TIGHAR
Amelia Earhart Search Forum => News, Views, Books, Archival Data & Interviews on AE => Topic started by: Matt Revington on July 19, 2020, 07:47:16 AM
-
A new book which includes the Niku landing theory. The author participated on this forum last year, he seemed to see large intact portions of the Electra in the surf around the Norwich City wreck in photos taken years after the disappearance that were not apparent to most others on the forum. I have not purchased the book so I don’t know what role he thinks the Japanese search ship mentioned in the description played.
https://www.bookdepository.com/Amelia-Earhart-Final-Days-Robert-Grant-Wealleans/9781701883970
-
I ordered a copy of the book (sigh). No digital version available and it's being sent from the UK, so God knows when it will get here.
I remember the discussion on the forum but I don't see Robert Wealleans in the member list. Do you have a link to that thread?
-
Some of the discussion was in this thread
https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,2083.msg43316.html#msg43316
-
An Amazon Kindle version (https://www.amazon.com/Amelia-Earhart-Final-Days-Evidence-ebook/dp/B07ZDMPGXT/ref=sr_1_2?dchild=1&keywords=Robert+Grant+Wealleans&qid=1594749036&sr=8-2) of the book has recently become available.
Joe Cerniglia
TIGHAR #3078ECR
-
I ordered a copy.
-
According to Amazon (https://tinyurl.com/y6xy6bxo), Welleans thinks Earhart and Noonan landed at Niku and were then captured by the Japanese!
I don't know if he manages to include crashed and sank, Irene Bolam, or alien abduction in this "theory."
Still, it must be an entertaining read.
Karen Hoy 2610 ER
-
I just skimmed through the book using Kindle Unlimited. It's the same argument he made on the Forum referencing the same pieces of debris in the same aerial photos. I stand by my response to him on September 30, 2019.
https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,2092.msg43348.html#msg43348
If any of you who read the book feel there's anything there we should address, please let me know.
-
Is this the thing where the Imperial Japanese Army was roaming around the Phoenix Islands looking for spies and other nasty people, heard Amelia Earhart on the radio, and zipped over to Gardner to pick her up?
Yeah, all the pieces fit now. ;)
-
Is this the thing where the Imperial Japanese Army was roaming around the Phoenix Islands looking for spies and other nasty people, heard Amelia Earhart on the radio, and zipped over to Gardner to pick her up?
The book, or as he calls it, the monograph (160 pages), wanders from assertions that the hunks of wreckage on the reef near Norwich City really, really are pieces of the Electra; to a brief bio of Amelia; to how the pieces moved around on the reef, to tirades about what a terrible person I am; to inaccurate summaries of TIGHAR's evidence; to assurances about what a clever fellow he is; to musings about the Japanese ship Koshu coming to Gardner and maybe or maybe not abducting Earhart and Noonan; and ultimately, to his amazement that he is the only one who recognized what was hiding in plain sight.
-
That is a lot to cover in 160 pages! LOL!!
Good to be back on the Forum!
-
I have purchased and lightly read Robert Wealleans’ book, Amelia Earhart: Final Days. I will leave the photographic speculations for others. One thing he said caught my attention.
Wealleans noticed that Betty’s notebook has Earhart saying “South 391065 Z or E.” It seems to be a map coordinate of some sort. TIGHAR has speculated on this general area of the notebook in the Forum (https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,243.msg1978.html#msg1978) but the ‘391065’ entry has remained mysterious.
Wealleans speculates it may be a latitude measurement of degrees, minutes and seconds, but with the degree component lost in translation due to a fading signal. A latitude seems a good bet, given that Betty wrote “South.” Bob Brandenburg has documented how the strength of the signal Betty heard would more than likely fade in and out, the fade corresponding with probability of signal strength (https://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/ResearchPapers/Brandenburg/PostLossSignals/PLSigStats.pdf) at a given minute of the day.
Betty heard South 391065 Z or E. (Could the “Z or E” be, phonetically, de-greez?) The northern tip of Nikumaroro is, precisely to within a few meters, at South 4º 39’ 10.65”, as the attached map shows. I disagree with many portions of the book, but Wealleans idea here seems reasonable to me. Thoughts?
Joe Cerniglia
TIGHAR #3078ECR
-
Betty heard South 391065 Z or E. (Could the “Z or E” be, phonetically, de-greez?) The northern tip of Nikumaroro is, precisely to within a few meters, at South 4º 39’ 10.65”, as the attached map shows. I disagree with many portions of the book, but Wealleans idea here seems reasonable to me. Thoughts?
First, how does Amelia know the precise latitude of the northern tip of the fringing reef? It's not on any chart that existed at that time. Did Noonan go out there and take an observation with his octant? Even at low tide, nobody in their right mind would go there.
Second, why would that be an important coordinate to report versus the location of the airplane (4° 39' 25.85")?
Third, let's say Betty heard "South 391065 degrees." The latitude for the northern tip can be said as "south four degrees three nine minutes ten point six five seconds." If you selectively fade out the right words you can get "south four degrees three nine minutes ten point six five seconds" but I can't think of a way to say it starting with the word south and ending with the word degrees.
-
First, how does Amelia know the precise latitude of the northern tip of the fringing reef? It's not on any chart that existed at that time. Did Noonan go out there and take an observation with his octant?
Perhaps.
Even at low tide, nobody in their right mind would go there.
To someone with prior knowledge of the island, that may be obvious. But picture the scene. You land on an uncharted island. You don’t know anything about it, other than what you’ve seen from the air. You scout around for areas where you suppose rescue might come and you bring along the octant. You head north from the ship, but you’re injured and feeling unwell. You stop at some point and take a sighting while still physically able to do that, thinking it, along with the ship name, will be sufficient to guide rescuers to your location.
Second, why would that be an important coordinate to report versus the location of the airplane (4° 39' 25.85")?
The difference between the supposed location of the airplane and 4º 39’ 10.65” is 15.2 seconds, just 1,535 feet by my calculation, little more than a lap of the track. I’ve walked Niku south of Tatiman almost to the LORAN station and estimate I could cover 1535 feet on Nikumaroro in about 4 minutes, tops. How accurate does Noonan need to be? (I’ll admit I’ve never been to the Norwich City.)
Third, let's say Betty heard "South 391065 degrees." The latitude for the northern tip can be said as "south four degrees three nine minutes ten point six five seconds." If you selectively fade out the right words you can get "south four degrees three nine minutes ten point six five seconds" but I can't think of a way to say it starting with the word south and ending with the word degrees.
That’s because you’re calmly stating your case. But let’s presume you’re panicked on the island and you have something like the ship’s log from my last trip to Nikumaroro in front of you (attached). Which numbers do you read off? How do you say them, knowing every number and every word could mean the difference between life and death? Would you make any mistakes? Think of the last time you called 9-1-1. Did the operator need to ask you any clarifying questions or did he or she simply say ‘I understand. We’ll send someone right over.’
I’m getting tied up in the weeds, as is often my wont, but to my mind this observation of Wealleans echoes an esteemed board member of TIGHAR, who once stated his 3 laws of coincidences:
1) I don’t believe in coincidences.
2) That’s quite a coincidence.
3) See #1.
I’ll also add two observations that a very nice woman once said to me over the phone.
1) They knew where they were.
2) They knew the route went south.
That woman’s name happened to be Betty Klenck.
Joe Cerniglia
TIGHAR #3078ECR
-
I’m getting tied up in the weeds, as is often my wont,but to my mind this observation of Wealleans echoes an esteemed board member of TIGHAR, who once stated his 3 laws of coincidences:
1) I don’t believe in coincidences.
2) That’s quite a coincidence.
3) See #1.
It's a clever saying, but it's dead wrong. Coincidences - really bizarre coincidences - happen all the time. If you need proof, just look at the sextant box coincidence. A Bushnell surveyor coincidentally loses, or abandons, a box for the same kind of sextant Noonan uses as a "preventer", on Gardner (not some other island), near the spot (not some other spot on the island) where Earhart's bones are later found.
Lincoln had a secretary named Kennedy. Kennedy had a secretary named Lincoln.
I’ll also add two observations that a very nice woman once said to me over the phone.
1) They knew where they were.
2) They knew the route went south.
That woman’s name happened to be Betty Klenck.
Betty's Notebook is a fabulous primary-source document. The meaning of many of her entries is clear. Others are ambiguous. Betty's comments more than half a century later are anecdotal recollections. She had no more information about Earhart than what was in her notebook and what she later learned from TIGHAR.
Trying to make sense of the seemingly nonsensical entries is worth doing, but suggested "translations" have to make sense in the context of the known facts.
-
Weems believed that celestial navigation could fix one’s position to within an average error of 5 miles. In calm seas, with a sextant in good adjustment and with experience one should be able to improve on this to within 2 to 3 miles. Bubble octants, useful for fixing the horizon at altitude or at night, could approach this level of accuracy if used on land.
You wonder at why the above fix, 4º 39’ 10.65”, would be more important than the location of the airplane, 1500 feet away. Given the operating constraints of the navigational equipment and techniques used at the time, the question becomes not so much the “choice” of coordinates to report as much as it becomes how accurately a celestial navigator can report those coordinates. By that standard he did very well.
We could debate the probability that 391065 would randomly happen to give the minutes and seconds to within 1,500 feet of the Bevington Object. I would agree that rare and purely coincidental events do happen. That’s why they’re called events. Given what we know of celestial navigation, however, I see no reason why Wealleans’ translation of Betty’s notes should be thought to be in contradiction of known facts.
Joe Cerniglia
TIGHAR #3078ECR
-
We could debate the probability that 391065 would randomly happen to give the minutes and seconds to within 1,500 feet of the Bevington Object.
But only if you insert numbers and words that aren't there in specific locations in the string of numbers.
If Noonan can get the latitude, he should be able to get the longitude. Why didn't AE say the longitude? Or is that somehow represented by the rest of the cryptic letters and numbers on the page?
At some later date (Betty couldn't remember exactly when) she made some marginal notations in her notebook. Near the string of numbers on Page 53 (https://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Notebook/page53.html) she wrote "{S 309' 165° E}" with a question mark.
USS Ontario's assigned plane guard position as expressed in pre-flight messages was" LATITUDE 03 05 SOUTH LONGITUDE 165 00 EAST." The numbers 5 and 9 are so often misheard in radio communications that operators are cautioned to say "niner."
Coincidence? Or was Earhart looking through Noonan's notes and, in desperation, transmitting anything she came across?
My point is, if you make enough assumptions and excuses, you can find great significance in any piece of evidence. It's called confirmation bias.
-
But only if you insert numbers and words that aren't there in specific locations in the string of numbers.
Let’s back up a bit. Betty wrote “South 391065.” To expect rigidly the words ‘degrees,’ ‘minutes’, and ‘seconds’ at specific locations in this text does not seem reasonable to me from the standpoint of celestial navigation. Since time out of mind, a large proportion of ship’s navigational logs have had column headers for degrees, minutes and seconds notated at the top of the page simply as º, ‘ and “. The headers obviate the need for writing the units into the individual log entries and consequently many navigators do not bother with them. Alternatively, there are many acceptable ways to note an observed position that do not include these words or these symbols (º ‘ “) at all. I have attached an historical survey of ship’s log entries to illustrate my argument.
A person reading from the log will read these log entries without the units, for the simple reason that the units are not present in the individual entries.
My point is, if you make enough assumptions and excuses, you can find great significance in any piece of evidence. It's called confirmation bias.
You cite the similarity between USS Ontario’s position and Betty’s marginalia in Finding Amelia as possibly more than coincidental. You allowed yourself a single excuse, changing a 9 to a 5, to posit this, yet inexplicably disallow anyone else from doing the same. Your Ontario interpretation sounds reasonable to me, and is in my opinion no more biased than what Wealleans did with “South 391065.”
For Betty’s “South 391065,” there are no numbers or words that must be assumed or excused to make sense to a navigator as a latitude, save for one numeral: 4. The only transliteration that must be made is of this one numeral.
Joe Cerniglia
TIGHAR #3078ECR
"Earhart's messages lacked any useful position information and consisted of generalities." - from Warner Thompson's July 1937 report ‘Radio Transcripts Earhart Flight’ page 47, ‘Flight Summary’.
Addendum: I have recently learned that navigators shy away from the term “fix.” Since all locational information derived from the science of celestial (https://astronavigationdemystified.com/2014/11/11/the-accuracy-of-astro-celestial-navigation/) navigation is by definition imprecise, navigators instead prefer the term ‘observed position.’
-
You allowed yourself a single excuse, changing a 9 to a 5, to posit this, yet inexplicably disallow anyone else from doing the same.
There is more to it than that. We're taking about two different interpretations of the same string of numbers and letters. Both can be wrong but both cannot be correct. The question is, which interpretation is more likely to be correct.
Both interpretations postulate that the numbers were intended to communicate Earhart's position.
As you say, both interpretations postulate that the numbers were imperfectly heard.
You and Wealleans interpret the numbers to represent latitude, but latitude alone does not provide position.
I agree with Betty's interpretation that the numbers represent latitude and longitude.
Both interpretations postulate that the numbers were followed by a word that Betty did not understand but thought sounded like either "zee" or "eee".
You and Wealleans interpret the word to be "degrees" (deGREEZ) but the the "zee" sound does not occur in the word "degrees."
I agree with Betty's interpretation that the word was "E."
Neither interpretation results in an accurate position.
Again, both interpretations might be wrong but, for the reasons stated above, I believe mine is more likely to be correct. You're free to disagree.