then so they could capture water at that time, after only being thirsty for three days, and then have enough to last a long time after.
I already have posted facts that show it is impossible to starve to death in only seven days, read that again, it is IMPOSSIBLE to starve in seven days. I have posted the official U.S. Air Force Survival manual that states that you can survive nine days, at least , with no, none, ZERO, nada, water, in the DESERT and much longer in a more benign environment such as the seashore but you assume the exact opposite. But, in spite of the FACTS, you make the unreasonable assumption that Earhart and Noonan accomplished the impossible and managed to starve to death.
You also unreasonably assume that these two people managed to trip and fall and sustain life ending injuries in spite of them having successfully followed their mommies' advice for forty years to "watch where you are walking" and had managed to avoid such injuries for forty years.
Did they get eaten by sharks? Well there are about 5 people killed by sharks WORLDWIDE in a full year so you assume that these two people represented 40% of the worldwide yearly shark deaths, that looks a lot like an unreasonable assumption to me.
Did they get hit by a meteorite? I don't know if anybody gets killed by one every year, I put that one in to illustrate the ridiculousness of your assumptions.
gl
... Using only commonly available items I found in my kitchen ...
What were the 'signs of recent habitation', i.e. 'markers of some sort' that Lambrecht described? How would those things have appeared had someone not been there in that time?
For years tighar's stance was that they were not dead but lived some time after the navy search. They were missed. One quote I remember is that tighar feels that the couple would not have been on opposite ends of the island in a week.
So is the theory now that they were in fact dead?
Well, Marty, I take that as a compliment, thank you.... Using only commonly available items I found in my kitchen ...
Ah.
No one has expressed any doubts that AE and FN could have survived for more than seven days if they had thought to take you and your kitchen with them to Gardner. ;D
So what is tighars stance today on this matter of alive or missed?
john a delsingAll events at the seven site can much more easly be explained by reconizing the fact that there were 25 Anerican 'coasties' in this area for 3 years, there were many, many PISS people in this area for 20 years, and probably several unknowns. Would you explain one event, just one, that occurred at the seven site that you know that Anelia, and only Amelia, could have done. Does not Occums razer apply to also to TIGHAR ?
T1
Posts: 42
Minnesota Johnny D.
XRe: After the Landing
« Reply #325 on: June 19, 2012, 11:43:37 PM »QuoteModifyRemove
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I believe there are three major theories to why Lambrecht and crew did not see AE.
1). The Gary LaPook theory that AE and FN were never on Gardner island, that they crashed and sank some where else.
2). The TIGHAR theory that AE landed at Gardner, transmitted from Gardner, a storm, or high winds, or tidal actions, blew the plane off the beach or reef, AE ( and possibly FN ) were inland in thick ‘jungle like woods’ when Lambrecht flew over and could not get to an opening or beach in time to be spotted, or because of wind and wave sounds Lambrecht planes were not heard in time to get to an opening, or Lambrecht and crew were busy looking at other objects ( maybe recent habitations ) and just did not see them, or similar reasons. After the flight she or both migrated down to the seven site and survived for a few weeks, or possibly a few months.
3). My theory, John Delsing’s theory if you don’t mind. Yes, they certainly may have landed on Gardner, and transmitted from there, but if you believe this you might also want to believe that most of their transmits were real and truthful, and yes they were injured, just ask Betty or Mabel and after 5 days of 110 to 120 degree heat with injuries and little or no water or food and little or no survival training, they both were either dead or so near death that they could not answer the bell when Lambrecht flew over. ( I have no proof or manuals Martin, just my thoughts on how well they prepared for their radio communications, and how well they striped needed things from the plane for weight reasons ).
Please note; if you accept some, or all of my theory then you will have to also accept the fact, as hard a it will be for some, that AE never visited, let alone survived at the seven site ( She may have, in her last hours, staggered down the beach till she could go no farther, and crawled up under the shade of a large wren tree and died ). Not very romantic or the ending that most of us would like, but to me much more logical than spending weeks ( or months ) at the seven site hunting and fishing and building fires in different places but never building a monument of some type, or placing stones or coconuts saying “AE 7-2-37” or using her knife blade to crave in a tree a similar msg, or similar.
We have spent trips, much money, and much, much time digging and then analyzing objects from the seven site, and have found not one item that we can say came from AE. Hindsight is always 20/20 and I don’t want to criticize our past decisions, I am sure at the time the evidence looked good, but if we would have spent just a small portion of that search effort searching the ‘brush’ near where most of us think the plane landed and where “we know” they had to have camped for 5 days, I think our odds of finding something would have been far greater. But that will probably be a good reason to launch a new expedition.
if the Navy search aircraft could determine "signs of recent habitation"; if Earhart and Noonan were there, they'd have been seen also.
There is abundant evidence that somebody was there (probably a bunch of somebodies), but nothing conclusively proving that it was Earhart or Noonan.
Malcom's and Gary's special pleading that the Colorado pilots must have seen Earhart and Noonan if they were there dismisses the abundant evidence that they WERE there.
There is abundant evidence that somebody was there, but nothing conclusively proving that it was Earhart or Noonan.
Malcom's and Gary's special pleading that the Colorado pilots must have seen Earhart and Noonan if they were there dismisses the abundant evidence that they WERE there.
gl
if the Navy search aircraft could determine "signs of recent habitation"; if Earhart and Noonan were there, they'd have been seen also.
I agree with those who feel that's just too big a stretch in logic:
IF AE & FN were on Gardner, THEN they would have been seen? Nope, doesn't follow, IMO.
dp
QuoteIF AE & FN were on Gardner, THEN they would have been seen? Nope, doesn't follow, IMO.
dp
I think you are mis-stating Bill's logical proposition. To me it reads "IF the search was good enough to see the signs of habitation, THEN it was also good enough to find AE and FN if present." Of course we are all free to agree or disagree with either or both of those ways of reading what Bill said.
Well there is, U wouldn't be able to radio for help for a start, nor would u have the ability to refuel an take off again
the Aussie newspapers speak of castaways in the 1920's, wrecks, shelters, then a Huge ship wreck in "29 leaving temporary castaways and debris, then "possibly' Fred and AE in '37, the natives arriving in '38, for 25 years.100 people for 25 years on a 4 mile long reef with few areas of real "land", can accumulate some clutter. And top it off with a Coast guard station. Hello. This was quite a happening place in the early century. These are ones we KNOW ABOUT. Emphasis on that.
Occams Razor would say given all the facts, it is unlikely ANY of this land debris is from AE.
Bill
Remember that by the time AE and FN would have reached niku they would have been in the air at least 24 hours, if you assume they were awake several hours prior to take off they had been up 27 or so hours straight with increasing stress over the last few, it's hard to say with any definiteness that they would have been making really rational decisions at that point.
Althought [sic] the Aussie news stories are new to me . . .
TIGHAR's "stance" is that we have, so far, been unable to find a credible alternative identity for the castaway whose remains, campsite and artifacts were discovered at a location on the southeast end of the island in 1940. We believe the artifacts, faunals and features found at the Seven Site reliably establish that location as the place where the events of 1940 transpired. If Earhart died at the Seven Site, as the available evidence suggests, then she was certainly alive when the Colorado's planes flew over the island on July 9. To suggest otherwise is to say that in the two days since the last credible post-loss radio message was heard she traveled to the Seven Site, caught and ate numerous fish, birds and clams; worked out a way to collect and boil water for drinking; etc., etc., etc. and died.
.....
Malcom's and Gary's special pleading that the Colorado pilots must have seen Earhart and Noonan if they were there dismisses the abundant evidence that they WERE there.
I would love to debunk or at least counter with you Ric. Because there is a LOT new lately.
It's never been talked about on this site newspaper stories of multiple ship wrecks and buried people being found, and reported in the 20's. Of many potential castaways. That is Just one example. But a critical one.
Bill
Remember that by the time AE and FN would have reached niku they would have been in the air at least 24 hours, if you assume they were awake several hours prior to take off they had been up 27 or so hours straight with increasing stress over the last few, it's hard to say with any definiteness that they would have been making really rational decisions at that point.
Show us the "smoking gun" Ric.
Malcom's and Gary's special pleading that the Colorado pilots must have seen Earhart and Noonan if they were there dismisses the abundant evidence that they WERE there.
And, again, my opinion comes directly from SAR experience in the military. In fact, I suggest that it's more than an opinion. And I'll say it again with authority - after literally dozens of SARs, my experience dictates that if Earhart and Noonan were on Gardner Island during the USN aerial search(es), they would have been seen.
You come up with speculative problems that do not really exist in practice.
gl
Show us the "smoking gun" Ric.
gl
And, again, my opinion comes directly from SAR experience in the military. In fact, I suggest that it's more than an opinion. And I'll say it again with authority - after literally dozens of SARs, my experience dictates that if Earhart and Noonan were on Gardner Island during the USN aerial search(es), they would have been seen.
Bill, you're new around these parts. We have discussed the probability of Earhart being spotted by the Lambrecht search extensively before so, if you haven't looked at these older posts before, I suggest you go back and read them, and here are links to make it easy.
gl
if the Navy search aircraft could determine "signs of recent habitation"; if Earhart and Noonan were there, they'd have been seen also.
I agree with those who feel that's just too big a stretch in logic:
IF AE & FN were on Gardner, THEN they would have been seen? Nope, doesn't follow, IMO.
dp
I think you are mis-stating Bill's logical proposition. To me it reads "IF the search was good enough to see the signs of habitation, THEN it was also good enough to find AE and FN if present." Of course we are all free to agree or disagree with either or both of those ways of reading what Bill said.
Planning, AND determining when a search has reached a high enough level of probability of detection (POD) so that the search should be ended. (And I don't think it is appropriate to call such a manual "crap.") According to the tables in the National Search And Rescue Manual there was a very high probability of Earhart being spotted IF she was on Gardner in the brush when the search was made and a very, very high probability if she was in the open, on the beach or standing on the reef, so the tables support your position that they would have been spotted if they had been there. When the POD reaches a high level then the reasonable conclusion is reached that the object being sought is NOT in the area being searched so the search is ended there and possibly other areas are then searched. If the Lambrecht search were being conducted today, with all the additional knowledge of detection probabilities incorporated in this manual, the search would have been ended, just as it was in 1937, after the passes made by Lambrecht since by then the POD had reached such a high level that the conclusion was reached that Earhart and Noonan were not on Gardner. Although the probability can never be 100% it can get pretty close to that. Can we be 100% certain that they would have been spotted?, no (and I have never claimed that) but we can have a high level of confidence that had they been there that they would have been spotted.
Further to my recent posts regarding SAR, a sane, rational, opining human being (and let's make it two, okay?) having ditched on a reef, is aware that and hoping for rescue by sea, air or any means possible. They will make themselves available. They will not hide in the dense jungle.
Gary, you can publish all your computations, percentages, odds, statistics all you want. That crap is good for planning only. It's not even good for negotiating as you and Ric discovered. We're talking about real life. We're talking about disciplined Navy guys with a specific mission flying sorties to locate downed Americans - well known and admired Americans at that. These guys are not about to screw up, in fact, they want to look good. Earhart and Noonan will each owe the Navy Fliers a beer if discovered. And that has value - ifyouknowwhatimeanandithinkyoudo. :P :D
Bill
Remember that by the time AE and FN would have reached niku they would have been in the air at least 24 hours, if you assume they were awake several hours prior to take off they had been up 27 or so hours straight with increasing stress over the last few, it's hard to say with any definiteness that they would have been making really rational decisions at that point.
William of Occam said, "Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem"
To suggest that the array of evidence gathered by TIGHAR over 24 years of research .... Occam says we're right. (emphasis added)
You left out the additional speculation that the dog ate the homework.
TIGHAR has suggested various possibilities for the Lambrecht miss, all based on their own first hand investigation on the ground and their own experience: the planes probably could not be heard until they were right overhead; the scaveola was dense and it is possible that the duo could not make it to the beach in time, and further possible one or both was incapacitated; and further that actual visual sighting of the two of them from the air was more difficult than it looks. And, as I pointed out, the duo was likely probably expecting a sea and not air rescue.
TIGHAR has suggested various possibilities for the Lambrecht miss, all based on their own first hand investigation on the ground and their own experience: the planes probably could not be heard until they were right overhead; the scaveola was dense and it is possible that the duo could not make it to the beach in time, and further possible one or both was incapacitated; and further that actual visual sighting of the two of them from the air was more difficult than it looks. And, as I pointed out, the duo was likely probably expecting a sea and not air rescue.
All these explanations strike me as completely reasonable and plausible. Most of the criticisms of them have sprung from this kind of "best case" thinking...since something COULD have been done (assuming circumstances allowed it, which we do not know), that's what they WOULD have done, and since it WASN'T done, it didn't happen. That is not a logical argument. It's bunk.
It was only four minutes and twenty-three seconds from the time that the autopilot tripped off until Air France 447 hit the ocean, not much time for the crew to figure out what to do to solve their problems. In the TIGHAR scenario, Earhart had seven days, 165 hours, to get her stuff together, set up signals, plan on how to signal any rescuers that came into view, etc., prior to the Lambrecht overflight so I fail to see the relevance of your example.
Look no further than the Air France flight out of Africa that crashed a few years back because one of the pilots didn't bother to tell the others he was yanking on the joystick the whole time. No fatigue there, no line of communication errors, no nothin'. Inexperienced pilot and a protocol misunderstanding. In a perfect world, there are all kinds of ways it could have and should have been averted. But in the real world, the plane still crashed and everyone died.
The reason I believe that there would have been no injuries if Earhart had landed on the reef flat and ended up with the landing gear intact is because of the data gathered in a full scale experiment that tested the crashworthiness of an Electra model 10 aircraft. This test consisted of crashing an Electra in a manner to cause serious structural damage including ripping both main landing gears off the plane which also caused the plane to spin around about one hundred and eighty degrees. The plane passed the crashworthiness test because all three occupants were spared any injuries. This full scale test was conducted on March 20, 1937 in Hawaii.
No, not assuming, make reasoned arguments from the facts, both the specific facts about Earhart and also he facts developed by the Air Force and the facts of human physiology.
gl
but you are assuming. because you pick and choose what you want to believe you make your own history. you reason that because you don't believe betty's signal that there were no injuries. You assume that they had something to boil water in, you assume that they knew you could dig a well (which took several experienced men a couple days to do btw).
How long would an injured person last with no food or water. we could go down this road for ages, it's been done countless times. both sides end up making "reasoned guesses" that have no basis in any fact.
You point might be relevant to how they landed the plane and their choice of the reef flat or the lagoon but what relevance does it have to waving at search planes seven days later?
You come up with speculative problems that do not really exist in practice.
gl
Yes Gary people are sometimes capable of performing well even under very fatiguing conditions and pilots out of the need to survive are probably better at it than most of us. However there is evidence that AE and FN were not at their best as they closed in on Howland. FN should have been able to get them close enough to see Howland or the Itasca smoke signal ( or find it by flying a simple search pattern) by celestial navigational as you with considerable knowledge have argued here numerous times, but he simply didn't for reasons we can only speculate about. AE got away from the preflight planned radio frequencies usage that would have made communications better, also due to lack of preparation and knowledge ( also perhaps due to equipment issues) they failed to make proper use of their redundant navigational aid, the radio direction finder. I believe the radio operator on the Itasca said he thought that he heard stress or panic in AE last few transmissions. Therefore its not entirely speculative to say that AE and FN were not at the best on that flight, although I can't prove fatigue was the cause it likely would contribute. But, and I am speculating now, if she was panicked at time of her last transmission, and the Niku hypothesis is correct, then she would have been unlikely to be less panicked a couple of hours later when they reached gardner , low on fuel and more tired. Therefore coming back to the point I was making to Bill its pretty hard to say what kind of decision they would make at that point. Bill had stated that the only logical choice was to ditch in the lagoon and given his experience I can't argue with that beyond saying that some of the other people on this site with flying experience don't seem to feel that way. All I was saying was that nothing went right that day for them and to assert that they had to make a particular logical choice at the end of a 24+ hour series of problems, misjudgments and mistakes is projecting too great a certainty onto the situation.
this is a huge assumption. the Tighar theory also supposes a stuck landing gear leg. the plane needed one engine to run, how it ended up in that position is anyones guess. it could have landed 100% smooth, it could have stuck a leg and spun or even ripped one completely off. no one knows what shape the plane was in or if it was a smooth landing. would they have buckled in tight to avoid injury or would they have been unbuckled in case they were afraid they would be trapped in a sinking plane?? All assumptions.
As to making a still, they had seven thousand pounds of sheet aluminum to use and you are ignoring the storm that TIGHAR loves (to push the plane off the reef) and the rain water that could be captured. Since the radio messages stopped after only three days then the storm must have occurred then so they could capture water at that time, after only being thirsty for three days, and then have enough to last a long time after.
and what tools did they have to work it??
I already have posted facts that show it is impossible to starve to death in only seven days, read that again, it is IMPOSSIBLE to starve in seven days. I have posted the official U.S. Air Force Survival manual that states that you can survive nine days, at least , with no, none, ZERO, nada, water, in the DESERT and much longer in a more benign environment such as the seashore but you assume the exact opposite. But, in spite of the FACTS, you make the unreasonable assumption that Earhart and Noonan accomplished the impossible and managed to starve to death.
who said they had to starve or die of dehydration?? Who said they weren't already somewhat dehydrated from 20 hours in the air.
Who said they were even dead for that matter. the manual says you may live, but it does not say what condition you will be in. I've watched the survivor shows you like to quote as well and before you actually die of thirst your organs start shutting down and you are in agony. You aren't doing anything for several days before you succumb.
You also unreasonably assume that these two people managed to trip and fall and sustain life ending injuries in spite of them having successfully followed their mommies' advice for forty years to "watch where you are walking" and had managed to avoid such injuries for forty years.
I've assumed no such thing. neither of these people had ever been stuck on a desert island in the pacific. To say what they knew, didn't know or would have been able to do is pure assumption on YOUR part.
You point might be relevant to how they landed the plane and their choice of the reef flat or the lagoon but what relevance does it have to waving at search planes seven days later?
You come up with speculative problems that do not really exist in practice.
gl
Yes Gary people are sometimes capable of performing well even under very fatiguing conditions and pilots out of the need to survive are probably better at it than most of us. However there is evidence that AE and FN were not at their best as they closed in on Howland. FN should have been able to get them close enough to see Howland or the Itasca smoke signal ( or find it by flying a simple search pattern) by celestial navigational as you with considerable knowledge have argued here numerous times, but he simply didn't for reasons we can only speculate about. AE got away from the preflight planned radio frequencies usage that would have made communications better, also due to lack of preparation and knowledge ( also perhaps due to equipment issues) they failed to make proper use of their redundant navigational aid, the radio direction finder. I believe the radio operator on the Itasca said he thought that he heard stress or panic in AE last few transmissions. Therefore its not entirely speculative to say that AE and FN were not at the best on that flight, although I can't prove fatigue was the cause it likely would contribute. But, and I am speculating now, if she was panicked at time of her last transmission, and the Niku hypothesis is correct, then she would have been unlikely to be less panicked a couple of hours later when they reached gardner , low on fuel and more tired. Therefore coming back to the point I was making to Bill its pretty hard to say what kind of decision they would make at that point. Bill had stated that the only logical choice was to ditch in the lagoon and given his experience I can't argue with that beyond saying that some of the other people on this site with flying experience don't seem to feel that way. All I was saying was that nothing went right that day for them and to assert that they had to make a particular logical choice at the end of a 24+ hour series of problems, misjudgments and mistakes is projecting too great a certainty onto the situation.
gl
So you are assuming that Noonan, after having survived the Luke Field crash because he was wearing his seat belt said to himself as the the plane was lining up to land on an unknown surface, "that was exciting back in Hawaii but I want a bigger thrill this time so I am going to leave my seatbelt off." Yah, that sounds real likely. You claim the plane on Gardner might have broken a landing gear off and spun around as though this would explain injuries there that had not occurred during the Hawaiian crash. Hello, both main landing gears were ripped off in Hawaii and the plane spun around so your speculation does not in any way make the Gardner landing any worse that the Hawaiian crash.
The knife artifact found on Gardner and mentioned in the Luke Field Inventory, see this prior message. (https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,618.msg11339.html#msg11339) The skin of the Electra was 0.032 inch thick aluminum which is easily cut with a pocket knife. I have kicked lots of aluminum around at wreckage inspections and have cut off pieces with my swiss army knife for examination by my experts. If you don't believe me that you can cut this aluminum with a pocket knife then do this little experiment, go out to your refrigerator, take out a soda, drink it, and then cut the can open with your pocket knife. Pretty easy wasn't it? Off course the aluminum of the can is thinner than the aircraft skin, it is only 0.016 inches so you have to push a bit harder to cut the aircraft skin. If you think this experiment was not representative then pull off the pop top lever from the can and cut it with your pocket knife. It is tougher because it is 0.053 inches thick, much thicker than the Electra's skin but you will still be able to cut it with your pocket knife, see the photos I have attached.
Where do you get them being dehydrated before they even get to Gardner? Putnam said they carried water in the plane for emergency purposes so why do you speculate that they didn't carry even enough water for the length of the flight? I always carried two six packs of cokes for over ocean flights (and an empty plastic milk bottle too) and the other ferry pilots also carried lots of stuff to drink. But we don't have to take my experience since you can find videos of Earhart herself saying that she carried tomato juice (I always liked the way she pronounced it "ta-mah-to" not the usual midwestern "ta-may-toe.") So we basically have it from the horse's mouth that she carried liquids when she flew so you are, again, wildly speculating contrary to the known facts.
More speculation, Putnam said she carried water and she could make a still, capture rain from the storm, etc.
I guess you have never spent any time on south pacific islands so maybe you are basing your assumptions on the King Kong movie, it's not really like that. Gardner island is no more life threatening than the beach at the Club Med on Moorea or Bora Bora and I've seen many people survive a week there with no injuries. They don't give you any special class when you arrive, "HOW TO AVOID INJURY ON THIS ISLAND" so you must just get by with what your mother taught you about being careful, just like Earhart and Noonan. You are just as likely to stub your toe on a coconut or cut your foot on some sharp coral at the Club Meds on Moorea and Bora Bora as at the Club Med on Gardner. One difference however, at the Club Meds Moorea and Bora Bora you exchange plastic beads for drinks while at the Club Med on Gardner you have to fix your own drinks. But we have even more direct evidence that staying on Gardner does not cause anyone to suffer life ending injuries. There was a full scale experiment done in which 24 men lived on the beach on Gardner (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/ResearchPapers/WreckNorwichCity.html) without shelter for five days in 1929 and none of the men who made it to shore died and we are talking about at the exact same spot as figures in the TIGHAR theory.
gl
I'm continually amazed by the depth of wisdom and certainty about what could and couldn't and did and didn't happen expressed by people who have no personal experience with the island and who constantly fault TIGHAR for expressing certainty that we never expressed.
Actually Matt, I never stated the Earhart "had" to land in the lagoon. In fact I know that she did not simply because the airplane was never there.
It was my observation that a good pilot, myself included, would have landed gear up in the lagoon. Reason: the chances of survival (first) then rescue are far, far superior than landing on the reef.
As far as Conroy's claim that Earhart would have wanted to retain the ability to fly the airplane out - just doesn't make sense. That's saying 1.) Earhart is more concerned about her airplane than survival and rescue; 2.) Noonan is more concerned about saving Earhart's airplane than survival and rescue; 3.) Earhart and Noonan, both, are willing to wait with the airplane until avgas arrives - and are convinced that the necessary equipment exists on the island to fill the tanks and get the airplane running again. 4.) Neither Earhart or Noonan have any concept that oceans have tides. 5.) And last - that both Earhart and Noonan know where they are and are capable of taking off and flying to a known airfield. Um.. they're lost - remember?
Actually Matt, I never stated the Earhart "had" to land in the lagoon. In fact I know that she did not simply because the airplane was never there.
It was my observation that a good pilot, myself included, would have landed gear up in the lagoon. Reason: the chances of survival (first) then rescue are far, far superior than landing on the reef.
As far as Conroy's claim that Earhart would have wanted to retain the ability to fly the airplane out - just doesn't make sense. That's saying 1.) Earhart is more concerned about her airplane than survival and rescue; 2.) Noonan is more concerned about saving Earhart's airplane than survival and rescue; 3.) Earhart and Noonan, both, are willing to wait with the airplane until avgas arrives - and are convinced that the necessary equipment exists on the island to fill the tanks and get the airplane running again. 4.) Neither Earhart or Noonan have any concept that oceans have tides. 5.) And last - that both Earhart and Noonan know where they are and are capable of taking off and flying to a known airfield. Um.. they're lost - remember?
My apologies Bill, now that I look back I see that I did overstate how definite your assertion was.
In answer to your points 1 and 2 we know that Earhart took off from Lae without knowing how to work her rdf equipment properly and having failed in a test of it the day before , therefore the need to complete her trip was a priority over reasonable safety concerns for her. As I understand the relationship, FN was an employee of AE and other than wrestling the controls from her hands he would have to go along with her decisions.
If the tide was low enough there arrival to see the clear, smooth "landing strip" region on the reef I don't really see the advantage of landing in the lagoon in terms of safety but as a pilot you have more expertise that I do about the likelihood of surviving a water ditching versus landing on untested wet ground. However beyond the point of saving the electra ( which as you point out would have involved some magical thinking by AE about the speed of her rescue to avoid the tides) I have been assured on other threads here that putting the Electra down into salt water either in the lagoon or ocean would almost immediately and permanently disable the radio equipment and end any chance to send further SOS messages, which would be a fairly potent influence.
I must agree with what Gary LaPook has posted about likelihood of surviving on Gardner Island and that they 'should' have been greeting the Bevington Party when they showed up in October. I also agree with what he has posted about why they 'should' have found Howland Island and could add more 'evidence' about why they 'should' have had success with their RDF to point to the Itasca.Well there is, U wouldn't be able to radio for help for a start, nor would u have the ability to refuel an take off again
Richie - you don't think about that. You concentrate on: First - survival and Second - rescue. And - you don't care if your airplane can get you out of there once down.
Anyway,
Here's what Lambrecht said: "Here, signs of recent habitation were clearly visible but repeated circling and zooming failed to elicit any answering wave from possible inhabitants and it was finally taken for granted that none were there." -This means that they circled and "buzzed" the area several times without seeing anyone after giving them plenty of opportunity to make themselves available for rescue. Those biplanes were not hi-speed jets. They were very, very slow circling at 400 feet altitude and buzzing the island with spotters. If Earhart had been there, they would have been seen.
Or else they didn't want to be rescued. Does that make sense?
"...they were abducted by the Japanese, some time before the 9th of July when the Colorado search planes arrived. Their plane was then either hoisted aboard or dumped into the ocean."This is all about what makes it such a mystery and I am not willing to accept Colorado not finding them as 'Proof Positive" that they could not possibly have landed on Gardner Island.
QuoteIF AE & FN were on Gardner, THEN they would have been seen? Nope, doesn't follow, IMO.
dp
I think you are mis-stating Bill's logical proposition. To me it reads "IF the search was good enough to see the signs of habitation, THEN it was also good enough to find AE and FN if present." Of course we are all free to agree or disagree with either or both of those ways of reading what Bill said.
Yupper and thank you.
And, again, my opinion comes directly from SAR experience in the military. In fact, I suggest that it's more than an opinion. And I'll say it again with authority - after literally dozens of SARs, my experience dictates that if Earhart and Noonan were on Gardner Island during the USN aerial search(es), they would have been seen.
I'll also say again as an experienced pilot, if I had been the pilot of that Electra; and If I had to ditch under the same circumstances as described here; that airplane, my navigator and I definitely would have come down, gear up, in the lagoon. No question about it. There is not another logical scenario that would provide a better chance of both survival and rescue. No brainer.
Thank you again, Alan.
Well, then, where was Manning sitting during the Hawaiian ground loop? There were only two seats up front so at least one person was sitting in back and that one person also escaped injury. There were only two people in the plane after Hawaii so what makes you think that Noonan (a pilot) would not be sitting up front (we all like the front seat, the view is better) for each takeoff and landing? And is there anything that would have prevented Noonan from moving up front for the Gardner landing?
Of COURSE I'm assuming. 99.9% of this forum is. But we all take our little bits of experience and knowledge and try to apply it to what would have happened. In this case there is grounds for seatbelt removal. prior to 1960 the biggest argument against safety belts was that you could become trapped in the event of a crash. It is very likely that they would think "if I might end up in the water I want to be able to get out quickly"
Noonan was in the co pilots seat during the hawaii crash. a fully loaded ground loop on takeoff would be a completely different result than a completely empty gear snag on landing. since you like making "kitchen analogies" see how much easier it is to spin a two liter soda bottle when it is empty vs when it is full. now picture you are in the back the plane when it spins. Do we know what kind of seat noonan had?? is it reasonable to assume he could have hit something during the landing even if he was belted in?
The knife artifact found on Gardner and mentioned in the Luke Field Inventory, see this prior message. (https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,618.msg11339.html#msg11339) The skin of the Electra was 0.032 inch thick aluminum which is easily cut with a pocket knife. I have kicked lots of aluminum around at wreckage inspections and have cut off pieces with my swiss army knife for examination by my experts. If you don't believe me that you can cut this aluminum with a pocket knife then do this little experiment, go out to your refrigerator, take out a soda, drink it, and then cut the can open with your pocket knife. Pretty easy wasn't it? Off course the aluminum of the can is thinner than the aircraft skin, it is only 0.016 inches so you have to push a bit harder to cut the aircraft skin. If you think this experiment was not representative then pull off the pop top lever from the can and cut it with your pocket knife. It is tougher because it is 0.053 inches thick, much thicker than the Electra's skin but you will still be able to cut it with your pocket knife, see the photos I have attached.
you are comparing a soda can which is made of 3XXX series non heat treatable aluminum (chosen for exceptional corrosion resistance) with the skin of an aircraft which in this case is made of alu clad (the pre curser to what is today called 2024 which is strong but highly corrosive hence it is clad with pure aluminum) which is heat treatable. you cannot compare the two. heat treated 2024 cannot be worked unless it is re-heated to 0 temper. generally this is done with an acetylene torch. You set up a sooty flame on your torch and cover the object you want to be able to work with the black soot, then you heat the aluminum up until the soot burns off. the soot just so happens to burn off at the correct temp for the aluminum to lose it's temper.
Where do you get them being dehydrated before they even get to Gardner? Putnam said they carried water in the plane for emergency purposes so why do you speculate that they didn't carry even enough water for the length of the flight? I always carried two six packs of cokes for over ocean flights (and an empty plastic milk bottle too) and the other ferry pilots also carried lots of stuff to drink. But we don't have to take my experience since you can find videos of Earhart herself saying that she carried tomato juice (I always liked the way she pronounced it "ta-mah-to" not the usual midwestern "ta-may-toe.") So we basically have it from the horse's mouth that she carried liquids when she flew so you are, again, wildly speculating contrary to the known facts.
Because, at her 10k foot cruising altitude it is much cooler than sea level. it is a well known fact that the danger of becoming dehydrated increases with the cold because the air is dryer so you lose more fluid through breathing. You do not feel as thirsty in the cold weather so you tend not to replenish it. add to that the increase in breath rate for the altitude and it compounds the problem. You do not even realize you are becoming dehydrated, and why would she worry about it when she was going to be landing and could drink all she wanted without worrying about having to pee mid flight. (like I said, I've watched those survivor shows too)
More speculation, Putnam said she carried water and she could make a still, capture rain from the storm, etc.
more speculation on your part. Putnam was thousands of miles away with no real idea of what she kept or discarded during the flight. if there was water, if she had tools, if she didn't just say "I'm famous they will pick me up within a couple days so I won't do anything"
I guess you have never spent any time on south pacific islands so maybe you are basing your assumptions on the King Kong movie, it's not really like that. Gardner island is no more life threatening than the beach at the Club Med on Moorea or Bora Bora and I've seen many people survive a week there with no injuries. They don't give you any special class when you arrive, "HOW TO AVOID INJURY ON THIS ISLAND" so you must just get by with what your mother taught you about being careful, just like Earhart and Noonan. You are just as likely to stub your toe on a coconut or cut your foot on some sharp coral at the Club Meds on Moorea and Bora Bora as at the Club Med on Gardner. One difference however, at the Club Meds Moorea and Bora Bora you exchange plastic beads for drinks while at the Club Med on Gardner you have to fix your own drinks. But we have even more direct evidence that staying on Gardner does not cause anyone to suffer life ending injuries. There was a full scale experiment done in which 24 men lived on the beach on Gardner (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/ResearchPapers/WreckNorwichCity.html) without shelter for five days in 1929 and none of the men who made it to shore died and we are talking about at the exact same spot as figures in the TIGHAR theory.
gl
this is where I find your arguments get very confused. you say they are just hanging around like they are on vacation one minute, then the next you say they are spending all of their time digging wells, constructing stills or gathering food. None of those tasks are without risk. have you worked sheet metal without gloves? with primative tools? walked a reef face?? gotten an infection from a cut sustained in these conditions??
btw, the crew of the norwich city had food and water the entire time they waited for rescue. If I remember correctly they even had some sort of shelter. A tent of some sort. they had been in contact with a port after the crash and knew rescue was coming. that is a completely different scenario.
Although they did break their tailwheel off, there is no doubt that they could have taken off again if they had avgas before the tide swept it away.
It would not have lasted long, ...
Here is a news story of the event
http://epress.anu.edu.au/apem/boats/mobile_devices/ch04s03.html (http://epress.anu.edu.au/apem/boats/mobile_devices/ch04s03.html)
Whoa! Nice work! An aircraft of similar size and configuration to the Electra (despite being butt-ugly) lands successfully on a reef worse than Gardner's, loses the tail wheel, and gets washed off the reef and lost? This needs further investigation.I had just been skimming through a general Google Search of [landing on a reef] trying to find that quote I had seen on the old forum about Gatty's statement and it was about #220 out of 11,000,000.
I wish we could install a buzzer that went off every time somebody wrote "would have" or "would not have."
Those phrases are guesses masquerading as fact. They are perhaps the biggest trap in historical investigation, second only to accepting uncorroborated anecdotal recollection as fact. How many times have we said that?
We buy them books and buy them books and all they do is eat the covers.
I'm continually amazed by the depth of wisdom and certainty about what could and couldn't and did and didn't happen expressed by people who have no personal experience with the island and who constantly fault TIGHAR for expressing certainty that we never expressed.
Art, I have not been able to get your "Outside Lomcovak Club" link to work.
Art, I have not been able to get your "Outside Lomcovak Club" link to work.I used to fly a Twin Bonanza, N270. I loved acknowledging vectors from ATC to head west, "right to two seven zero.... two seven zero."
Also, don't you go picking on my Twin Bonanza. I take that personally. :(
I'm continually amazed by the depth of wisdom and certainty about what could and couldn't and did and didn't happen expressed by people who have no personal experience with the island and who constantly fault TIGHAR for expressing certainty that we never expressed.
And which is why people like myself question the hypothesis using the evidence that has been submitted so far. It is an interesting conundrum - all the evidence either artifacts or less tangible sources like radio messages, islander recollections etc. all fall short of providing that much sought smoking gun, because they all have equally valid alternative explanations.
I think TIGHAR would be the first to admit that they do not yet have a "Smoking Gun", but they are still looking, despite all the nay-sayers who keep crying "quit".
BTW, what would be your equally valid alternative explanations for radio messages and islander recollections?
Malcom, I recall your thread on Betty's Notebook and I did respond to you there, I don't think that you even began to provide any sort of equally valid alternative explanations for post-loss radio messages. I did not look at your thread on Emily Sikuli at all. Please recognize that there is a difference between evidence and clues, Post-Loss Radio Messages would be evidence, but post 'bone-loss' measurement analysis would be a clue. It is the gathering and connecting of the clues that gives TIGHAR its value while they continue to search for evidence.
"...they all have equally valid alternative explanations....there is considerable doubt about the validity of Betty's Notebook and the other messages, then I see a circular argument which relies on two unproven hypotheses to create an equally unproven third. Multiplication of hypotheses is a bit like shouting at someone in an argument, it doesn't actually add veracity to one's point of view, it simply complicates the issue.and I do not agree with your opinion at all about Betty's Notebook or most of the other messages, but I would never 'shout' or argue with you.
Of six bearings taken by Pan American Airways Radio Direction Finding stations on Oahu, Midway, and Wake Island, the four strongest cross near Gardner Island. A seventh bearing taken by the Coast Guard also passes near Gardner.Put the Electra on Nikumaroro, TIGHAR is working on establishing where, the tide charts point to an area where the Tide would make a difference and the missing Electra indicates that the Tide was most likely to have consumed her, I just can't buy the "Japanese took them and the Electra away...".
Art, I have not been able to get your "Outside Lomcovak Club" link to work.
Also, don't you go picking on my Twin Bonanza. I take that personally. :(
Malcom,
If I thought you were a troll, you would never know it as I would just completely ignore you. It is not my place here to call anyone a troll, that is strictly for Moderators and Administrators to deal with and I would not even go as far as "reporting" my opinion on a poster to a Moderator.
Your posts that I have read recently on the "Debris Field Found?" topic are excellent and really show (to me) your expertise on the subject and I thank you for adding your knowledge.
My comment about "...solely debunking without adding knowledge..." was not an accusation of you and although I might have seen some of your posts in that light, that is not for me to say. Your post rate is some 60 times mine, so perhaps you like to write ;) and I should expect some 'noise' from your proliferation. You should accept the fact that I have replied to you several times in the past two months proves that I do not consider you to be a Troll at all.
You are certainly entitled to your opinion:Quote"...they all have equally valid alternative explanations....there is considerable doubt about the validity of Betty's Notebook and the other messages, then I see a circular argument which relies on two unproven hypotheses to create an equally unproven third. Multiplication of hypotheses is a bit like shouting at someone in an argument, it doesn't actually add veracity to one's point of view, it simply complicates the issue.and I do not agree with your opinion at all about Betty's Notebook or most of the other messages, but I would never 'shout' or argue with you.
In my opinion, the Professional, Dedicated Direction Finding Stations (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/AEdescr2.html)QuoteOf six bearings taken by Pan American Airways Radio Direction Finding stations on Oahu, Midway, and Wake Island, the four strongest cross near Gardner Island. A seventh bearing taken by the Coast Guard also passes near Gardner.Put the Electra on Nikumaroro, TIGHAR is working on establishing where, the tide charts point to an area where the Tide would make a difference and the missing Electra indicates that the Tide was most likely to have consumed her, I just can't buy the "Japanese took them and the Electra away...".
There is a lot of 'reef' around Nikumaroro and TIGHAR has been there to surmise the most likely portion of that reef's seamount to search and I wish them the best in that endeavor.
Art, you didn't respond to my post here. Did you miss it like I sometimes do? Bruce Thomas has "fixed" the first part, thanks again Bruce, but I did expect a response to the second part. ;D
By the way, I like your new avatar. Just wish we could see it better.
Archaeology is a field in which the practitioner is a slave to the vagaries of preservation, i.e. what someone in the dim past might have accidently left for us to find. Accordingly archaeologists tend to take a rather narrow view of what exactly we can deduce from artifacts - this is even more so in problems where there is no other information e.g. written sources, and the only source of information is an artifact. The artifact then becomes the focus of our thoughts and conclusions. If it is associated with something that can be clearly understood, or a clear association that enables us to tie it precisely to an event then that's wonderful. However most of the time not only don't they have these characteristics but even the event is a complete mystery - therefore we hypothesize a lot and speak with certainty on precious few occasions. That is why I will always err on the side of caution when interpreting any artifact - even if the possibilities look attractive, honesty compels one to say "yes that is possible but so are a number of other interpretations and accordingly we need more evidence to narrow those options". That isn't negativity that is simple caution and surrender to the prayer that is uttered by all human beings, whatever their beliefs, "oh please don't let me get egg on my face". :)
I 'll leave you to reread my comments about Betty's Notebook and also those of others. You are entitled to your interpretation but also I am entitled as are others to our doubts. The post-loss radio messages are also not so clear cut in their transmittal location as you would think so I can only respectfully suggest that you have another look at the map on which they are charted.
Regards
Malcolm
The evidence associated with Bearings 2, 3, and 7 strongly supports the TIGHAR hypothesis that Earhart landed at Gardner Island and transmitted radio signals from there. The evidence associated with Bearings 1, 4, and 6 moderately supports the hypothesis, and the evidence associated with bearings 5 and 8 is inconclusive.
In sum, the weight of available evidence strongly supports the TIGHAR hypothesis.
I will never believe that Betty fabricated or misrepresented her Notebook and do believe her testimony about the involvement with her Family and Neighbors in the event. This would disavow her getting that information from any "March of Time" or other sort of local broadcast.
BY FAR the greatest significance of the "Betty Notebook" to me is that it was not until after Betty appeared, that TIGHAR researched ANY Post-Loss Radio Report.
Hi Woody,
I had replied about seven posts back, but I had included it within a post to Malcom, so I understand why you did not see it. A false economy on my part to minimize posts...
I had no intent to pick on your Twin Bonanza (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L-23_Seminole).
As long as we are talking cabin class twins, the one I liked flying the most was the Aerostar.
I never flew the Aero Commander but did fly the Turbo Commander. I really loved that airplane. Best I ever flew, a real "pilots" airplane.
Keep on flying as long as you can. It really hurts when you have to quit. :P
It is an interesting conundrum - all the evidence either artifacts or less tangible sources like radio messages, islander recollections etc. all fall short of providing that much sought smoking gun, because they all have equally valid alternative explanations.
It is an interesting conundrum - all the evidence either artifacts or less tangible sources like radio messages, islander recollections etc. all fall short of providing that much sought smoking gun, because they all have equally valid alternative explanations.
They do? All I've seen are imaginative speculations about possible alternative explanations. We have, I think we can all agree, reliable documentation of a castaway's remains being found on Gardner Island in 1940. There are good reasons (the part of a woman's shoe and the doctor's bone measurements) to think the castaway was a woman. We have named a particular woman known to have gone missing in that area in the appropriate time frame. Your turn.
I would also like to hear your equally valid alternative explanation for the 57 post-loss radio signals we consider to be credible.
The skeleton is missing and was also incomplete at the time of its discovery. As an archaeologist I would not go out on a limb to assert quite so definitely that an incomplete skeleton once interpreted as a stocky male Islander (which then went missing and was unavailable for physical examination) was that of a tall thin woman of Northern European hereditary.
I would not then in order to further strengthen the limb to bear this gymnastic exercise then claim that the notes were by an examining physician whose ability is conveniently labelled as below par, because that raises the inconvenient question that if the physician and his notes are substandard then how can they then be used to assert that the skeleton is not a stocky Islander but a thin tall woman of Northern European heritage. If they are substandard for one conclusion than they are substandard for the other.
The part of a woman's shoe is just that nothing more, the question is - is it Earhart's shoe? That as far as I am aware has not been demonstrated. Perhaps in the rush to fit it into the overarching hypothesis other sources have been rejected, which is a danger with overarching hypotheses - they tend to bury the individuality of each piece of data rather than treat those pieces of data as artifacts which have their own identity and their own singular histories.
If you believe that these two items constitute the smoking gun for the presence of Earhart on Nikumaroro then why not just stop there? Write finis and claim victory. Or is it that I am not the only person who is not completely convinced.
As you have raised the subject of alternate explanations, do you have an answer for the questions regarding the other key piece of evidence the Bevington object. I asked in the thread regarding it ( https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,916.0.html ) these questions -
1. How was the size of the object calculated, and
2. Was similar analysis of the anomalies on the photo (the one on the top edge of the photo and the odd dots in the clouds) done to determine if these had similar characteristics to the anomaly that is located on the reef and was subsequently enlarged and with scale drawings of the Electra's undercarriage overlaid then claimed to be evidence of the u/c of Earhart's Electra.
You may well be right that it is the undercarriage of an Electra but it would certainly be sound practice to allay doubts by answering those questions.
???It is an interesting conundrum - all the evidence either artifacts or less tangible sources like radio messages, islander recollections etc. all fall short of providing that much sought smoking gun, because they all have equally valid alternative explanations.
They do? All I've seen are imaginative speculations about possible alternative explanations. We have, I think we can all agree, reliable documentation of a castaway's remains being found on Gardner Island in 1940. There are good reasons (the part of a woman's shoe and the doctor's bone measurements) to think the castaway was a woman. We have named a particular woman known to have gone missing in that area in the appropriate time frame. Your turn.
I would also like to hear your equally valid alternative explanation for the 57 post-loss radio signals we consider to be credible.
<...>
If you believe that these two items constitute the smoking gun for the presence of Earhart on Nikumaroro then why not just stop there? Write finis and claim victory. Or is it that I am not the only person who is not completely convinced.
<...>
In common usage in the 21st century, a hypothesis refers to a provisional idea whose merit requires evaluation. For proper evaluation, the framer of a hypothesis needs to define specifics in operational terms. A hypothesis requires more work by the researcher in order to either confirm or disprove it. In due course, a confirmed hypothesis may become part of a theory or occasionally may grow to become a theory itself.and some of your posts make me think of this:
In its ancient usage,...'hypothesis' refers to a clever idea ...Cardinal Bellarmine gave a famous example of this usage in the warning issued to Galileo in the early 17th century: that he must not treat the motion of the Earth as a reality, but merely as a hypothesis.
The post-loss radio messages are also not so clear cut in their transmittal location as you would think so I can only respectfully suggest that you have another look at the map on which they are charted.
I would also like to hear your [Mr.McKay's] equally valid alternative explanation for the 57 post-loss radio signals we consider to be credible.
the only other explanation is that AE had finally figured out to switch to the loop antenna and leave the frequency at 3105 or 6210 kcs. Do you concur?
(and technically speaking, could the loop ant. pick up voice at a distance of 400+ miles?).
The link posted by John five posts back "Search for Howland" contains a a good example of ridiculous.Hi Pilot Art. I'm (notpilot) John, the guy wanting to know about AE's perspective during her approach to Howland. It seemed to me that the Search for Howland (http://searchforamelia.org/final-flight) video replicated the conditions described in Finding Amelia, Chpt. 10: "She was down low, flying below the base of the clouds at one thousand fee" (per AE's 0742 transmission ...we are flying at 1000 feet) and that she had the rising sun in her eyes.
the only other explanation is that AE had finally figured out to switch to the loop antenna and leave the frequency at 3105 or 6210 kcs. Do you concur?
I concur. She may also have listened on the frequency for KGMB, the big commercial station in Honolulu.(and technically speaking, could the loop ant. pick up voice at a distance of 400+ miles?).
We haven't modeled that antenna so I can't answer your question except to say that the availabe evidence suggests that she could.
Could she have sent dashes with no morse key equipment?? I remember reading something recently about the tone generation equipment being removed from her radio??Kevin. I too remember that that equipment was not aboard. I also remember that in the post loss records it being mentioned that to send morse, AE and FN used the push to send button on the voice mic...I guess pulsing the button to sound like dashes and dots. Ric will inform us.
Five of the seven Bearings plotted cross closest to Gardner or McKean. The not plotted bearing of 213 degrees (1523Z to 1530Z July 4th) reported by Mokapu Point, Oahu also passes within 30 nmi southeast of Gardner Island, which makes it six of the eight.
Could she have sent dashes with no morse key equipment?? I remember reading something recently about the tone generation equipment being removed from her radio??Kevin. I too remember that that equipment was not aboard.
I also remember that in the post loss records it being mentioned that to send morse, AE and FN used the push to send button on the voice mic...I guess pulsing the button to sound like dashes and dots. Ric will inform us.
You left out that the signal continued for two hours! From Brandenberg's paper (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/ResearchPapers/Brandenburg/RDFResearch/RDFAnalysis/RDF5.html):
The solid black line from Midway labeled 175° doesn’t give you Midway’s assessment: proved to be some unidentified station probably in South America or Russia and was later definitely discarded as a possibility [of being KHAQQ].
Chuck
AE and FN used the push to send button on the voice mic...I guess pulsing the button to sound like dashes and dots. Ric will inform us.
The link posted by John five posts back "Search for Howland" contains a a good example of ridiculous.Hi Pilot Art. I'm (notpilot) John, the guy wanting to know about AE's perspective during her approach to Howland. It seemed to me that the Search for Howland (http://searchforamelia.org/final-flight) video replicated the conditions described in Finding Amelia, Chpt. 10: "She was down low, flying below the base of the clouds at one thousand fee" (per AE's 0742 transmission ...we are flying at 1000 feet) and that she had the rising sun in her eyes.
Clearly, the video struck you as "ridiculous," which I read as it being off track relative to capturing AE's perspective. Would you please explain so I can 86 that puppy from my files! All Best, John #3245
So what is your explanation, Ric? And it has to explain all 57.l
Five of the seven Bearings plotted cross closest to Gardner or McKean. The not plotted bearing of 213 degrees (1523Z to 1530Z July 4th) reported by Mokapu Point, Oahu also passes within 30 nmi southeast of Gardner Island, which makes it six of the eight.
Art,
I think you’ll find that your “not plotted bearing” is indeed plotted; it’s just time-tagged 1515Z rather than 1523Z-1530Z.
The bearing that is actually not plotted, bearing 8, may provide an indication of how good some of the others were. This bearing was taken by Mokapu on 6 July at approximately 0947Z. It resulted from a scheduled attempt to take a bearing on Itasca, a target at a knowable location on a known frequency, 3105 kHz. The bearing obtained (197°) was 35° from Itasca’s true bearing (232°) at the time.
A problem with bearings plotted on a map is that they give the illusion of certainty where there may have been none. For example, referring to the subject map: (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/ResearchPapers/Brandenburg/RDFResearch/RDFAnalysis/Bearingmaplarge.gif)
The solid black line from Oahu labeled 213° doesn’t tell you: rough bearing only, weak and swinging signal, frequency not accurately determined.
The solid black line from Oahu labeled 215° doesn’t tell you: close to 3105 but so weak couldn’t get a fair check; very doubtful bearing.
The solid black line from Midway labeled 175° doesn’t give you Midway’s assessment: proved to be some unidentified station probably in South America or Russia and was later definitely discarded as a possibility [of being KHAQQ].
The solid black line from Howland labeled NNW/SSE doesn’t tell you: weak carrier, no call given, bearing only approximate, frequency slightly above 3105.
The solid black line from Wake labeled 144° doesn’t tell you: very unsteady voice modulated carrier [or that the signal was unreadable, that no callsign was heard, but the operator was nevertheless positive it was KHAQQ.]
Chuck
Your arguments have to stand on their own whether or not you have training as an archaeologist. I have never asserted that the castaway was definitely a woman but there is, as I said, good reason to think she was.I would not then in order to further strengthen the limb to bear this gymnastic exercise then claim that the notes were by an examining physician whose ability is conveniently labelled as below par, because that raises the inconvenient question that if the physician and his notes are substandard then how can they then be used to assert that the skeleton is not a stocky Islander but a thin tall woman of Northern European heritage. If they are substandard for one conclusion than they are substandard for the other.
Distortions and and insulting language don't strengthen your case any more than waving your archaeological credentials. Nobody is claiming that Hoodless' analysis of the bones was "substandard." It was 1941 and he was doing the best he could with the tools and training he had. There's no reason to doubt the accuracy of his measurements but today we have much better tools for interpreting them.
The part of a woman's shoe is just that nothing more, the question is - is it Earhart's shoe? That as far as I am aware has not been demonstrated. Perhaps in the rush to fit it into the overarching hypothesis other sources have been rejected, which is a danger with overarching hypotheses - they tend to bury the individuality of each piece of data rather than treat those pieces of data as artifacts which have their own identity and their own singular histories.
On the contrary. Gallagher's confident identification of part of the sole of a woman's "stout walking shoe or sandal" raises questions that we've addressed in detail.
Why was Gallagher so sure it was woman's shoe?
What was there about the part of a sole that told him it was from a stout walking shoe or sandal?
I cannot demonstrate that it was Earhart's shoe but I can tell you how Gallagher could have drawn those conclusions from a shoe I can prove she had with her on her world flight. You can call that a gymnastic exercise if you like. I call it detective work.If you believe that these two items constitute the smoking gun for the presence of Earhart on Nikumaroro then why not just stop there? Write finis and claim victory. Or is it that I am not the only person who is not completely convinced.
When did I say either of these things constitute a smoking gun? They're clues - strong indications that we're on the right track. Do you want us to just stop? Is that what you're on about?
The people you need to convince are people like myself who have expertise (however modest) in those disciplines in which aspects of the investigation are carried out - not people who don't and therefore may not understand the complexities underlying the claims made for or against the material evidence.
The people you need to convince are people like myself who have expertise (however modest) in those disciplines in which aspects of the investigation are carried out - not people who don't and therefore may not understand the complexities underlying the claims made for or against the material evidence.
For once I am speechless.
Amazing, ain't it, that we have all managed to get along without the Cambridge instrument, a device who's time came and went in the 30's. I have never seen one, have you? anybody else on the forum ever see one of these in real life? Using just the "lean til rough, then enrich til smooth" seems to work out ok. Even better, but not necessary, it the exhaust gas temperature gauge might give you more confidence in your leaning procedure but probably doesn't save you much fuel in real life.
John,
The story that accompanied the video made the statement about the 'supposed' loss of their Cambridge Fuel Analyzer and "That would mean an unavoidable, nearly 48% reduction in fuel reserves upon reaching Howland’s vicinity." "ridiculous poppycock"
This instrument is an aid in precisely setting mixture and its loss would just mean that you would need to adjust the fuel mixture for which ever engine that lost it manually. It is true that you can damage an engine by setting the mixture excessively lean at high (over 65% of maximum power) power settings, but at max range power settings, you can safely lean an engine to the point of roughness and then en-richen to the point of smoothness. and the loss of that instrument would not prevent you doing that. You also have other instruments, like Fuel Flow Rate (pressure) that aid in setting, after you have been flying that aircraft for a while, you get to know what Fuel Flows to expect. At high power settings, especially in a climb, you would need to keep it on the 'rich-side' for increased engine life. This would not reduce your fuel reserve at Howland by 4% never mind 48%....
The people you need to convince are people like myself who have expertise (however modest) in those disciplines in which aspects of the investigation are carried out - not people who don't and therefore may not understand the complexities underlying the claims made for or against the material evidence.
For once I am speechless.
Why - I would have thought that if the evidence is accepted by those who can actually evaluate the various aspects of the evidence with some informed knowledge then your task is much nearer to a happy conclusion, one which I for one hope you achieve. I am not being boastful, nor am I attempting to set up my rather modest abilities as the benchmark, which seems to be the implication of your reply, all I am saying is that if someone like myself who has some professional experience with human remains in an archaeological setting can see that a hypothesis has some merit and says so and why then that makes, albeit in small way, TIGHAR's task of convincing others hopefully a little easier.
That's an awesome armchair. And you're rockin' that guitar solo, too.
.......... And you're rockin' that guitar solo, too.
"despite three years of rigorous examination by the author, the Patterson film cannot be demonstrated to be a forgery at this time."
Bill
I looked up Glickman's "nasi" report at ( this is the abridged version)
http://www.bigfootencounters.com/biology/nasi.htm ( I'm rather embarrased to have that site on my browser history)
He goes through the difficulty of measuring the movements of the sasquatch ( or if you like the guy in the ape costume) because of the many unknowns and low quality of the film, in the discussion he says it if is a fake it is a very good one requiring considerable time knowledge and expense to create but the last line is very telling, "despite three years of rigorous examination by the author, the Patterson film cannot be demonstrated to be a forgery at this time." As far as I can tell (so far I have only found second hand references, if you have a link to Krantz's debunking please send it to me) Krantz objected to details of Glickman's analysis ( ie estimated body mass) and technical details that varied with his own cryptozoological findings. Personally I find Glickman's honest statement that evidence is not sufficient to reach a definite conclusion as reassuring of his integrity, no evidence of "forcing the analysis" at all
[
I would not then in order to further strengthen the limb to bear this gymnastic exercise then claim that the notes were by an examining physician whose ability is conveniently labelled as below par, because that raises the inconvenient question that if the physician and his notes are substandard then how can they then be used to assert that the skeleton is not a stocky Islander but a thin tall woman of Northern European heritage. If they are substandard for one conclusion than they are substandard for the other.
The Bevington photo was extremely poor quality to begin with, an object the size of a pinhead and just barely visible on the photo was interpreted to be an Electra undercarriage.
It certainly is possible, if not probable, that the analysis of the Bevington photo was forced to be an airplane part.
The Bevington photo was extremely poor quality to begin with, an object the size of a pinhead and just barely visible on the photo was interpreted to be an Electra undercarriage.
It certainly is possible, if not probable, that the analysis of the Bevington photo was forced to be an airplane part.
Bill, if you are going to critique an expert's interpretation of something then you should at least be accurate in what you quote them as saying. Jeff Glickman did not say that "Nessie", the object, was anything. What he said was the object "is consistent with Lockheed installation 40650, the main landing gear of a Lockheed Electra aircraft." The emphasis is mine and the analysts in the State Department agreed with his opinion, "verified his findings", as stated here (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/63_DebrisField/63_DebrisField.htm).
What you did was to question Jeff Glickman's qualifications and try to ascribe something very negative to him - essentially that he was a charlatan. You clearly implied, IMHO, that Glickman likely did a force-fit of his photo analysis to support TIGHAR's hypothesis (from your previous post):Quote........................ Glickman had erred in his analysis of Bigfoot - it's certainly possible that he forced his analysis of the Bevington Object to make it the under carriage of Earhart's Electra.
I do hope that you noticed that in addition to a link at the top to the source of that chart, that I had also provided a link below "This report discusses (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/ResearchPapers/Brandenburg/RDFResearch/DFpaper.htm) each of the eight Bearings" and that report with several pages on each bearing discusses all of the problems you have posted and more.
Over 50 pages in that report and I advise anyone with an interest to spend some time to read it. I see that Gary has a link to a different report and perhaps it is a simplified version of the same as it is only 10 pages.
Bill, interesting tale and another example of the problem with depending on witness statements to recreate an event.
......... In the end given the bluriness of the image the best that anyone can do with this is say something along the lines of what he said and then go there and see if that object is around that site.
However I'm not sure I agree with your interpretation of what Glickman did, he stated that he could not prove that the film was fake based on the way he analysed it, he did not say the film was genuine, to go back after the hoaxers had admitted their fraud and say whoops now I see it's a fraud would not add to his credibility.
I do hope that you noticed that in addition to a link at the top to the source of that chart, that I had also provided a link below "This report discusses (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/ResearchPapers/Brandenburg/RDFResearch/DFpaper.htm) each of the eight Bearings" and that report with several pages on each bearing discusses all of the problems you have posted and more.
Over 50 pages in that report and I advise anyone with an interest to spend some time to read it. I see that Gary has a link to a different report and perhaps it is a simplified version of the same as it is only 10 pages.
Art,
Yes, I did take note of your link.
If you go to the beginning of the RDF report version that Gary linked (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/ResearchPapers/Brandenburg/RDFResearch/RDFAnalysis/RDFpaper.htm) and compare the report in its entirety to the version that you linked (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/ResearchPapers/Brandenburg/RDFResearch/DFpaper.htm), you’ll find them to be effectively identical in length and content.
One point of my last post was that if one has source material at hand—whether it’s for lines drawn on a map or for assessing someone else’s conclusions—it’s a good idea to read the source material before drawing your own conclusions about meaning or content.
BTW, additional RDF-related material is accessible from these links:
DF site tables (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/ResearchPapers/Brandenburg/RDFResearch/RDFAnalysis/RDFAnalysis.htm)
Pan Am Memos (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/PanAmMemos/PanAm.html)
Chuck
Looking for an opinion from aviation folks. On the reef, is it feasible that the engine could have been run for 16 continuous hours (seems awfully long to me). If not, opinion, please, on the longest you think AE (or FN) would have run the engine...all for the purpose of operating the radio of course. Thanx, John #3245
See Lambrecht's letter (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Letters/LambrechtGoerner.pdf) in which he discusses the planning for the search, no mention of radio bearing as affecting that planning. Lambrecht said exactly wht Fiedell said about this planning so I don't understand your comment about sweeping the bearings under the rug.
Earlier in a response to Bill, I had posted about "Landing on a Reef" (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,253.msg18857.html#msg18857) to point out the possibility of the Electra existing on the Reef at Gardner Island for the Post-Loss Radio Messages to be transmitted from and draw the Colorado down to have a look. (Gary; (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,253.msg18348.html#msg18348) I know that Capt. Friedell did not ??? include that in his report, they swept all the PL Radio Messages under the rug.)
Gary,They might have come to that conclusion later but I was directing you to his comments about the planning the search when one hypothesis they were considering was that she was on one of the Phoenix islands which is why they searched them and that planning did not rely on any radio bearings, just as Freidell said, the 157 LOP and that they had to be on land to transmit and the Phoenix islands were the closest land.
Since they were of the opinion that the lost Electra had gone down into the sea, it would have been impossible in their view for any Post-Loss Radio messages to have come from the Electra.
I am not surprised that they did not mention any radio calls in their reports, perhaps it would be better to just say that the radio calls were ignored after their search had been completed.
See Lambrecht's letter (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Letters/LambrechtGoerner.pdf) in which he discusses the planning for the search, no mention of radio bearing as affecting that planning. Lambrecht said exactly wht Fiedell said about this planning so I don't understand your comment about sweeping the bearings under the rug.
gl
If you accept that the transmissions came from Earhart they you do know that there mental state allowed them to wade out to the plane, crank up the engine and use the radio transmitter and it is reasonable that someone who could do those things could also figure out a way to send location information by sending out dots and dashes. Since none were sent I believe their absence lends support to the theory that the messages did not come from Earhart. I think I have said this many times before.
It seems that the small amount of "poor" code that was copied, (by other than the Pan Am Stations) was mostly just gibberish and the only 'voice' that was copied did not reveal much about location either. There were anecdotal stories of receiving position information that was recorded and then lost long ago. [i]No one knows what their mental (or physical) condition was at that time.[/i]
I must admit I am puzzled as to why any one would claim that the Navy swept the post loss messages under the rug.
I must admit I am puzzled as to why any one would claim that the Navy swept the post loss messages under the rug.
You might be less puzzled if you did a little bit of research.
I think very few tighar members think that ae or fn where not sighted because of the naval personal's incompetence. Your example of them doing cartwheels on the beach and the navy not being able identify them as humans as they are only looking for a 'silver airplane' is, in my opinion, very far off base.
Gary,They might have come to that conclusion later but I was directing you to his comments about the planning the search when one hypothesis they were considering was that she was on one of the Phoenix islands which is why they searched them and that planning did not rely on any radio bearings, just as Freidell said, the 157 LOP and that they had to be on land to transmit and the Phoenix islands were the closest land.
Since they were of the opinion that the lost Electra had gone down into the sea, it would have been impossible in their view for any Post-Loss Radio messages to have come from the Electra.
I am not surprised that they did not mention any radio calls in their reports, perhaps it would be better to just say that the radio calls were ignored after their search had been completed.
gl
The planes radio was believed to have been heard, if some of the many reports were presumed to be authentic, hence on land. <...>On 12 July Colorado was relieved by the Lexington.
The Commanding Officer therefore decided to hold to his original decision, that of searching to the southeast of Howland, with one modification, that being to search by planes, the land areas of the Phoenix Group, prior to the large water areas.
The key word "recent," is defined by my handy Mac dictionary as, "belonging to a past period of time comparatively close to the present." Particularly when the repeated circling and zooming brought no human response, I think Lambrecht used "recent" in line with that definition. That is, habitation signs were not all that close to the present.
See Lambrecht's letter (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Letters/LambrechtGoerner.pdf) in which he discusses the planning for the search, no mention of radio bearing as affecting that planning. Lambrecht said exactly wht Fiedell said about this planning so I don't understand your comment about sweeping the bearings under the rug.
gl
I must admit I am puzzled as to why any one would claim that the Navy swept the post loss messages under the rug. Perhaps the Navy evaluated them, took note of the different transmission times, and wisely concluded that as they were not synchronous then they couldn't cross near Gardner - or anywhere. I note from the chart that shows them that where they cross is actually in the ocean, apart from one which can be extended to Gardner but could also be on a line traversing open sea (which makes the Electra as the source impossible). There is so much background noise and static regarding these messages, and I don't mean that just in the radio sense, that they are very difficult evidence to properly assess - they offer a veritable cottage industry of theories on their own.
Then we come right back squarely to the real problem which is the Navy despite the faults assigned to them by the wisdom of hindsight did actually search Gardner and didn't see anything apart from the rather ambiguous comment by Lambrecht of "recent habitation" but people tend to ignore that a term like "recent" is ambiguous unless it is qualified by saying how recent. Apart from the great big shipwreck on the reef, this could also refer to visible remains of the buildings from the Arundel period or even traces left by the Norwich City survivors, but even more importantly there was no Electra and certainly no sign of Earhart and Noonan. Who I would think it should be clear to everyone given Gary's explanation of survival chances (with which I agree) would, if they were on the island, be still ambulatory and not starving and collapsed comatose under a tree. Gardner may have not been quite the tropical paradise of the tourist brochures but it had food and it had water albeit brackish or obtainable.
You left out that the signal continued for two hours! From Brandenberg's paper (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/ResearchPapers/Brandenburg/RDFResearch/RDFAnalysis/RDF5.html):
"A bearing of 175 degrees on a signal on 3105 kHz described as “a strong carrier” and a “steady unmodulated carrier” that “continued for over two hours.” The Midway report further stated that this signal “proved to be some unidentified station probably in South America or Russia and was later definitely disregarded as a possibility.”
Does anybody actually believe that Earhart just sat on her microphone so that the PTT switch was depressed and then ran the engine for two straight hours? (her butt would be hurting by that time.) Especially since the reason given for her extremely short prior transmissions was that she was afraid of blowing out the fuse as had happened when Manning transmitted for a long period on the flight to Hawaii. Yet, this report is viewed as "credible?"
gl
Wait a minute, if it is "not plausible" for her to transmit for only 19 minutes how can it be "plausible" for her to have transmitted that two hour signal? Everybody see the clear contradiction? If a 19 minute transmission is not plausible and is, therefor, "not credible" how can the two hour transmission be considered to be "credible?" And this isn't the only one that Brandenberg labled as "not plausible" and "not credible" because the transmissions were too long, yet they were all much shorter than the two hour transmission. See also: report 58 (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/ResearchPapers/Brandenburg/signalcatalog3.html#ID40854IA), 35 minutes, NOT credible; report 59 (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/ResearchPapers/Brandenburg/signalcatalog3.html#ID40936IA), 16 minutes, NOT credible; report 61 (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/ResearchPapers/Brandenburg/signalcatalog3.html#ID41005IA), 19 minutes, NOT credible. The conclusion of the analysis of the two hour bearing at Midway states: "On balance, there is no clear weight of evidence for or against this signal originating at Gardner Island." Hummm, the 19 minute and other "too long" reports were too long to be credible so how can it be said that there is no evidence, either for or against the two hour bearing since, to be consistent with the analyses of the other "too long" transmissions, there is evidence against the bearing originating from Earhart on Gardner. This "too longedness" was sufficient to rule those other, much shorter, transmissions "not credible" so why isn't it sufficient, in spades, to rule out the two hour bearing? (BTW, is there some reason that this Midway bearing reception is not in the catalog of reports, it should be between reports 122 and 123 (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/ResearchPapers/Brandenburg/signalcatalog4.html) and have identification 51115PY.) gl |
It is true that if you are locating a moving target, the times must be synchronous, but in locating a fixed target the times or days of the Bearings do not affect the accuracy. In fact it allows for greater precision when you are plotting a stationary target.
Because the 19 minute transmission was keyed, and the two hour transmission was voice. Without special knowledge, that distinction seems pretty clear to me from a cursory read of what you posted -- the disqualifier was the keying, not the length of the transmission itself. Someone correct me if I've missed the "gotcha" here.
I used to live for those occasions when I was cross-examining an adverse expert witness and I was able to show a clear contradiction in his testimony, this is one of those occasions. If we look at Brandenberg's analysis of radio reception report number 67 (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/ResearchPapers/Brandenburg/signalcatalog3.html#ID41037IA)we see:
67
Identifier 41037IA Z Time/Date 1037 to 1055 July 4 Local Time/Date 2307 to 2329 July 3 Gardner Time/Date 2337 to 2355 July 3 Agency/Person Itasca Location Central Pacific Freq (kHz) 3105 kHz Content Itasca still hears a continuous weak carrier on 3105 kHz. Source RADREST.PDF, p. 154 Probability 0.44 Qual Factors This appears to be a continuation of the long-duration carrier reported by Itasca above, possibly from Nicaragua. It is not plausible for Earhart to have keyed her transmitter continuously for 19 minutes. Credibility Not credible
Wait a minute, if it is "not plausible" for her to transmit for only 19 minutes how can it be "plausible" for her to have transmitted that two hour signal? Everybody see the clear contradiction? If a 19 minute transmission is not plausible and is, therefor, "not credible" how can the two hour transmission be considered to be "credible?"
gl
Yes, you missed it, what do you think a “steady unmodulated carrier” is, it ain't voice. It is exactly the same as the "carriers" in the other "too long" reports. Number 67, "Itasca still hears a continuous weak carrier on 3105 kHz...This appears to be a continuation of the long-duration carrier. " Number 61, "Itasca still hears a carrier signal on 3105 kHz, but very weak now... It was not plausible for Earhart to key her transmitter continuously for 24 minutes." Number 58, "Heard one carrier continuously" during this period. Number 59, "Itasca still hears a continuous carrier." Maybe you are not familiar with the term "to key" which means to push the key down so that a carrier is sent out. If the key is moved up and down then you interrupt the carrier when the key is in the up position so it is no longer "continuous" and you end up sending dots and dashes but none of these reports mentioned Morse code just a continuous carrier produced by holding the key down and not letting it up or, on some transmitters, by throwing a switch which relieves the operator of holding the key down for extended periods. Maybe you are also not familiar with the term "modulate" which means to impress information, such as voice, on a carrier which causes the carrier's amplitude to vary in sync with the modulating signal as in "amplitude modulated" (A.M) like Earhart's radios. (F.M. is a diferent kind of modulation in which the frequency of the carrier varies, not its amplitude which stays constant.) So "unmodulated" means no modulation was applied to the carrier to there was no voice transmission, just a constant amplitude continuous carrier for all of these "too long" and the Midway 1115 Z bearing report.Wait a minute, if it is "not plausible" for her to transmit for only 19 minutes how can it be "plausible" for her to have transmitted that two hour signal? Everybody see the clear contradiction? If a 19 minute transmission is not plausible and is, therefor, "not credible" how can the two hour transmission be considered to be "credible?"
gl
Because the 19 minute transmission was keyed, and the two hour transmission was voice. Without special knowledge, that distinction seems pretty clear to me from a cursory read of what you posted -- the disqualifier was the keying, not the length of the transmission itself. Someone correct me if I've missed the "gotcha" here.
I used to live for those occasions when I was cross-examining an adverse expert witness and I was able to show a clear contradiction in his testimony, this is one of those occasions.
(BTW, is there some reason that this Midway bearing reception is not in the catalog of reports, it should be between reports 122 and 123 (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/ResearchPapers/Brandenburg/signalcatalog4.html) and have identification 51115PY.)
The problem as I see it is that the post loss radio messages have to be assumed to be stationary in order to accept that they come from Earhart, obviously they cannot be moving if they are out of fuel and therefore must be in one spot. But, and this where we come back to the nub of the problem, the messages really aren't precisely centered on Gardner are they and the Navy did fly over the island and apart from the report of "recent habitation" signs which is a relative term in any case they neither see any people nor an aircraft. So are they really stationary, and how accurate are the bearings - frankly to me those bearings are a bit splayed.
So how does that explain the messages - it doesn't unless you build several layers of hypotheses on it (Electra on reef, washed off reef, Earhart and Noonan on island but comatose or otherwise occupied when the Navy flies over).
Thus we are right back at square one - I have always felt that the multiplication of hypotheses simply to contradict something that is in itself simply obvious using the available evidence, i.e. Earhart and Noonan weren't there, will eventually collapse into an idée fixe and that is not helpful.
The sole eye-witnesses present at the island close to the event (the Navy fliers) see nothing and in order to discount that it is necessary to offer another multiplication of hypotheses (not trained, couldn't see past the struts, too high, too low, avoiding sea birds etc. etc.). In the end it seems everyone is wrong except the people advancing the hypothesis - silly romantic comparisons with Galileo aside that is scarcely a satisfactory way to proceed.
I agree that it is necessary that a forum like this must discuss each side of the debate and with rigour - simple cheering from the side lines doesn't actually contribute much. :)
Yes, you missed it, what do you think a “steady unmodulated carrier” is, it ain't voice. It is exactly the same as the "carriers" in the other "too long" reports. Number 67, "Itasca still hears a continuous weak carrier on 3105 kHz...This appears to be a continuation of the long-duration carrier. " Number 61, "Itasca still hears a carrier signal on 3105 kHz, but very weak now... It was not plausible for Earhart to key her transmitter continuously for 24 minutes." Number 58, "Heard one carrier continuously" during this period. Number 59, "Itasca still hears a continuous carrier." Maybe you are not familiar with the term "to key" which means to push the key down so that a carrier is sent out. If the key is moved up and down then you interrupt the carrier when the key is in the up position so it is no longer "continuous" and you end up sending dots and dashes but none of these reports mentioned Morse code just a continuous carrier produced by holding the key down and not letting it up or, on some transmitters, by throwing a switch which relieves the operator of holding the key down for extended periods. Maybe you are also not familiar with the term "modulate" which means to impress information, such as voice, on a carrier which causes the carrier's amplitude to vary in sync with the modulating signal as in "amplitude modulated" (A.M) like Earhart's radios. (F.M. is a diferent kind of modulation in which the frequency of the carrier varies, not its amplitude which stays constant.) So "unmodulated" means no modulation was applied to the carrier to there was no voice transmission, just a constant amplitude continuous carrier for all of these "too long" and the Midway 1115 Z bearing report.Wait a minute, if it is "not plausible" for her to transmit for only 19 minutes how can it be "plausible" for her to have transmitted that two hour signal? Everybody see the clear contradiction? If a 19 minute transmission is not plausible and is, therefor, "not credible" how can the two hour transmission be considered to be "credible?"
gl
Because the 19 minute transmission was keyed, and the two hour transmission was voice. Without special knowledge, that distinction seems pretty clear to me from a cursory read of what you posted -- the disqualifier was the keying, not the length of the transmission itself. Someone correct me if I've missed the "gotcha" here.
gl
l
Amen. You just need to work on the "rigour" part.
Why is that John
Malcolm has had daily phone contact with David Billing's of the New England hypothesis, which is based on a engine tag found by a member of a ground troop in jungle of new Britain, What little evidence they found was lost in personnel in following month's. Yet Malcolm believe's the new Britain hypothesis is just as good as Tighar's hypothesis. Yet because the skeletal remain's Have gone missing there is no proof that they were of a european woman, So why shouldn't the engine tag be scruitinised the same , Without the engine tag there is no evidence at all to support the hypothesis. Yet Tighar has evidence separate from bones found to support hypothesis. Yet Malcolm is very critical of that.
hmmm
I know Dr Moleski doesn't accept that Lockheed used construction numbers but they did - especially in the case of highly individual aircraft like the Electra which were built to customer specifications for particular tasks.
I know Dr Moleski doesn't accept that Lockheed used construction numbers but they did - especially in the case of highly individual aircraft like the Electra which were built to customer specifications for particular tasks.
Right. I'm waiting for a sample of a tag like that from Lockheed in the 1930s.
Or a reference in a reliable book.
It would be something along the lines of "evidence" that your assertion about Lockheed is correct.
It still leaves a lot of other questions about how the references on the map are decoded to produce the meaning: "They found a tag with the Electra's C/N on it."
But in terms of providing evidence, you are at ground zero so far as I can tell. All we have is your word for it, and I know that you recommend that serious thinkers should not take anyone at their word without hard evidence to back it up.
Dr. Moleski go back and read the whole thread again not just my posts and you will see that others have also confirmed it.
Then do a Google search, or whatever your favourite search engine is, and then come back on the matter. I think you will find lots of info, or here's an idea you could research the whole matter and prepare a TIGHAR Research Bulletin proving conclusively that Lockheed and other aircraft manufacturers did not use construction numbers, which might offer a whole new slant on the history of Lockheed because others accept that the Lockheed used C/Ns http://www.airspacemag.com/history-of-flight/electra.html (http://www.airspacemag.com/history-of-flight/electra.html) .
Dr. Moleski go back and read the whole thread again not just my posts and you will see that others have also confirmed it.
You mean "make the same assertion without hard evidence." Not one photograph. Not one specimen. Not one reference that could be checked.QuoteThen do a Google search, or whatever your favourite search engine is, and then come back on the matter. I think you will find lots of info, or here's an idea you could research the whole matter and prepare a TIGHAR Research Bulletin proving conclusively that Lockheed and other aircraft manufacturers did not use construction numbers, which might offer a whole new slant on the history of Lockheed because others accept that the Lockheed used C/Ns http://www.airspacemag.com/history-of-flight/electra.html (http://www.airspacemag.com/history-of-flight/electra.html) .
The assertion in need of proof is not that Lockheed used "constructor numbers" but that the tags attached to engine mounts had those constructor numbers on them.
You made the assertion. The burden of proof rests on you. All you need is an construction tag with constructor numbers on it for an engine mount that is undeniably connected to a Lockheed aircraft from the 1930s, and then you will have taken the first step toward making your case.
I should comment on the kerfluffle about whether the post-loss radio messages were "swept under the rug." The allegation is mine and I stand by it. The sweeping was done after, not during, the search. I devoted the entire final chapter in Finding Amelia to it. The name of the chapter is Banquo's Ghost. Perhaps I assumed too much familiarity with Shakespeare.
It should be there as a Not Credible signal.
Just for you Kevin, since I didn't have a scrap piece of Alclad around the house, I went out and purchased (from Aircraft Spruce and Specialty (http://www.aircraftspruce.com/) for $12.00) a piece .032 inch thick type 2024 Alclad sheet aluminum, the same as in artifact 2-2-V-1 (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/NTSB_Report/ntsbreport.html) that TIGHAR believes is the same type of aluminum sheet used on the skin of the Electra. (http://tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/1992Vol_8/2_2_V-1.pdf) I have attached four photos showing the aluminum, my three inch blade pocket knife, and the cut in the sheet, a half inch in about twenty-five seconds of cutting, Earhart and Noonan had nothing but time. You can see it done on Youtube. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Jcj71qSSYI)
The knife artifact found on Gardner and mentioned in the Luke Field Inventory, see this prior message. (https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,618.msg11339.html#msg11339) The skin of the Electra was 0.032 inch thick aluminum which is easily cut with a pocket knife. I have kicked lots of aluminum around at wreckage inspections and have cut off pieces with my swiss army knife for examination by my experts. If you don't believe me that you can cut this aluminum with a pocket knife then do this little experiment, go out to your refrigerator, take out a soda, drink it, and then cut the can open with your pocket knife. Pretty easy wasn't it? Off course the aluminum of the can is thinner than the aircraft skin, it is only 0.016 inches so you have to push a bit harder to cut the aircraft skin. If you think this experiment was not representative then pull off the pop top lever from the can and cut it with your pocket knife. It is tougher because it is 0.053 inches thick, much thicker than the Electra's skin but you will still be able to cut it with your pocket knife, see the photos I have attached.
you are comparing a soda can which is made of 3XXX series non heat treatable aluminum (chosen for exceptional corrosion resistance) with the skin of an aircraft which in this case is made of alu clad (the pre curser to what is today called 2024 which is strong but highly corrosive hence it is clad with pure aluminum) which is heat treatable. you cannot compare the two. heat treated 2024 cannot be worked unless it is re-heated to 0 temper. generally this is done with an acetylene torch. You set up a sooty flame on your torch and cover the object you want to be able to work with the black soot, then you heat the aluminum up until the soot burns off. the soot just so happens to burn off at the correct temp for the aluminum to lose it's temper.
OK Gary, I'll bite. Why did you include "Ronnie's" picture?It just happened to be the ruler I had. I bought it at the Reagan Library which is about four miles from my house, its worth a visit.
You didn't bother to do the research did you? - that's an F for you young man.
Can you expand on your comments here, or do I have to buy the book?
Amen. You just need to work on the "rigour" part.
I think Ric that you should withdraw that remark - it is going against forum rules.
Besides all the points I have made are valid,
your complaint is simply because I disagree with TIGHAR's assessment of the evidence provided to support the Nikumaroro hypothesis
- something in which I am not alone.
The fact is that the Navy fliers did not see anyone on the island, they did not see an aircraft and they were the only witnesses in the vicinity of Gardner immediately after the disappearance of Earhart and Noonan.
As I have posted several times TIGHAR have needed to construct a series of hypotheses to support that hypothesis all of which seem to stem from either painting the Navy searchers as incompetent,
having Earhart and Noonan collapsed from starvation and thirst on an island which does have food available and quite probably water at the time,
and the Electra washed off the reef. They have all been thoroughly canvassed in this thread and I will not repeat them.
It just happened to be the ruler I had. I bought it at the Reagan Library which is about four miles from my house, its worth a visit.
...................................................and the Electra washed off the reef. They have all been thoroughly canvassed in this thread and I will not repeat them.
Good.
You didn't bother to do the research did you? - that's an F for you young man.
You are not living up to the standards you set for others.
You didn't bother to do the research did you? - that's an F for you young man.
You are not living up to the standards you set for others.
Oh but I am - I used to ask that students do their own research because if I spoon fed them they would not learn research techniques. I am simply applying that very important principle to you. I provided one example for you as a guide, it is up to you Dr Moleski as the sole person I know who has a problem accepting that aircraft manufacturers used construction numbers as a means to keep track of the products they were producing for clients who often had specific construction requests. So go to it young man - don't let me down, I know you can do it. :)
Ric, with all due respect, TIGHAR been searching Nikumaroro since 1989 and this is now 2012. In that 23 years TIGHAR not found one item shown to be from the Electra nor any item that can be traced to Earhart or Noonan.
Now you may find that my questions annoy you however until TIGHAR actually does find something to demonstrate that the Nikumaroro hypothesis is the answer then you are in exactly the same position in regard to solving the puzzle as anyone else who is searching according to the hypotheses they have developed.
And the simple truth is that I am not the sole person who question the hypothesis, or the evidence so far offered,
so TIGHAR is just going to have to show that their hypothesis is correct or accept the fact that so far, after 23 years they haven't found anything.
In other words - don't shoot the messenger.
You're not a messenger. Messengers bring any information.
You're not a messenger. Messengers bring any information.
Yep - but in this case I am a messenger and the message is I am not convinced, simply because there are equally valid alternate explanations for the evidence offered and questions. That is the problem with hypotheses that are built on a shaky framework of subordinate hypotheses - everything has to hold together. When you find the evidence that proves the Nikumaroro hypothesis I'll be convinced.
Yep - but in this case I am a messenger and the message is I am not convinced, simply because there are equally valid alternate explanations for the evidence offered and questions.
That is the problem with hypotheses that are built on a shaky framework of subordinate hypotheses - everything has to hold together.
When you find the evidence that proves the Nikumaroro hypothesis I'll be convinced.
It won't surprise you that I disagree.
Ric, with all due respect, TIGHAR been searching Nikumaroro since 1989 and ...and the Electra washed off the reef. They have all been thoroughly canvassed in this thread and I will not repeat them.Good.
The quiet period didn't last long, did it? I wish it had. Given your steady stream of objections, I'd also appreciate an answer to Ric's questions about your relationship with David Billings and the New Britain theory.
The quiet period didn't last long, did it? I wish it had. Given your steady stream of objections, I'd also appreciate an answer to Ric's questions about your relationship with David Billings and the New Britain theory.
Tell me Doug what is your relationship with Ric?
You see how silly that sort of question is. :)
There is no doubt that the contributions of the members who intelligently and constructively disagree with TIGHAR are what makes this public forum worthwhile and if it were only agreeing members, it might not accomplish nearly as much.
Those on this forum who interpret the evidence differently than you seem to be quite capable of speaking for themselves. Or are you speaking of your acquaintance and fellow Australian David Billings who has been desperately trying to get some traction for his bizarre theory by attacking TIGHAR's work and me personally? Tell me Malcolm, how long have you known Mr. Billings? Does your acquaintance with him predate your appearance on this forum?
The notion that all hypotheses are equal until finally proven is ridiculous on its face. Do you consider creationism, intelligent design and evolution to be equally valid theories for the origin of human life?
And speaking of theories, I'm still waiting to hear how long you have been corresponding with David Billings. If you really think his New Britain theory is just as valid as TIGHAR's I'll be happy to offer my views on that.
Yes, I'll be happy to take a look at the New Britain theory. (You really don't want to talk about your relationship with Billings, do you?)
The quiet period didn't last long, did it? I wish it had. Given your steady stream of objections, I'd also appreciate an answer to Ric's questions about your relationship with David Billings and the New Britain theory.
Tell me Doug what is your relationship with Ric?
You see how silly that sort of question is. :)
Malcom,
I agree with Doug and I don't think it's one bit silly.
TIGHAR had been searching for 23 years and found nothing that is accepted as related to Earhart.They have found artifacts that can not be ruled out, as belonging to Earhart or Fred either.
They have found artifacts that can not be ruled out, as belonging to Earhart or Fred either.
Tell me Doug what is your relationship with Ric?
You see how silly that sort of question is. :)
Malcom,
I agree with Doug and I don't think it's one bit silly.
Don't you? - you saw my reply to Mr Gillespie where I pointed out that TIGHAR had been searching for 23 years and found nothing that is accepted as related to Earhart. Now for someone to criticise me for telling the truth and at the same time inferring that I am part of some conspiracy with David Billings borders on paranoia.
Now my personal opinion is that the Electra came down at sea and sank. That puts me in the crashed and sank group with Nauticos and probably the majority of people who have been diverted by this aviation mystery. My opinion of the evidence offered by TIGHAR is plain in my many posts and I don't think I need to repeat here. However being an open minded sort of chap I will happily accept the first of the current hypotheses as proven the moment someone posts the all important clear evidence that they have found the Electra or demonstrable traces of Earhart and Noonan.
Now can I ask you what is your relationship with Ric?
You see how silly that sort of question is. :)
it was obvious that you still did not understand Radio Bearings.
It is true that if you are locating a moving target, the times must be synchronous, but in locating a fixed target the times or days of the Bearings do not affect the accuracy. In fact it allows for greater precision when you are plotting a stationary target.
Thank you Art for that reply. The problem as I see it is that the post loss radio messages have to be assumed to be stationary in order to accept that they come from Earhart, obviously they cannot be moving if they are out of fuel and therefore must be in one spot. But, and this where we come back to the nub of the problem, the messages really aren't precisely centered on Gardner are they and the Navy did fly over the island and apart from the report of "recent habitation" signs which is a relative term in any case they neither see any people nor an aircraft. So are they really stationary, and how accurate are the bearings - frankly to me those bearings are a bit splayed.
Don't you? - you saw my reply to Mr Gillespie where I pointed out that TIGHAR had been searching for 23 years and found nothing that is accepted as related to Earhart.
Now for someone to criticise me for telling the truth and at the same time inferring that I am part of some conspiracy with David Billings borders on paranoia.
Now my personal opinion is that the Electra came down at sea and sank. That puts me in the crashed and sank group with Nauticos and probably the majority of people who have been diverted by this aviation mystery.
This malcolm/billings relationship discussion has what to do with this thread ???
This malcolm/billings relationship discussion has what to do with this thread ???
Perhaps you're right. Maybe it needs its own thread. Or maybe Malcolm just needs to answer the question so we can get back to discussing the Lambrecht Search.
While we're waiting, maybe someone would like to research how many aircraft and how many eyeball-hours failed to see any trace of the Fossett crash before a hunter happened to stumble upon his wallet.
While we're waiting, maybe someone would like to research how many aircraft and how many eyeball-hours failed to see any trace of the Fossett crash before a hunter happened to stumble upon his wallet.But Fossett was killed on impact (in spite of what some plaintiff's attorneys tried to claim, I represented the mechanic that did the maintenance on the plane) so he was not able to take any active steps that would have improved his chance of being spotted. Since the official TIGHAR position is that Earhart and Noonan were still alive at the time of the Lambrecht search, the failure of the search in the Fossett case is not analogous to the Earhart case, it's apples to oranges.
Since the official TIGHAR position is that Earhart and Noonan were still alive at the time of the Lambrecht search, the failure of the search in the Fossett case is not analogous to the Earhart case, it's apples to oranges.
. . . I went back, rewrote and added a paragraph to my original explanation (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,253.msg19220.html#msg19220) to try and make it more understandable for you and everyone reading this FAQ.
At some point do we also need a "re-do" on the bearings charts to remove Bearing 5 (Midway), which was classified as Not Credible a couple days ago (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,253.msg19235.html#msg19235)?
Also I then asked a question (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,253.msg19271.html#msg19271) about Bearing 6 (Howland), whether it should be re-evaluated because possibly another hearing of that same signal. My question sort of died on the vine because immediately followed by much more interesting posts about how to cut aluminum at home for fun and profit . . . :)
(Yes, more thread drift, administrators feel free to move this, or tell me to move it somewhere.)
If you copy/paste as Bob suggested, I will do the same and follow you later tonight, but I have got to go right now.
No one has accused you of conspiring with Billings, but you posit an interesting hypothesis that might explain your repeated refusal to disclose the length and nature of your association with him. A conspiracy buff would have a ball with this. Pure paranoia, no doubt. BTW, how long have you been corresponding with David?
Now my personal opinion is that the Electra came down at sea and sank. That puts me in the crashed and sank group with Nauticos and probably the majority of people who have been diverted by this aviation mystery.
And on what evidence do you base that opinion? I'm aware of none. You must have a reason for selecting that hypothesis over all the other unproven hypotheses which, according to you, have equal validity.
As has been pointed out, the wreck lies somewhere, and only in one place - so how can TIGHAR hunting at Niku threaten one who wishes to look elsewhere? I guess - just calling it what it really seems to be - that's why this particular argument gets a bit stale, IMHO.
No offense intended toward any - I simply prefer the academic challenges to those that seem to be more about motives.
LTM -
Back to the rather clear issue some seem to have with TIGHAR 'looking' and how she goes about it (try to raise funds for a serious look-see out there or anywhere and tell me how that goes for you...) - it does seem clear that some would like to see TIGHAR have to break off of this. I guess that's a bit blunt, but that's what I read into these things. For what reason? It's not a zero-sum world where TIGHAR is robbing others of their pet hunt - let them make their own case and go look. As has been pointed out, the wreck lies somewhere, and only in one place - so how can TIGHAR hunting at Niku threaten one who wishes to look elsewhere? I guess - just calling it what it really seems to be - that's why this particular argument gets a bit stale, IMHO.
Here you are Ric, just for you the answer you have been seeking.
As little as you may think of TIGHAR's tangible finds, can you point to any other expedition that has found as much that might relate to the AE flight? I think that answer is very clear - nothing approaching the possibilities that we have in-hand, however indirect they remain (and I'd wager again that Ric has his own feelings about those things as he yearns for 'incontrovertable' proof, along with many of us).
Here you are Ric, just for you the answer you have been seeking.
Thank you. I think you've told us all we need to know.
Actually as far as I have been able to find beyond tighar earhartian evidence is limited to 50 year post dated remembrances at an Australian army reunion ( let me guess they had at least one beer ) and vague recollections of various persons on Japanese controlled islands of a western looking woman. No smoking gun on Niku but essentially nothing of any value ( sorry I am discounting psychics and ufos) anywhere else
As little as you may think of TIGHAR's tangible finds, can you point to any other expedition that has found as much that might relate to the AE flight? I think that answer is very clear - nothing approaching the possibilities that we have in-hand, however indirect they remain (and I'd wager again that Ric has his own feelings about those things as he yearns for 'incontrovertable' proof, along with many of us).
Thanks Jeff - sensible post as usual. The real problem with TIGHAR's tangible finds is that while they are tangible in sensu stricto the question remains what are they indicative of? And the answer is that they cannot be used precisely to answer the question posed. TIGHAR have assembled a remarkably comprehensive collection Earhartian information yet withal that they haven't found the hard evidence needed to close the case. We all know that, there is no denying it but without that key act then I'm afraid that it all comes to naught. A lot of people hoped that this last trip would close the case - just like every one before we have a cliff-hanger. But that is precisely not what TIGHAR wants to maintain credibility.
Actually as far as I have been able to find beyond tighar earhartian evidence is limited to 50 year post dated remembrances at an Australian army reunion ( let me guess they had at least one beer ) and vague recollections of various persons on Japanese controlled islands of a western looking woman. No smoking gun on Niku but essentially nothing of any value ( sorry I am discounting psychics and ufos) anywhere else
You are playing games now with the term proof versus evidence, tighar has several lines of physical evidence of varying credibility, of a American ( or at least a woman of European descent ) woman being on that island pre1940 and no one that I have seen has a reasonable explanation for that. Actually much but not all of that evidence is more specific to 1930-1937 timeframe. The other theories have no physical evidence, none have the smoking gun or the"any idiot" artifact. In the total absence of evidence the other theories are merely conjectures while the niku hypothesis is at least in the process of being tested
Actually as far as I have been able to find beyond tighar earhartian evidence is limited to 50 year post dated remembrances at an Australian army reunion ( let me guess they had at least one beer ) and vague recollections of various persons on Japanese controlled islands of a western looking woman. No smoking gun on Niku but essentially nothing of any value ( sorry I am discounting psychics and ufos) anywhere else
I am sorry Matt but what exactly is your point. I have stated openly a number of times that I am willing to accept the first proof of Earhart's fate derived from whatever hypothesis is being investigated by whoever. If TIGHAR comes up with that proof I'll accept it; if Mr Billings comes up with that proof I'll accept it; if Nauticos comes up with that proof I'll accept it - what else can I say? So far no one has done so - so instead of being partisan I am being open-minded (or is open-mindedness and the desire for proper proof unwanted here?).
I don't think so, I have been making my point forcefully that they were alive at the time of the flyover and should have greeted the PISS settlers in October. I have also made the point that they were not disabled by disputing the only basis for that claim, the "Betty radio show", and by pointing out that they (according to your theory) waded out to the plane each day across rough and uneven coral, straight arming the sharks out of their way while crossing the boat channel, ran the engine and operated the radio so there is no reason to believe that they were unable to make emergency signals on the beach. You have said that the official TIGHAR theory holds that they were still alive at the time of the flyover and the reason they were not seen is that they were actively doing stuff back in the bush and didn't have time to get to the beach to wave at the planes. Are YOU now changing your position that they were alive but disabled at the time of the flyover?Since the official TIGHAR position is that Earhart and Noonan were still alive at the time of the Lambrecht search, the failure of the search in the Fossett case is not analogous to the Earhart case, it's apples to oranges.
So you're saying that if Earhart and Noonan were, for some reason, unable to take steps to make themselves seen they become apples rather than oranges and are analogous to the Fossett case. I think that's a different position than the one you've taken in the past.
Hang a map of the pacific on your wall, step back ten feet and throw a dart at the map. Then go to the island that the dart hit and search for a week and I am quite sure that you will find artifacts that can be classified as "consistent" with Eahart being on that island. (In fact, you will probably have to throw the dart many times to hit an island since it is much more likely that it will land in the ocean, hmmmm.)TIGHAR had been searching for 23 years and found nothing that is accepted as related to Earhart.They have found artifacts that can not be ruled out, as belonging to Earhart or Fred either.
Matt,
I believe the late dr. Burns said " consisent with north European " which to me implies could have been north European. I could be wrong but dr. Burns did not say " only north European "
You are playing games now with the term proof versus evidence, tighar has several lines of physical evidence of varying credibility, of a American ( or at least a woman of European descent ) woman being on that island pre1940 and no one that I have seen has a reasonable explanation for that.
We call these "wiggle words" and experts use them all the time so we have to pin them down with cross examination under oath. "Consistent with" actually means "not inconsistent with". The only things that would be "inconsistent with" Earhart on the island would be a 1938 dime (or other objects with a date after 1937) or an object too large to fit in the plane. Anything else can be described as "consistent with" the TIGHAR theory. Here is an example. Let's say on the next expedition they find an old Roman coin at the seven site. Look at the requirements and you will see that this Roman coin is "consistent with" Earhart being on the island since it is not dated after 1937 and it is small enough to fit in the plane. The explanation is that Earhart could have carried it as a "good luck coin." Is there any evidence that Earhart ever owned a Roman coin, no, but that doesn't mean that she didn't, she could have. Then the skeptics will be challenged to provide evidence that Earhart never had a Roman coin and, of course, there is no such evidence so TIGHAR will continue to claim that the Roman coin supports their hypothesis.Matt,
I believe the late dr. Burns said " consisent with north European " which to me implies could have been north European. I could be wrong but dr. Burns did not say " only north European "
Excellent point John - the term "consistent with" is expert speak for "well it could be but don't quote me as saying it is". When I did archaeological consultancy work I sometimes found myself being asked to say something was definitely something when in fact I couldn't say that because I knew that the evidence was lacking. It is a term which many people misread as "is" when in fact it means "possible" and possible is a long way from probably and probably is along way from certainly. Any expert is only as good as the reliability of the data and the honest ones admit it.
We call these "wiggle words" and experts use them all the time so we have to pin them down with cross examination under oath. "Consistent with" actually means "not inconsistent with". The only things that would be "inconsistent with" Earhart on the island would be a 1938 dime (or other objects with a date after 1937) or an object too large to fit in the plane. Anything else can be described as "consistent with" the TIGHAR theory. Here is an example. Let's say on the next expedition they find an old Roman coin at the seven site. Look at the requirements and you will see that this Roman coin is "consistent with" Earhart being on the island since it is not dated after 1937 and it is small enough to fit in the plane. The explanation is that Earhart could have carried it as a "good luck coin." Is there any evidence that Earhart ever owned a Roman coin, no, but that doesn't mean that she didn't, she could have. Then Ric will challenge the skeptics to provide evidence that Earhart never had a Roman coin and, of course, there is no such evidence so TIGHAR will continue to claim that the Roman coin supports their hypothesis.
gl
Since the official TIGHAR position is that Earhart and Noonan were still alive at the time of the Lambrecht search, the failure of the search in the Fossett case is not analogous to the Earhart case, it's apples to oranges.
So you're saying that if Earhart and Noonan were, for some reason, unable to take steps to make themselves seen they become apples rather than oranges and are analogous to the Fossett case. I think that's a different position than the one you've taken in the past.
I don't think so,
I have been making my point forcefully that they were alive at the time of the flyover and should have greeted the PISS settlers in October.
I have also made the point that they were not disabled by disputing the only basis for that claim, the "Betty radio show", and by pointing out that they (according to your theory) waded out to the plane each day across rough and uneven coral, straight arming the sharks out of their way while crossing the boat channel, ran the engine and operated the radio so there is no reason to believe that they were unable to make emergency signals on the beach. You have said that the official TIGHAR theory holds that they were still alive at the time of the flyover and the reason they were not seen is that they were actively doing stuff back in the bush and didn't have time to get to the beach to wave at the planes. Are YOU now changing your position that they were alive but disabled at the time of the flyover?
Hang a map of the pacific on your wall, step back ten feet and throw a dart at the map. Then go to the island that the dart hit and search for a week and I am quite sure that you will find artifacts that can be classified as "consistent" with Eahart being on that island.
(In fact, you will probably have to throw the dart many times to hit an island since it is much more likely that it will land in the ocean, hmmmm.)
I have a suggestion for TIGHAR. Identify an island that is similar to Gardner in terms of periods of human habitation and go to that island and look for artifacts that are "consistent" with Earhart being on the chosen island (an island that we know she was NOT on) to establish a baseline of island artifacts, this would improve the rigour of the TIGHAR scientific search method.
In fact, to eliminate any chance of bias (either intentional or unintentional) in finding or overlooking such artifacts, TIGHAR should recruit naysayers to do the search since they will be motivated to find such baseline artifacts. If no such artifacts are found then the TIGHAR collection of stuff becomes much more convincing.
What do you think, Ric?
I think it's a great idea. Where would you like to be dropped off?
I believe the late dr. Burns said " consisent with north European " which to me implies could have been north European. I could be wrong but dr. Burns did not say " only north European "
Peruse the new (2012) Mike Campbell book, Amelia Earhart: the Truth at Last, and examine the evidence for the "Japanese" hypothesis. What Jeff has written will become eminently clear. All Best, John #3245
Yes - but they [TIGHAR artifacts] are tangible finds... That's more than any other searcher has found to-date, however related or not they may eventually prove to be.
Peruse the new (2012) Mike Campbell book, Amelia Earhart: the Truth at Last, and examine the evidence for the "Japanese" hypothesis. What Jeff has written will become eminently clear. All Best, John #3245
In fact, to eliminate any chance of bias (either intentional or unintentional) in finding or overlooking such artifacts, TIGHAR should recruit naysayers to do the search since they will be motivated to find such baseline artifacts. If no such artifacts are found then the TIGHAR collection of stuff becomes much more convincing.
What do you think, Ric?
I think it's a great idea. Where would you like to be dropped off?
Bora Bora.
Bora Bora.
I dunno. Bora Bora is only 1,500 nm from Niku. If she could get to New Britain she could get to Bora Bora and I don't want you finding her before we do.
I'm thinking maybe someplace in the Aleutians.
The skeletal remains, record regarding same and Dr. Burns' judgment are more convincing to me, sorry dear fellow!
Bora Bora.
gl
I have no idea how to do that or even if it is possible on Google sites. I think it is quite clear why I put up that site as can be seen from the welcome page:Bora Bora.
gl
I dunno, Gary, do they have a good enough internet connection there so you can keep updating your Earhart site? That's an important consideration.
Speaking of your site, something I can't help noticing that it lacks, that TIGHAR's has, that you might want to consider, just in the interest of transparency and all that - a discussion board. Why is that?
LTM, who believes in airing all the laundry,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 CER
I hear Shemya is nice this time of year.Both of those suggestions sound interesting but I don't think that they would provide valid data because the culture of the people on those islands is too distant and different from the people on Gardner and the environment is significantly different, which might make the people value different objects differently than the people on Gardner and either discard them or take them with them when they left in a way that is not representative of the experience on Gardner. Bora Bora is much closer culturally and climatically to Gardner.
But considering that they had their wits about them as claimed by the TIGHAR theory (sending radio messages, etc.) then there is no reason for them failing to write SOS in the sand prior to trekking into the scaveola on whatever mission you believe that they were on at just the wrong moment. Also, there were two of them, "Fred, you stay out here and be ready to light our signal fire that we have set up next to the big SOS we scratched in the sand if you see a ship and I will hack my way into the damn brush to look for water, be back in an hour."
Not at all. But if you concede (which you now seem unwilling to do, your comments about apples and oranges notwithstanding) that AE and FN being spotted from the air required their active efforts to attract attention, then anything that prevented them from making those active efforts such as the inability to get out in the open in time (been there, done that) is sufficient to explain why they weren't seen. To Steve Fossetts many life accomplishments we can add painting you into a corner.
OK Gary, I'll bite. Why did you include "Ronnie's" picture?It just happened to be the ruler I had. I bought it at the Reagan Library which is about four miles from my house, its worth a visit.
gl
But considering that they had their wits about them as claimed by the TIGHAR theory (sending radio messages, etc.) then there is no reason for them failing to write SOS in the sand prior to trekking into the scaveola on whatever mission you believe that they were on at just the wrong moment. Also, there were two of them, "Fred, you stay out here and be ready to light our signal fire that we have set up next to the big SOS we scratched in the sand if you see a ship and I will hack my way into the damn brush to look for water, be back in an hour."
So they didn't need to be active at the exact instant that the planes passed over, only active at any time prior, by setting up obvious markers, and you believe that they were active and not dead or laid low prior to the Lambrecht search.
There are also discussions about the celestial navigation methods and techniques being utilized by Amelia Earhart's navigator, Fred Noonan."
I believe it was you, Ric, who in he past have stated that the reason that Earhart and Noonan did not construct signals designed to be seen from airplanes is because they did not expect any planes to be searching for them.
You also believe that Earhart listened to broadcasts from KGMB about 8 pm Hawaiian time on both July 4th and 5th as shown by the reception of dashes in response to requests from KGMB that you believe came from Earhart.
My point is that it was not a military secret that they would be using planes to search for Earhart so it would have been like sneaking a sunrise past a rooster to keep the KGMB people from knowing about the planes.
It is my understanding that the broadcasts directed to Earhart included words to encourage her and to let her know that a search was being conducted and to let her know that help was on the way. Given this, it would appear extremely unlikely that the broadcasts did not include the information about the search planes. My question now is, do you have any evidence, such as transcripts or scripts, that the broadcasts from KGMB did NOT mention the fact that these two ships and their planes were on the way to search for Earhart?
During the helicopter video it clearly shows a strip of sand beach running aroung the island and in the lagoon.
Its what any sane person would have tackled before building spears and water collection devices. An sos and they probably are found.
So Ae was either very dull, dead, lost her marbles, or was never there...
During the helicopter video it clearly shows a strip of sand beach running aroung the island and in the lagoon.
The narrator mentions it when talking about the reef.
Quote " the reef runs from the sandy beach on our right to the deep blue ocean on our left" end quote/partial paraphrase.
The narrator(a tighar member), also states upon lifting off,
Quote" notice the footprints in the SAND. Notice how they fade quickly the higher we climb"
End quote/partial paraphrase.
So to be clear there is sand.
Then again she could have made snow angels in the sand/coral while disrobed, that might have drew an answering whistle from Lt.Lambrecht :)
http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Letters/LambrechtGoerner.pdf (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Letters/LambrechtGoerner.pdf)
http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Letters/LambrechtGoerner.pdf (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Letters/LambrechtGoerner.pdf)
The above link is broken.
Moderators: many of the links in http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Letters.html (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Letters.html) appear to be broken.
Do you by chance have a picture from that same spot looking out over the reef toward the open ocean?
Moderators: many of the links in http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Letters.html (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Letters.html) appear to be broken.Sorry Doug, but it must be something in your computer configuration.
But guessing about what she might have done, from choosing the reef over the lagoon, to what she was thinking about stranded or sinking as others suggest, is what keeps the mystery alive.
So I agree Talking about a sand sos, is indeed a waste of time. But a harmless waste of time from the real world.
Do you by chance have a picture from that same spot looking out over the reef toward the open ocean?
Ask and ye shall receive.
Do you by chance have a picture from that same spot looking out over the reef toward the open ocean?
Ask and ye shall receive.
Does the scaveola wall start right at the top of the slope?
Was there that much debris on all those beaches or whatever you call that area. Does not look very inviting.
There's about a hundred meters of scaevola between there and the buka forest where there's decent shade ... finding a route from the buka forest to the beach is like finding your way through a maze.Out of curiosity, how long did it take to traverse the 100m? In the helicopter video you remarked how long it took several people near the Seven Site to cross the vegetation there.
Out of curiosity, how long did it take to traverse the 100m?
Perhaps on the next trip you could convince a couple of people to simulate AE/FN's lack of sleep, forced landing, injuries?, about a week with minimal or no water/food, then time them to see how long it would take them to make the same trip (they'd have to do it several times for statistical significance). Any guess how long it would take them?
There's about a hundred meters of scaevola between there and the buka forest where there's decent shade ... finding a route from the buka forest to the beach is like finding your way through a maze.Out of curiosity, how long did it take to traverse the 100m? In the helicopter video you remarked how long it took several people near the Seven Site to cross the vegetation there.
Perhaps on the next trip you could convince a couple of people to simulate AE/FN's lack of sleep, forced landing, injuries?, about a week with minimal or no water/food, then time them to see how long it would take them to make the same trip (they'd have to do it several times for statistical significance). Any guess how long it would take them?
Doug, would you like me to call Ric and ask him when the next trip is going to be? Perhaps you would like to be one of the volunteers.LOL, not as a lab rat, but thanks for asking. I'm sure the trips are tough, but rewarding. The one thing I was wondering about the trips was how the Mother Ship anchored when the seafloor drops away so fast?
However, the "Nessie" photo shows tall trees right on the beach near the Norwich City as does the helicopter tour video so no reason to hack through the scaveola to the buka trees inland, we have talked about this before (https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,734.msg14691.html#msg14691).Doug, would you like me to call Ric and ask him when the next trip is going to be? Perhaps you would like to be one of the volunteers.LOL, not as a lab rat, but thanks for asking. I'm sure the trips are tough, but rewarding. The one thing I was wondering about the trips was how the Mother Ship anchored when the seafloor drops away so fast?
I was primarily curious how long it would take a castaway, possibly injured, sleep/water/food deprived, maybe suffering from seafood poisoning/dysentery/dehydration/sunburn, yet incredibly motivated, to get from a well protected area to the shore after hearing search planes. 15 minutes is faster than I expected. There's been a lot of discussion about why AE/FN weren't seen. I was interested in a quantitative estimate from someone rested and fed (or maybe not!) who has actually tried to move through the vegetation on that specific island. The time to get into a position to be seen would reduce the window and probability of detection. I don't know how the standard tables for probability of detection were estimated, but would presume they don't account for extended periods of time for the searchee to get to an area where they might be seen.
The West/lee side of the island would have been unbearable. It would seem that a castaway would want to move well away from the direct sun, glaring white sand/coral, and reflections off the water to a protected spot as much as possible, yet remain close to the aircraft and easily seen shipwreck. Moving inland would of course have to be balanced against the discomfort of even more stagnant breezes and longer time to get back to the shore.
The one thing I haven't read in the forum, but is a real issue, is sunburn from both direct and reflected light. Even here in San Diego (32.7N lat) both can be intense. I've seen people on the water terribly burnt just by reflected light while under sun shades. I've seen people turn lobster red from sunburn in the tropics. It's a secondary issue for sure, but if you've ever had a bad sunburn it's very painful to move (been there, done that). It could have affected the castaways, particularly those not acclimated to the intense equatorial sun.
However, the "Nessie" photo shows tall trees right on the beach near the Norwich City as does the helicopter tour video so no reason to hack through the scaveola to the buka trees inland, we have talked about this before (https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,734.msg14691.html#msg14691).
The ground behind the beach where the scaveola grows appears lighter in color that that of the buka forest. Is it because of storm overwash?
Does it continue like this all the way south to the area where the first campsite of the Norwich City crew is believed to be? If yes, would seem to indicate that finding anything that might have been left behind after the settlement was established would be problematic.
Doug, would you like me to call Ric and ask him when the next trip is going to be? Perhaps you would like to be one of the volunteers.LOL, not as a lab rat, but thanks for asking. I'm sure the trips are tough, but rewarding.
The ground behind the beach where the scaveola grows appears lighter in color that that of the buka forest. Is it because of storm overwash?
No. The scaevola grows in coral rubble which is gray in color. In the buka forest there is a build up of soil that is almost black in color.
For some reason I thought that the last message that TIGHAR claimed to be "credible" was on July 5th so that it was four days from that last message until the flyover on the 9th. I now see that TGHAR claims that there were 3 "credible" messages sent on the 7th, messages 167, 169, and 175, only two days before the Lambrecht flyover making it much less likely that Earhart and Noonan had expired in such a short time period.
More horribles and they both managed to sustain injuries and infections that killed them in only seven days? Actually in only four days since Earhart didn't say that she was injured on the Betty Radio Show.
gl
For some reason I thought that the last message that TIGHAR claimed to be "credible" was on July 5th so that it was four days from that last message until the flyover on the 9th. I now see that TGHAR claims that there were 3 "credible" messages sent on the 7th, messages 167, 169, and 175, only two days before the Lambrecht flyover making it much less likely that Earhart and Noonan had expired in such a short time period.
I know that, my posting was actually addressed to others who have claimed that Earhart died from starvation/dehydration/injury prior to the Lambrecht search.For some reason I thought that the last message that TIGHAR claimed to be "credible" was on July 5th so that it was four days from that last message until the flyover on the 9th. I now see that TGHAR claims that there were 3 "credible" messages sent on the 7th, messages 167, 169, and 175, only two days before the Lambrecht flyover making it much less likely that Earhart and Noonan had expired in such a short time period.
Earth to Gary .... TIGHAR has repeatedly made the case that Earhart survived for a matter of weeks, if not months, as a castaway.