TIGHAR
Amelia Earhart Search Forum => The Islands: Expeditions, Facts, Castaway, Finds and Environs => Topic started by: Terry Richard on April 02, 2011, 09:28:23 AM
-
I've been working my way through the TIGHAR website, (I'm about half way through) and have read a couple of books on the subject (Fred Goerner's book, which I do not believe is credible, and Mary Lovell's The Sound of Wings) of the Amelia Earhart disappearance. The TIGHAR hypothesis seems very plausible to me, but, as I worked my way along, I began to notice some inconsistencies, some of which are troubling:
1. It has been suggested that Amelia and Fred may have survived for months. In another place, it is suggested that with daily temperatures at 120 degrees, they might not have lasted a the week until the search planes flew over. In “The Colonization of the Phoenix Islands” by H.E. Maude, he suggests that "The temperature averages about 82 degrees, with maxima and minima varying only a few degrees above and below this figure, and a variation of less than 3 degrees between the monthly means."
2. If Amelia landed at Gardner, presumably near the wreck of the Norwich City, she would have seen the wreck. I read somewhere that someone received a radio message to the effect: "We are on coral southwest of an unknown island". If she had mentioned in any of her radio transmissions the fact of the wreck, (even if she did not know the name of the wreck) the wreck's location would have been known, and would have helped searchers. The navy pilots would have been alert to the fact of a wreck, and would have paid special attention Gardner when they saw it.
3. In the Coast Guard report, the officer suggested that the radio direction finding bearings taken by Pan Am were 'doubtful'. This is inexplicable to me. I must believe that Pan Am was a reliable source, and since there was no other population in that area, with or without a radio, such transmission could only have come from the Electra. What do they mean, by 'doubtful'? Sounds to me like 'cover your butt'.
4. It took the Colorado a week to get to Gardner. Once the Pan Am triangulations suggested the Phoenix group, by about day three, the Itasca could have been there by day four. Day four might have been in time, when day seven was obviously not. I understand why the crew of the Itasca assumed that they were to the northwest, but when they were not found there, why did they not go southeast to the Phoenix group? Since they could have gotten there three days sooner, they might have been able to rescue the castaways. Isn't that what they do?
5. The aerial photo of Gardner shows surf on the eastern end of the island, from the easterly winds, but the western side would have been less subject to the effect of wind and surf. It has been suggested that the plane was not visible due to action of the wind and surf.
6. It has been suggested that tidal and wave and surf action could have pulled the Electra off the reef within a few days, yet it is also suggested that the colonists on Nikumaroro 'saw aircraft wreckage'.
Terry Richard
-
Dear "Nomad,"
I'll be happy to answer your questions but you'll have to tell us who you are. As you'll see from all of the other postings, this is an open, honest discussion and we don't respond to anonymous queries.
-
I am very new to TIGHAR and I have many questions about the likelihood of them being castaways. I can easily accept they couldn't find Howland and to their dismay sighted a wrong island, by now they were out of gas and had to put the plane down somewhere.
1) Why not KcKean? Wouldn't they have hit this island first?
2) What were their chances of surviving at all in a "crash" landing like Gardner? Or surviving with injuries and then unable to find sufficient water?
3) Did the plane catch fire?
4) How high were the tides? 5 ft, or maybe 10 ft? Was there heavy surf on west end at that time?
If the "Miracle on the Hudson" was only achievable by a highly skilled pilot like Sullenberger and even then was a very slim chance, how could an "average" skilled pilot like Amelia been able to pull this off?
-
Sorry, I ran out of space in the reply box in last posting.
There must have been thousands of what I would term crash landings around WW2 in the Pacific. How many survived these and wound up on a deserted island as a castaway? Then survived that, too. Were seat belts in general use? Would someone like Amelia have bothered with them?
I'm guessing that very, very, few survived a landing like the Gardner hypotheses, especially w/o life raft or PFD which I'm assuming Amelia didn't have. It caught my attention that the co-pilot of the C-87 that crashed on Kanton survived, but "went through the windshield" , it shows what a water landing might have been like. Especially without seat belt. I could be completely wrong about this, I just haven't read these issues addressed.I intend to find out, though.
Of course, none of this disproves anything about the hypotheses. I also have some quibbles about the shoes issue, which I understand has been downgraded. I wouldn't assume for sure that a woman was wearing the shoe. I have at least once bought women's tennis shoes and worn them for running because at the time it was a bargain at the shoe outlet. I would even wear 2 different shoes if one of my shoes was damaged. Probably wouldn't wear 2 lefts, though. But I'm thinking a very poor islander would be glad to wear any shoe that vaguely fit if he got it for free and needed shoes. This is not like contemporary USA where we return our shoes to Walmart if they pinch a little.
I don't know what Amelia generally brought on her flights, especially in light of her throwing out direction finder because of the weight. Freckle cream? Does anybody know?
-
1) Why not McKean? Wouldn't they have hit this island first?
I don't know what they would have done. No one can say what they would have done. McKean is a bit off the LOP. It's much smaller than Gardner and has no big turquoise lagoon - typically the first thing you see when trying to spot an atoll from the air. If they did see and investigate McKean they probably weren't impressed. There's no place there to put an airplane down without a major wreck. They might well have decided to keep looking and come back to it only as a last resort but my personal guess is that they never saw it.
2) What were their chances of surviving at all in a "crash" landing like Gardner? Or surviving with injuries and then unable to find sufficient water?
I can't answer your question. I don't think anyone can. What I CAN tell you is that I have walked around many times on the section of reef where the available evidence suggests the plane was landed. At low tide the reef surface is either dry or has only a skim of water. I'm a commercial/instrument/multi-engine pilot with over 5,000 hours including significant time in heavy, tall-wheel twins. In my opinion it would be entirely possible to land a Lockheed 10 on that reef at low tide with little or no damage.
3) Did the plane catch fire?
If the post-loss radio distress calls are legitimate (and they are) there was no fire.
4) How high were the tides? 5 ft, or maybe 10 ft? Was there heavy surf on west end at that time?
At high tide on July 2, 1937 (about 3.5 hours after AE & FN could have arrived) there was .6 meter (about 18 inches) of standing water on the reef. The highest tide prior to July 9 when the Colorado search planes flew over was on the morning of July 7 at .9 meter (just shy of 3 feet). We have no way of knowing what the surf conditions were at the west end of the island but the Itasca and Colorado deck logs tells us that there was no significant weather in the area throughout the week following the disappearance.
If the "Miracle on the Hudson" was only achievable by a highly skilled pilot like Sullenberger and even then was a very slim chance, how could an "average" skilled pilot like Amelia been able to pull this off?
I don't think we need to postulate a Miracle on the Reef. AE had a light airplane with huge tires and, if the wind was typical for that place, 10 to 15 knots on the nose. The "runway" was either dry or had only a skim of water, long a wide enough, and probably smoother than some of the airfields she had landed on earlier during the world flight.
-
I am very new to TIGHAR and I have many questions about the likelihood of them being castaways. I can easily accept they couldn't find Howland and to their dismay sighted a wrong island, by now they were out of gas and had to put the plane down somewhere.
1) Why not KcKean? Wouldn't they have hit this island first?
Hello David. They might have hit McKean first, but if they were on a line for Gardner, McKean would have been about sixty miles off their course, and is a much smaller island.
2) What were their chances of surviving at all in a "crash" landing like Gardner? Or surviving with injuries and then unable to find sufficient water?
The landing at Gardner would not have been a "crash". The sea was at low tide at that time, and the reef surrounding the island would have been dry. Even if it had been necessary to land at sea, any low-wing retractable can be 'ditched'. Every aircraft operating handbook discusses 'ditching' at sea.
3) Did the plane catch fire?
There would have been no reason for it to, and precious little fuel on board to support a fire.
4) How high were the tides? 5 ft, or maybe 10 ft? Was there heavy surf on west end at that time?
The sea was at low tide. With an easterly wind, there would have been little if any surf on the west end.
If the "Miracle on the Hudson" was only achievable by a highly skilled pilot like Sullenberger and even then was a very slim chance, how could an "average" skilled pilot like Amelia been able to pull this off?
Don't believe everything you read/hear in the media. Sullenberger was indeed a skilled pilot, but any competent pilot "can pull this off" with a plane of the Electra type. Leave the gear up, feather the props, and go water skiing.
The thing that wrecks airliners in a ditching, is landing with one wing low (as happened to one plane off the coast of Africa), or simply the drag of an engine when it hits the water. Thus a plane with fuselage mounted engines handles ditching better than one with the engines slung under the wings.
Terry Richard
Commercial Pilot
-
Thanks, Terry and Ric. You have cleared up a lot of points. I have considered taking flying lessons at my local airport just to learn these things. I tend to believe these post-crash radio communications, especially Betty's. Hers would be really difficult to make up. It does make me think Amelia and Fred sounded disoriented at best and I am trying to think of circumstances where they would make these comments. Of course I wondered how high the tides would be. If they were on a barely dry reef and a 10 ft. tide came in (like at times in Mass. where I live) mighten it not flood the plane if not float it away some distance? Or is it possible they landed it far enough up the reef that the ocean would not be a problem unless or until a storm came in? I think I have read the possibility that a landing gear might have buckled or broken off. It makes me wonder if their plane was being flooded and it was so hot (per Betty's account) why they didn't just clamber out, why discuss it and whine about it?
Ric, I will soon read your book, it wasn't at my local library, but I just bought a Kindle so I will get to it forthwith. Maybe the answers to a lot of my present questions are covered there. I just saw on a reply that the tides were about 1.5 feet? But apparently later the wreckage was thought to be seen almost covered by water? Yes, I understand this is all completely hypothetical and will never possibly be answered.
-
Thanks Terry. Welcome aboard.
1. It has been suggested that Amelia and Fred may have survived for months. In another place, it is suggested that with daily temperatures at 120 degrees, they might not have lasted a the week until the search planes flew over. In “The Colonization of the Phoenix Islands” by H.E. Maude, he suggests that "The temperature averages about 82 degrees, with maxima and minima varying only a few degrees above and below this figure, and a variation of less than 3 degrees between the monthly means."
Recall that Maude was doing a sales job and had actually spent very little time in the Phoenix Group. Over the past 23 years I've spent way too many weeks on that island. It's 4° off the equator. The sun is a hammer. Temperatures are routinely in the high 90s in the shade. I don't think we've ever measured 120° but, in the sun, with the reflection off the coral rubble, 110° is not unusual. It's all about water. When we're working on the island we try to drink a liter per hour. A castaway who stayed in the shade and remained fairly inactive could obviously get by on much less - if they could find it.
2. If Amelia landed at Gardner, presumably near the wreck of the Norwich City, she would have seen the wreck. I read somewhere that someone received a radio message to the effect: "We are on coral southwest of an unknown island". If she had mentioned in any of her radio transmissions the fact of the wreck, (even if she did not know the name of the wreck) the wreck's location would have been known, and would have helped searchers. The navy pilots would have been alert to the fact of a wreck, and would have paid special attention Gardner when they saw it.
I try never to say "would have." "Would have" is a guess masquerading as a fact. The searchers did not know about the wreck and the Navy pilots were surprised to see it. They had almost no information about the islands they were searching and made the assumption that all of them had native work parties harvesting coconuts. That's why they didn't understand the significance of the "signs of recent habitation" on Gardner.
3. In the Coast Guard report, the officer suggested that the radio direction finding bearings taken by Pan Am were 'doubtful'. This is inexplicable to me. I must believe that Pan Am was a reliable source, and since there was no other population in that area, with or without a radio, such transmission could only have come from the Electra. What do they mean, by 'doubtful'? Sounds to me like 'cover your butt'.
At the time, the Navy considered the Pan Am bearing credible enough to send a battleship to search the Phoenix islands. In the aftermath of the failed search, the Coast Guard and the Navy were highly motivated to dispel any notion that they had abandoned AE and FN to die on some God-forsaken Pacific island.
4. It took the Colorado a week to get to Gardner. Once the Pan Am triangulations suggested the Phoenix group, by about day three, the Itasca could have been there by day four. Day four might have been in time, when day seven was obviously not. I understand why the crew of the Itasca assumed that they were to the northwest, but when they were not found there, why did they not go southeast to the Phoenix group? Since they could have gotten there three days sooner, they might have been able to rescue the castaways. Isn't that what they do?
At the risk of sounding self-serving, I suggest you read my book, Finding Amelia - the true story of the Earhart disappearance. The culprit was the "281 message." On the evening of July 5, Itasca's commanding officer was 281 miles north of Howland chasing a phantom of his own creation and his ship was getting dangerously low on bunker fuel. Colorado arrived the next day and refueled the cutter.
5. The aerial photo of Gardner shows surf on the eastern end of the island, from the easterly winds, but the western side would have been less subject to the effect of wind and surf. It has been suggested that the plane was not visible due to action of the wind and surf.
Another "would have" but a logical assumption. How much less surf? How far over the edge was the plane by then? Are we to conclude that because there might logically have been less surf on the west end than is seen on the eastern shore, the plane must have been visible and, if it was visible that they "would have" noticed it?
6. It has been suggested that tidal and wave and surf action could have pulled the Electra off the reef within a few days, yet it is also suggested that the colonists on Nikumaroro 'saw aircraft wreckage'.
The anecdotal and photographic evidence of airplane wreckage on the reef suggests that the plane was washed over the edge leaving behind some portion of wreckage that was (inadvertently) photographed three months later and seen as late as 1940 or '41. There is one wartime account of the locals using salvaged airplane parts "from an airplane wreck that was here when the first people arrived in 1939" but there are no reports of airplane wreckage on the reef during WWII. There does appear to be a debris field of light colored metal on the reef in a series of 1953 aerial mapping photos and there are anecdotal accounts of wreckage seen on the reef and on the shoreline in the mid-to-late '50s. This suggests that the airplane sank more or less intact in the shallow water just over the edge of the reef and remained there until it began to break up in the 1950s. Light weight pieces washed up to be salvaged and used. The more massive components eventually moved downhill until went over the precipice into really deep water.
-
I'm a commercial/instrument/multi-engine pilot with over 5,000 hours including significant time in heavy, tall-wheel twins. In my opinion it would be entirely possible to land a Lockheed 10 on that reef at low tide with little or no damage.
In what direction would you have made the approach? Would you make a steep approach or have shallowed it out? Would your downwind to base leg have been over the lagoon or the sea?
-
[/quote]In what direction would you have made the approach? Would you make a steep approach or have shallowed it out? Would your downwind to base leg have been over the lagoon or the sea?
[/quote]
IMHO Your downwind to base leg would be a shallower approach over the lagoon for two main reasons. First is so you can observe as much of the island as possible from low altitude. Secondly, in the hopes that your engine noise may alert any inhabitants to your intentions and who may the come to help.
From previous TIGHAR information we know it would be difficult for anyone to hear the aircraft but Amelia likely wouldn't be aware of this. She was likely to think, based on years of landings in small fields throughout her travels, that her engine noise would attract attention.
She may have done one or two circuits around the island from a cautious height to select her best landing site and plan her approach but with fuel low it's hard to say what her mind set was or would be. But I would come in as much over the island as possible just so I could observe where I was goingbto wait for my redcoats.
LTM
Forum newbie but ardent TIGHAR follower
-
LOL. That last line should read "wait for her rescuers". Not redcoats. Darn iPad spell checker!!
-
If I was making the approach to Niku I would opt a left or right (wind direction) over the lagoon - this would give me a stable landmass for juding distance above ground for the final.
Ted
-
1. It has been suggested that Amelia and Fred may have survived for months. In another place, it is suggested that with daily temperatures at 120 degrees, they might not have lasted a the week until the search planes flew over. In “The Colonization of the Phoenix Islands” by H.E. Maude, he suggests that "The temperature averages about 82 degrees, with maxima and minima varying only a few degrees above and below this figure, and a variation of less than 3 degrees between the monthly means."
Recall that Maude was doing a sales job and had actually spent very little time in the Phoenix Group. Over the past 23 years I've spent way too many weeks on that island. It's 4° off the equator. The sun is a hammer. Temperatures are routinely in the high 90s in the shade. I don't think we've ever measured 120° but, in the sun, with the reflection off the coral rubble, 110° is not unusual. It's all about water. When we're working on the island we try to drink a liter per hour. A castaway who stayed in the shade and remained fairly inactive could obviously get by on much less - if they could find it.
I looked up the weather statistics for Kanton Island (http://www.weatherreports.com/Canton_Island/averages.html?n=4), which I think is the nearest weather station. The average temperature (day and night) is about 82° Fahrenheit (28°C), annually and in the month of July. Average daily maximum temperature is about 86°F (30°C) in the shade. On average only about one day in July is above 95°F (35°C). Humidity is very high, about 85 percent in the morning, about 77 percent in the evening. Midday temperatures and humidity are similar to July/August in the southeastern US, although much more humid at night than in the US. Temperatures will be much higher out of the shade, but the sun isn't directly overhead at 4° South in July, so the solar intensity should also be similar to a summer in the southeastern US. Nonetheless, sunstroke would be a risk if you spent too long out of the shade. Cooling sea breezes should be an advantage of Nikumaroro, so I was interested to read that you don't feel them much in the lagoon, but you do at the 7 site. I find that the most convincing explanation for why it was chosen. If I'd been the castaway, sea breezes would have been something I yearned for to relieve the combination of heat and humidity.
-
I looked up the weather on Kanton Sat. Temp. was 82 F. The tides seemed to be about 2.5 ft and it said 6 ft. swells coming in from NNW. Right now sun is almost overhead at noon I think. So I pictured something like this: Plane lands in a few inches of water, tide comes in, now 3 ft. water with 6 ft. swells, wouldn't this be a problem at high tide? Even though the weather was apparently calm in early July 1937, couldn't there have been some inconveniently big swells coming in? I wonder what I would have done for water if I were them? Distillation using a tarp seems unlikely unless I built a fire and had a pot. I have learned that you can drink coconut milk, but is it easy to crack them with a rock and would they be lying around or do you have to climb the trees to get them? I am intending to get to the So. Pacific soon, I have wanted to go there for some time, even before I discovered TIGHAR. Then I will see for myself even though Nikumaroro seems an impossibility. I have discovered a good book, but don't have it yet. It's Called "The sex lives of cannibals: adrift in the equatorial Pacific". It has great reviews, it's about a guy spending 2 years on Tarawa. Wouldn't Fred Noonan have been familiar with some Pacific islands and what options there would be if you were stranded on one?
-
the official temperature recordings are probably pretty accurate given ambient temperatures in the tropics. The difference is when you find yourself in a clearing inland from the beach where the sun is beating down and there is no wind because you are surrounded by scaevola. In this case the temps can rise on the baking coral upwards to 110°+, much like the temperature out in the parking lot next to the supermarket tends to be hotter than the official temp for the day.
Water would certainly be the most urgent issue. There may have been some coconuts available, but once they fall off the tree to the ground they have less moisture than those in the trees. The effort to open a coconut, if you don't know how to do it efficiently, is pretty substantial. Without the right tools / technique, you would probably waste more energy / sweat than than found in the coconut. Give it a try when you make your trip to the Pacific, don't take any advice on how to open one, and see if you can do it.
For interesting books, I recommend "An Island to Oneself" (originally "An Island to myself") by Tom Neale. Out of print, but you can still get copies on Amazon. It details 6 years that Tom Neale lived by himself on the south Pacific atoll of Suvarov, some 200 miles East of Tahiti. Lots of survival info, including the stuff he ate, which I found to be very interesting when we were planning a castaway corp during Niku VI when we though the ship was going to make a run to Samoa for 6 days. It was this book that led me to investigate how to obtain hearts of palm during Niku VI, which everyone seemed to enjoy.
What isn't in that book is the fact that in the end Tom Neale spent something like 17 years, on and off, living on Suvarov by himself. Why he did it is another question, but it is an amazing story.
Andrew
-
For interesting books, I recommend "An Island to Oneself" (originally "An Island to myself") by Tom Neale. ...
"An Island to Oneself" (http://www.janesoceania.com/suvarov_tom_neale/) is available online, with lots of other pix and info from those who knew him. There is extra material on the web that is not available in the book. Don't ask me how I know.
-
"An Island to Oneself" (http://www.janesoceania.com/suvarov_tom_neale/) is available online, with lots of other pix and info from those who knew him. There is extra material on the web that is not available in the book. Don't ask me how I know.
How do you know?
....TB
(sorry....couldn't resist the temptation)
-
"An Island to Oneself" (http://www.janesoceania.com/suvarov_tom_neale/) is available online, with lots of other pix and info from those who knew him. There is extra material on the web that is not available in the book. Don't ask me how I know.
How do you know?
(sorry....couldn't resist the temptation)
In the Society, we call it "evidence of a wasted youth," although in my case it is evidence of a wasted late middle age. I spent hours reading the book, then googling to find out more about Tom Neale. It's a complex story.
-
Got the Tom Neale book, and am about halfway through. It's definitely not something I feel like I've read before! Unique stuff.
This is not a very easy book to order, though! Amazon was totally sold out, except for a few hardbacks for like $40 (price gouging galore) and one used paperback copy for $11, which I bought. It's in terrible shape, but a book is a book, right? I'll send it for free to someone on here if you pm me an address. I don't think it's very comparable to what Amelia or Fred would've been going through, but it certainly does give you an idea what living alone on an island in the South Pacific is like.
-
"The sex lives of cannibals: adrift in the equatorial Pacific".
Forget the book, this sounds like it would make a heck'uva movie for adult late night pay-per-view ;D
-
There's actually no sex or cannibals in this book (to speak of, anyway), it's actually a good & funny book about modern Tarawa. His second book, Getting Stoned with Savages, by J. Maarten Troost is also great, it's about Vanuatu and Fiji, is available on Kindle. It's educational to learn how different these island are from each other. No, he doesn't find Amelia or Fred. :-[
-
Hello TIGHAR Team,
Thank you for your diligent work on the search for Amelia Earhart and Fred Noonan. I read with great interest the team's Nikumaroro hypothesis. I have three problems with it:
1. If they landed and transmitted signals for over a day, why didn't they transmit their location calculated by Fred Noonan or by description of what happened?
2. Why didn't overflights of the island detect their presence, because they would have constructed SOS land signals seen from the air?
3. Why weren't artifacts of their presence found? They would have created some memorial structure or objects to mark their presence in contemplation of their deaths.
Thank you for reading. I wish you good luck this summer!
-
I think Ric is fond of saying "would have" is a guess mascarading as fact. #2 and #3. Did they have enough energy to do an SOS by the time it became apparent that rescue wasn't coming right away? Were they even expecting an air rescue at all? By the time they were nearly dead, would they have prioritized building a bunch of rocks to mark their presence, or finding food and water? If they had left some kind of a marker, would it even have been recognized as such? What you think they would have done are not in any way "no brainers" in the situation they were in. I don't think the fact that they seemingly didn't do any of these things is much to discount the Niku hypothesis.
I think the first point, though, is a really good one. Why in the dickens didn't Fred Noonan transmit their location? Possible answers that have been suggested by the available evidence at hand are, if I recall correctly:
1. They didn't know exactly where they were, possibly because the shape of the island did not match what was on the maps they had at their disposal, and did not want to misdirect the search effort by giving the wrong island name.
2. Fred may have been incapacitated and unable to do the necessary navigational readings.
3. They did try to transmit their location, but none of those signals were ever picked up. (Most of the post-loss messages are fragmentary, garbled or non-existent [e.g. carrier waves or indistinguishable voice]. The only lengthy message that exists is Betty's Notebook, and that is fragmentary and filled with numbers and letters that may have been garbled attempts to transmit that information -- numbers that are one degree off the line of position they last flew recur several times in the notes, as do the words "New York" or "New York City" which may have been a mishearing of "Norwich City," the shipwreck the plane may have landed near and the most identifiable landmark nearby)
I do feel you on this last point, because even though in the main I'm convinced by TIGHAR's circumstantial case, I do have a problem with the idea that Fred Noonan was too incapacitated to figure out where they were but he was still OK enough to man the radio a night or two later. I can construct a plausible scenario where that's how it went down, but it troubles me a bit.
-
George,
some understanding of the problems with the post-loss radio signals may be found by reading Brandenberg's SNR analysis (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/ResearchPapers/Brandenburg/postlossradio.html), the Catalog and Analysis Report (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/ResearchPapers/Brandenburg/signalcatalog.html), and of course the Overview Wiki (http://tighar.org/wiki/Post-loss_Radio_Messages--Overview), which includes yet more links. The poor reception quality of some of the post-loss signals prevented any understanding of words, so we just don't know what sort of message was intended by whoever sent them.
The triangulated bearings from Wake, Midway and Hawaii are described as being very difficult to hoax, making them among the most compelling arguments I've run across. They need to be explained away if the "Gardner hypothesis" is to be rejected, IMHO.
-
Hello Adam,
Thank you for pointing out the problem with my "would have" comments. My intended point is to look at the conduct of AE and FN from a common sense viewpoint. What do people do in those circumstances? I have not seen detailed research into the survival behaviors of AE and FN, so we have only human nature as a guide. While acknowledging the passage of time and specific circumstances put a wall between us and them, we can use human nature as guide to create questions and search for answers. Has someone gone through the personal histories of AE and FN, studied their reactions to stress and danger, and provided the information to psychologists or behaviorists to suggest their actions on Nikumaroro?
Regarding the first point, you've well discussed why FN may not have been able to provide location information, but there remains the question why the radio record has no description of what happened. Are crash victims closed mouthed about their survival? Not in my experience.
-
George:
You ask, "Why didn't they transmit their location?" How do you know they did not transmit their location?
You say, " . . . they would have constructed SOS land signals seen from the air?" How do you know they what they would have done?
You say, "They would have created some memorial structure . . . " How do you know this? How do you know what they would have created?
You may be a skeptic, George. There's nothing wrong with that, I guess. But try to come up with a better set of arguments, something that has some substance to it.
Alfred
-
To clarify Allfred's statement "How do you know they did not transmit their location?", keep in mind that the records of radio transmissions received in the first few days after the disappearance were not intelligible - no words could be understood.
2) why construct any sort of signal to be see from the air when they've got a big, shiny airplane parked on the reef?
3) without water, any survivors would only have a few days of functional capacity to do anything requiring physical activity. If the aircraft washed over the edge of the reef by the 6th day, it seems to me unlikely that they were still alive and active enough to build a monument or anything else, although the 7 site is a curiosity, as is Lambrecht's report of seeing signs of recent habitation.
Endless discussions of "what might they have done" have been posted here, going back to TIGHAR's early days. Many of the same questions get asked over and over again, but without evidence or clues, there are no conclusions to be drawn.
-
At the risk of sounding like I'm contradicting myself, I'd like to suggest that thinking about how AE/FN might have behaved (based on what we know of them, plus knowing what different crash victims have done, plus our own imaginings) can help identify things to look for. That process has been a staple to TIGHAR's search for decades. For example, knowing about Fred's navigation techniques, combined with some imagination, leads us to look closely at the 157/337 LOP and how it can lead to Gardner. Proposing Gardner as a landing spot attracted the attention of knowledgable experts, who have "helped' identify weaknesses in the theory, which in turn have prompted more imaginings that have narrowed the likely scenarios even further. George's 3 questions narrow the questions to be answered quite nicely. So, although I said "there are no conclusions to be drawn", there are some scenarios we can rule as highly unlikely, based on suggested clues that have proven to be lacking, and by using "how they might have behaved" scenarios. Narrowing the search is what this is about.
-
So, although I said "there are no conclusions to be drawn", there are some scenarios we can rule as highly unlikely, based on suggested clues that have proven to be lacking, and by using "how they might have behaved" scenarios. Narrowing the search is what this is about.
So I suppose that you are not open to the abducted by the Giant Squid Troopers of the Emperor of Atlantis hypothesis ;D
Seriously though you are perfectly right about looking at things from a rational view. I am as sceptical as George regarding the Nikumaroro hypothesis. In my case my scepticism is just me admitting that I find the available evidence both circumstantial and extraordinarily compromised by the overlying detritus of the PISS settlement from 1940 to 1965 as well as the LORAN station in the war years; and, as I have speculated elsewhere, by the unreliable nature of the islander recollections regarding wreckage (given the disintegrating Norwich City) and skeletons. The post-loss radio transmissions are simply too vague to be other than, pardon the pun, background noise.
However we must also accept that the Nikumaroro hypothesis is at present just as valid as the ditched and sank, Gilbert Islands and East New Britain hypotheses and quite possibly the captured by Japanese hypothesis. But this is the TIGHAR Nikumaroro site, therefore it is here we discuss that particular hypothesis and its strengths and weaknesses until, as we hope, something that settles the issue either way comes out of the next trip there. The most obvious evidence and the most likely to have survived would be a sizable and identifiable portion of the Electra, while identifiable skeletal material would also be good I'm not optimistic on that score given the time that has elapsed. As to which hypothesis I personally favour I simply admit that I have no preference other than to see each tested.
-
I would suggest that there are more than 3 problems with the Nikumaroro hypothesis but, that also applies to the numerous other hypotheses. That doesn't excuse the lack of hard evidence in the Tighar scenario but, what it does do is test the opposing theories and ideas within that scenario. Each time an idea/opinion/theory etc... Is put forward within the TIGHAR scenario it is OPEN to examination, testing and debate. Some are eventually shown to be dead ends and, some not. It has been 75 years since the Electra vanished, in another few months the TIGHAR hypothesis will have another piece added to the scenario. Will it be the piece that shows the 'smoking gun', who knows? After 75 years I'm sure we can wait another few months.
Please understand that I consider the TIGHAR hypothesis the most extensively researched and investigated of the hypotheses, that does not mean it is correct! Simply that it is one of the two most likely scenarios. Having said all this I would add that if the outcome depended purely on determination and decades of hard work alone then the TIGHAR team deserve to be successful. Yes, I know the outcome doesn't depend on this :)
-
Really good answers here, much better put than mine.
I'm still amused at how ready some folks are to dismiss the evidentiary value of the post-loss messages as being "vague" (which they certainly are from a content standpoint) without making the remotest attempt to give a plausible alternative explanation as to who was making them on a frequency that should not have been in use by anyone other than than AE and the Itasca, in a part of the world where there were few functioning radios to generate signals, and the remarkable coincidence of 5 different directional bearings (out of 7 taken, by different operators) on Gardner. I think a lot of the skeptics, with all due respect, have done a surface reading of the evidence and drawn conclusions on that basis without having gone through the specifics of the case very carefully.
I'm with the poster above, that skeptics of the Niku hypothesis need to really grapple with the implications of the post-loss messages by constructing a plausible alternative explanation for them that fits the facts -- not just that "they came from somewhere". I find the nature of the post-loss messages and the five bearings to be a clincher in terms of my evaluation of the evidence -- simply because the alternative explanations for same are so much more wildly improbable than that, simply, AE was transmitting from Gardner Island.
TIGHAR, to its credit, has anticipated most of the objections to its hypothesis and has laid out plausible answers to pretty much of all of them that I am aware of. Plausible answers are not the same as proof, and should not be confused as such -- but they have addressed these questions head on and haven't swept them under the rug. People who advance a hypothesis and think through the problems with them and try to answer those questions are much more credible in my view than people who do not -- which is one of the things I really like about TIGHAR. Most of the problems and questions people have with the hypothesis have been addressed somewhere in this site -- though it may not be immediately obvious from a surface reading.
But yeah, I did point this out in my original post, but it seemed to have been not been taken, so I'm glad it was restated...for the most part, we don't know WHAT they transmitted, since very little of the actual content of the messages was understood.
-
I'm still amused at how ready some folks are to dismiss the evidentiary value of the post-loss messages as being "vague" (which they certainly are from a content standpoint) without making the remotest attempt to give a plausible alternative explanation as to who was making them on a frequency that should not have been in use by anyone other than than AE and the Itasca, in a part of the world where there were few functioning radios to generate signals, and the remarkable coincidence of 5 different directional bearings (out of 7 taken, by different operators) on Gardner. I think a lot of the skeptics, with all due respect, have done a surface reading of the evidence and drawn conclusions on that basis without having gone through the specifics of the case very carefully.
I'm with the poster above, that skeptics of the Niku hypothesis need to really grapple with the implications of the post-loss messages by constructing a plausible alternative explanation for them that fits the facts -- not just that "they came from somewhere". I find the nature of the post-loss messages and the five bearings to be a clincher in terms of my evaluation of the evidence -- simply because the alternative explanations for same are so much more wildly improbable than that, simply, AE was transmitting from Gardner Island.
I am sceptical in the sense that while I am prepared to consider a couple as evidence of possible post-loss survival, I don't accept at present that they are from Nikumaroro, nor do I accept the rather imaginative reconstructions of post landing events. Given the amount of hoaxing and the general behaviour of the press at the time, I would think that anything other than a very cautious approach to them as evidence would not be wise. The events that follow the disappearance, except for the efforts of the Navy and Coast Guard, rapidly began to turn into a media circus.
-
Malcolm
I think that if you went though the post loss radio signals analysis http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/ResearchPapers/Brandenburg/signalcatalog.html (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/ResearchPapers/Brandenburg/signalcatalog.html), you would see that TIGHAR has pretty much discounted the likely hoaxers. While there are a few interesting outliers on harmonic frequencies, what emerges is that the pattern of receptions is largely localized to professional and military radio operators in the Pacific. That would argue that the transmitter was also in the Pacific somewhere transmitting on AE's frequency - a US civil aviation frequency - and sounding like her. It also removes the "bad behavior of the press" factor as the operators in the Pacific were just doing their job, not reacting to the press.
The important thing is that if only one of the 200+ transmissions was authentic, she had to be on land somewhere in a reasonably intact aircraft.
The direction finding bearings converging in the vicinity of Nikumaroro only enhances the story as there is only so much land out there - Kiribati has probably less than 100 sq miles of land in a million sq miles of ocean - so to have the bearings converge anywhere near land instead of out in the open ocean would seem to be meaningful, would you not agree?
If you are willing to consider "a couple as evidence of possible post-loss survival" then you are essentially agreeing that there is evidence she successfully landed the aircraft on land and was able to transmit. Where? is the question.
If we agree there is evidence she made it to land, what kind of island are we looking for? Shouldn't we be looking for an island within fuel range, with some sort of navigational logic as to how she would have gotten there, near the convergence of the DF bearings taken at the time, with a known history of a castaway who apparently had items with them such as a sextant box likely to have once been in the US Navy inventory and similar to one FN was known to use as a back up, an island with native myths of aircraft wreckage otherwise un-accounted for in the same location as a contemporaneous photo shows an unusual landing gear shaped object on the reef, one that has yielded aircraft parts that seem consistent with the Lockheed Electra i.e. the aircraft skin without zinc chromate, plexiglass, and dado, an island with archaeological artifacts who's origin seem consistent with a mid to late 1930's US female camping out, wearing shoes, and eating stuff in ways that pacific islanders don't?
I think we've found one of those islands, but evidently you are not yet convinced Nikumaroro is a good place to look. What else would you expect of an island she landed on? How many other candidates are there? If not Nikumaroro, then on what island would you start your search? Based upon what thought process?
If the post loss signals, or at least one of them, indicate "evidence of possible post loss survival", doesn't the rest of the research we've done, taken as a body of evidence, take on additional relevance? Still circumstantial until we find something better, but aren't most archaeological conclusions based upon a preponderance of circumstantial evidence rather than a single smoking gun?
Andrew
-
Andrew
While being reasonably convinced of the logic begind the post loss transmissions, must be on land and signals eminating from vicnity of Gardner island. I didn't notice anything in the Lambrecht report that mentioned these 2 observations.
Were the search pilots not informed that there was a STRONG possibility that this was the area that they were most likely to find something based upon these 2 observations?
I am sure that if they were given this information they would have put a plane into the lagoon (is that possible?) and had a closer look around Gardner.
That's the only part of the post loss transmissions and the overflight that perplexes me.
Anyone else see my point?
-
Good question.
I don't know if the pilots and crew were briefed, but the reason the Colorado was sent to "search" the Phoenix islands first was because the post loss radio signals indicated that the aircraft was on land. Lockheed told the Navy in no uncertain terms that there was no way it could transmit if ditched in the water. So, if radio signals must be coming from land, let's go search the available and most likely land - the Phoenix Islands. I'm pretty sure the DF bearings were part of that search management plan.
When the Colorado overflew the Phoenix Islands and reported that they had been thoroughly searched, the Navy pretty much declared that the radio signals must have all been hoaxes, and then set off on the open water search with the Lexington. Thoroughly searching the islands and radio transmissions from an Electra on land became mutually exclusive, they had to pick one.
That is pretty much where it sat until TIGHAR embarked on analyzing the post loss radio signals some 10 years ago.
Andrew
-
I guess it's the benefit of hindsight playing a major role in that question Andrew. I am sure the Lambrecht fliers did their best with whatever information they had to go on at the time.
-
From a bystanders view of this conversation, I propose that we show up in DC, and view for ourselves all of the data. I'm sure seeing things firsthand would answer some of these questions. I know that I am looking forward to seeing all of this firsthand, so I can draw my own conclusions. I have had my mind changed before, and probably will again. But, before I would object to someones opinion, I would first like to see how they came about it.
Gee---feel like I'm going back to school again. (YUK!) but alot more fun.
Tom
-
Malcolm
I think that if you went though the post loss radio signals analysis ... etc.
Andrew
Thank you Andrew, I think you are confusing my not accepting with actually denying the veracity of the radio messages.
I find the Betty message to be quite interesting and lacking in elements of sensationalism which mark the obvious hoaxes. What I meant was that if it is genuine it still doesn't either confirm or deny that the sender was on Gardner Island. Now if the next trip turns up physical evidence in one form or another that demonstrates that Earhart and Noonan were on Gardner then that goes towards part confirmation of the message's veracity - but, and I hate to be tedious, it actually doesn't, if we are honest, confirm absolutely the message's veracity. It simply places the message in the group of events that can be postulated are part of what happened on the island in the few days they survived. A small point but vital given that the Nikumaroro hypothesis has a lot of detractors.
-
Interesting discussion. The artifacts and post loss radio signals "support" the hypothesis but do not prove it. I don't think anyone has claimed they do. Finding the Electra with an ROV search will only prove that the Electra was found underwater at Nikumororo. We can "infer" because the plane is there that AE and FN were also there.
Arguments can be made that this doesn't prove that AE and FN ended there lives there. Those arguments likely include photos of alien spacecraft abducting people. However we have archaeological artifacts that suggest a female of European descent was there at some point. Those artifacts don't prove it was AE. So finding the Electra will support the hypothesis that the Electra ended its days on Nikumororo. And this, coupled with the artifacts, makes it a very compelling argument that AE and FN died there. But some people will argue this until AE's passport is found clutched in her skeletal remains under a tree on Nikumororo with a detailed minute by minute diary outlining everything that happened from the time she made the last radio call "We must be on you". But reason shall prevail in the heads of reasonable men.
-
But reason shall prevail in the heads of reasonable men.
You are not wrong - if something clear and undeniable is found at Nikumaroro that shows Earhart and Noonan were there then, as usual, only the folks in the lunatic theory fringe would deny it. As a former archaeologist in a profession noted for its reliance on the balance of probability I really hanker after clear undeniable evidence.
-
Try this experiment with the next ten people you see (not Earhart afficianados), ask them if they will
participate in a little research. I have done this experiment already and I would like to see what results you get.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can use this little script.
“Excuse me, can I ask you for two minutes of your time? I promise I am not trying to sell you
something or asking for any contribution, all right?”
“I would like to set up a little scenario and at the end ask you just one question, O.K?”
“Here we go. You are a pilot flying your plane across the ocean. There are many people waiting
for you at your destination island but you were not able to find that island because it is very small
so you went to a different island where you managed to land safely. You had attempted to
contact them by radio while you were in flight but, even though you heard them once, they never
acknowledged your transmissions so you are not sure that your radio was working while you were in
flight. You were not able to tell them of your diversion or what alternate island you were going to fly
to. You are now seriously overdue at the destination so you know the people waiting for you there recognize
that you must have come down somewhere else and you know that they will attempt to find you.
After landing you jiggled some wires and hope that you have been able to get the radio
transmitter to work but you have no way to know for sure. Even if the radio will transmit you
don’t know how long it will continue to work, it might stop again after only a few seconds.
Because of the uncertainty about how long the radio will work you are thinking very carefully
about the message you should send. You want to make sure that the most critical and important
information is sent at the beginning of your transmission in case the radio fails again after only a
few seconds.”
“Do you understand the scenario?
“O.K. I am going to ask you one question but don’t answer immediately, think about you answer
for one minute before answering, O.K.?”
“Here is the question. What information would you transmit at the very beginning of your
transmission?”
gl
-
“Here is the question. What information would you transmit at the very beginning of your
transmission?”
gl
In my case it would be "(call sign) down at (position)" and keep repeating. Or if I was still a little discombobulated "HELP!!!!!! Fred's gone nuts" ;D
I don't think I'd be too concerned about a suitcase unless Fred was trying to hit me with it for not repeating our position constantly.
-
Nice, but there's at least one problem with the 'answer' to that survey...
Ask ten people, and despite what I, Gary or Malcolm believes is rational, you may well get at least 7 different answers...
'We' can't know how AE or FN would have proceeded - especially if their conditions were worsening quickly for whatever set of reasons.
Worse, we can't even know for certain that they didn't send that information - we have a lot of scratchy bits and pieces from a troubled station.
Interesting to contemplate, but easy to over-simplify in our answers.
It's also only one aspect of the whole - the Niku hypothesis involves a great deal more than this point.
LTM -
If you do the experiment you will probably get results similar to what I got, eight out of the ten times I thought I was talking to a real estate agent, "location, location, location." If normal, off the street, people can figure that out it seams ludicrous (to me at least) that you can claim that two aviators couldn't figure that out. And, with your hypo, they had five days to give it a lot of thought. It just amazes me how far you guys will go to try to explain away anything that doesn't agree with your theory.
I was going to point this out on the older thread, Why wasn't Gardiner identified in the radio messages? (https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,525.165.html) because the answer to that question was so obvious that, if it was a snake, it would have bit you! Because none of those messages came from Gardner, DUH! The Jacobson data base claims that there were 52 receptions that were "credible." Of these, 17 were in Mose code only, they were clearly heard, but contained no location information. So according to your excuse then, she only sent her location in the messages that were not clearly heard. How did Earhart manage to do that?
gl
-
"Amelia Help Reef SE Howland"
u really dont wanna know what the others said ;D
-
I think Andrew made the best point on the post loss signals at the top of this page. IF you believe that even one signal came from Gardiner then you believe that the aircraft was on land and that the right hand engine could be fired up. I personally believe in that "one signal" concept. In fact you had 5 signals that triangulated onto Gardner that were received by trained professional radio operators in the Pacific. All independent of each other.
Now to Betty's notebook. Betty had no idea what some of the words were that were being communicated. She was hearing snippets across a great distance. She did hear numbers and she did hear information that fits the scenario. Well you ask, isn't that convenient? Well not really. Read Betty's notes. You think she wrote those notes all those years ago so they would someday conveniently dovetail into a hypothesis someone might put together? Her notes and information came first. TIGHAR's hypothesis came after. Its the same with Bob Brandenburg's post loss signal analysis. He has taken historical information and analyzed it. the information from both Betty's notes and the post loss radio signals came within days of AE disappearing. TIGHAR has analyzed the data. TIGHAR didn't create it.
The skeptics ask why there was no information about location given in the messages? The absence of location information suggests to the skeptics that the messages were therefore ALL hoaxes. Let me ask this question. If you were going to play a hoax and report hearing a message on something like this then would you not want it to be believed? Wouldn't you really include a location report as part of the false message just so it would sound authentic?
Of course I am ignoring many good points made about the post loss signals that can be read in this thread along with the other threads on this subject matter. But let me also ask the skeptics another question. Why would Betty make false notes? If she made false notes, and some people did make false reports, then why wouldn't Betty, a young girl at the time with no known motive, have created a hoax using "New York City"? What possible value could that have in a false note?
Someone who creates a hoax wants some attention. Otherwise why create the lie? (Thats what a hoax is) They give just enough to "sound" credible while not giving enough to get pinned to the mat. What attention did Betty and the radio operators get? What gain did they get from creating these lies? How did these hoaxers manage to create information that so tantalizingly fits into the TIGHAR hypothesis?
Skeptics have the right to be skeptical. The problem is proving who told the truth and who lied.
-
Well said, Irv...
The first time I read Finding Amelia, and the chapter on Betty's notebook, I got chills down my spine thinking that AE might have been saying "Norwich City" in reference to where they were, and since Betty doesn't know what that is, she hears it as "New York City", and records those words. If AE had perhaps been trying to transmit latitude/longitude, or reading numbers off a debilitated FN's charts, in desperation, why wouldn't she also say something like "there's a giant shipwreck in front of me called the NORWICH CITY!!"
-
I tried that little experiment Gary suggested. I asked 5 people about what message they would send. All said position in different ways. So I added a twist. I said that it's an island but you have no idea of your position or it's name. That was a bit harder but they stuck with the idea of trying to give position. Three asked the size of the island and if there were landmarks. One asked about island shape and one was stumped. When I said there was a big shipwreck then two asked if we knew the name and would give that. The other two wanted to describe it. Essentially they all got the idea of using some defining visual image to use in reporting where they were. That's neither scientific nor rocket science.
When lost people generally look around for landmarks. As Jeff N said earlier, no one is claiming that AE and FN couldn't figure out what to say. It's possible they did but listeners failed to catch it. Nikumororo is a long way from anywhere and the antennae is not several thousand feet in the area but several feet off the ground. Probably not optimum transmission conditions.
All we can say is Betty may have heard AE, and the radio operators, trained in such matters, all noted a signal, which, when plotted on a map, triangulated to Gardner island, approximately.
The survey experiment just proves that the 5 people I talked with have some idea of what they would do if they could make one radio message out. This proves only that. Nothing more.
-
My scenario...let me dream a bit.
AE: We've reached the LOP per FN. He thinks, as everyone else does although we do not know this, that we are north of Howland. So our first turn is south and...further way from Howland...although we did not know that. After a while we do not see Howland or smoke from Atasca. So, could we have missed it? We turn north and report again....still no response. It seems obvious they are still not hearing us. Why...I don't know. So FN thinks we must have been further north than we thought....so we turn back south again. Further south....further south....what's the point in calling any more....they aren't answering us. Gas is very low now. We know there are islands south...but not north. We have no idea where Howland was....and now we need to put 'her' down somewhere other than the middle of the ocean. There are islands south if we were wrong and were south of Howland. I have rather ditch near an island than..... There, there's an island. A shipwreck! That could work....I have very little fuel left. Let's do a fly over and check it out. That reef looks pretty smooth out next to the ocean....and it is near that wreck. I can do this. Then taxi 'her' to the beach for safety. Rough landing but in one piece. Oh no! I dropped the left main into a rutt or something. Left engine will not pull me out of it. I am stuck here! Right engine will only pull me into the ocean. Shut down and let's get out of here. Later the tide is in but she is hanging on. Left engine at water level, but right engine still above. When the tide is out I can run that engine to charge the batteries and use the radio.....maybe someone will hear us. Let's investigate the island and see if we can find any supplies from the wreck or...... Tide is out again. Back to the plane for radio. 'She' moves a little each time the tide is in. Then comes a rough surf....beating her up....we watch from the beach as she is beaten up and washed over the edge....and gone. Have to find some place safer, cooler, and easier to get out and be seen. George is looking for me. .......................................
-
I keep seeing comments alluding to the idea that if the post-loss radio messages were from Amelia on Gardner, why didn't she give her position? I believe she did every time she keyed the mic. The first report we get is on July 2 at about 9:00 pm Gardner time. If you look at report #30800LE (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/ResearchPapers/Brandenburg/signalcatalog2.html#ID30800LE), Mrs. Mabel Larremore reported “On the first night of Amelia Earhart’s disappearance I heard her SOS loud and clear, not on the frequency but on the one President Roosevelt said she might use. Her message stated the plane was down on an uncharted island. Small, uninhabited. The plane was partially on land, part in water. She gave the latitude and longitude of her location. I listened to her for 30-45 minutes.… I heard her message around 2 A.M. daylight saving time from my home in Amarillo, Texas. She stated that her navigator Fred Noonan was seriously injured. Needed help immediately. She also had some injuries but not as serious as Mr. Noonan.” Now I know that Mrs. Larremore didn't come forward until 1990, but as you can see from the link, "Nauru (Identifier #s 30831NA and 30843NA) and Itasca (Identifier 30843IA) reported credible voice transmissions during the time Mabel claimed to have heard Earhart. In 1990, that information had not yet been compiled, let alone published", and as you can see, the report has been deemed "credible". Another example is the report by Dana Randolph #41500RH (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/ResearchPapers/Brandenburg/signalcatalog3.html#ID41500RH) in which he states he heard Amelia at around 4:00 am Gardner time on July 4th, giving her location before it faded out. What I find interesting is that "This sequence was repeated an unknown number of times during a 25 minute period." Thelma Lovelace #71230LC (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/ResearchPapers/Brandenburg/signalcatalog5.html#ID71230LC) reported " While tuning around a frequency where she usually heard a program of Japanese music every morning, she heard a voice, loud and clear, saying “Can you read me? Can you read me? This is Amelia Earhart. This is Amelia Earhart. Please come in.” Earhart then give her latitude and longitude, which Thelma wrote in a book, and continued: “we have taken in water, my navigator is badly hurt; (repeat) we are in need of medical care and must have help; we can’t hold on much longer.” Even Betty Klenck (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Notebook/notebook.html) said she heard a series of numbers.
I have a feeling that if it was Amelia Betty heard, she heard latitude and longitude, she just didn't write it down, or misunderstood it. I find it hard to believe that someone with the experience of Amelia and Fred Noonan would have just picked up the radio mic and just start babbling useless information.
Brad
-
Viewed in isolation Betty's notes are not really indicative of anything other than the fact that Earhart appears to have abandoned any logic in her broadcast for help until circumstances ended access to a working radio. The other problem is that we don't know with certainty that the message is from Earhart, and therefore we don't know if the message content is an accurate reflection of events after a purported landing somewhere. To assume that the message is from Earhart and to assume the scenarios proposed from their content are just that - assumptions, and assumptions based on a rather amateurish (if real) call for help. That is the reality until, or if ever, evidence is found on Nikumaroro or elsewhere to allow that reconstruction.
But to play the devil's advocate is it possible that Earhart and Noonan were broadcasting for help continually when circumstances allowed and in a much more logical fashion like "(call sign) on reef (position)" or some other similar but short message. Yet radio faults, poor reception etc. conspired to allow only the rather garbled and desperate plea that Betty picked up. Throughout the efforts to raise help Earhart and Noonan may have had no idea that their transmissions were simply not being picked up so one can expect an a feeling of frustration to creep in, and for one or either of them to get angry, especially if the aircraft was noticeably closer to being swept away. That persistence may have delayed them searching the island for food and water until whatever reserves they had on the aircraft were dangerously depleted, and would make a search for sustenance that bit more difficult. Staying with the Electra was for several days, I would imagine, the best alternative because both would expect a search to be underway - I can't see them running ashore and exploring if the aircraft with a working radio is sitting on the reef.
That is the only what if scenario that can put an acceptable interpretation on the Betty message that I can offer. But the reality is that I remain very sceptical about the Betty message, simply because I have to embroider it with imaginary background details to make it work - that is not a good way to get at the truth.
-
Speaking of assumptions Malcolm, isn't your first line "Viewed in isolation Betty's notes are not really indicative of anything other than the fact that Earhart appears to have abandoned any logic in her broadcast for help until circumstances ended access to a working radio.", also an assumption?
You have assumed "the fact" that Earhart.... How do you know this is a fact? The absence of a perfectly worded radio message with all "logic" is not proof that such a message was not transmitted.
Let's first understand that this is not me attacking you because you don't believe in the hypothesis. You have been clear that you are trying to understand what information there is and to evaluate it.
I am simply trying to point out that we all make assumptions about a lot of the information we have available. It's a lot of assumptions. But we humans tend to believe that if "it walks like a duck, looks like a duck, and quakes like a duck then it's "likely" a duck". That's not proof positive but us making a "likely" assumption.
It's okay for any of us to make assumptions. Pulling facts into our assumptions provides more credibility. The more facts the more credible until we reach the point where we can say that we believe our assumption is real or true. However we all interpret the facts in our own way. You find the lack of a received and documented message from AE to be possibly indicative that there were therefore no received post loss signals. You find the assumption that AE made amateurish attempts to signal for help not to be valid. Is this because you have applied your own interpretation of what that radio call for help should have been? Interpreting in your own manner and believing only your manner is correct?
On many advertisements you see phrases like "Try a slice of our delicious apple pie". Or "We have the best coffee in town". Well I have a problem with those phrases. Who decided the pie was delicious? Or that the coffee was the best? Shouldn't that be up to each consumer to evaluate and decide? Wasn't it an assumption by the writer? Sure it's all marketing hype but you get my point. We all judge by our own standards. TIGHAR is simply presenting information to allow each of us to make our own assumptions. They try to present it without emotion and scientifically researched.
Your last post says that to assume the messages attributed to AE are just assumptions is correct. However many TIGHAR believers have viewed these assumptions from their own perspective and believe that a few of these "assumptions" are possible so they have arrived at different conclusions than you. Nothing nefarious, devious, underhanded or wrong about that. It's just called a difference of opinion. And we are all equally entitled to those.
-
Speaking of assumptions Malcolm, isn't your first line "Viewed in isolation Betty's notes are not really indicative of anything other than the fact that Earhart appears to have abandoned any logic in her broadcast for help until circumstances ended access to a working radio.", also an assumption? ... etc.
No not really because one would expect that a person sending a message for help wouldn't wander off into mentioning the suitcase. Even if Earhart at times seems to adopt a somewhat eccentric approach to radio usage, Noonan is there also and he is the professional. As I said in my second paragraph I can make it all fit but, as I conclude, if that has to be done by imagining events rather than describing events then in the end the conclusion reached is worthless.
These post loss radio messages are as Prospero says
"... such stuff
As dreams are made on ..."
As I see it the public has been dreaming on all this for 75 years and it is about time that the curtain is lowered. The only way to that end is hard undeniable evidence.
-
As I said. Differences of opinion.
Your phrase of "one would expect" means what? Typically the "one" is substituting for "I" or "people like me". Therefore you are again applying your standards to your assumption.
How do you know AE hadn't been transmitting for hours and was now quite giddy from dehydration when she talked about a suitcase? It's all assumptions. You can't say our (TIGHAR believers) assumptions are wrong unless you have facts to prove it. We likewise can't say yours are wrong either.
What events are you imagining rather than describing? I don't think there are any you can describe because we have no facts to use. Only imagination. What is likely or probable is perhaps a better standard. The post loss radio signals fall into the "likely" category for me.
Think about it. AE is lost. Biggest news in the Pavific. 5 professionally trained radio operators are listening for her. Each records picking up a signal. They are in separate parts of the Pacific. They take a bearing on that signal. They all triangulate near one small island. Of all the ocean the signals could have pointed to they pointed at the group of islands the Navy first thought the likeliest. The island group that lay at the end of the LOP if followed. The island in fuel range of Howland. But the radio signals weren't reviewed and triangulated in July 1937 and made to fit the puzzle. The signals were picked up and recorded then. You can't change those facts. The analysis done by TIGHAR shows the factual bearings of those signals by the operators of the day. No rewriting of history. Skeptics can believe the radio signals did not exist but why would they believe this? They believe the reports were falsified? To what end? Do they think professional radio operators just falsely record radio signals to pass the time? There was no massive conspiracy theory to create these signal records.
You try to fit the pieces together Malcolm but you really have to also ask "What was likely? AND What wasn't likely?".
-
As I said. Differences of opinion.
Your phrase of "one would expect" means what? Typically the "one" is substituting for "I" or "people like me". Therefore you are again applying your standards to your assumption.
etc ...
You try to fit the pieces together Malcolm but you really have to also ask "What was likely? AND What wasn't likely?".
I think you are falling for the trap of trying to make what little is known fit into what you perceive as the likely outcome. The moment that starts happening you allow the hypothesis to pick and discard various parts of the data. If you are attempting to identify the nature of an unknown outcome from a known series of events then the moment you find that you are cherry picking certain pieces of data at the expense of other equally verified pieces of data then you have lost objectivity and allowed the hypothesis rather than the data to determine the result.
There is nothing essentially wrong with having a hypothesis so long as you recognise that that is all it is. People can become quite attached to particular hypotheses and happily assemble the facts to support them, but in many cases this often comes at the expense of shedding those bits that don't conveniently fit or tailoring them so that they do. The fate of Earhart and Noonan is currently the subject of 4 or 5 different hypotheses which we are all aware of. These all use various combinations of the known data and all downplay or dismiss bits of known data which don't fit.
The key in all of this is to stick to the known proven data. Things like the take off time from Lae, the intended flight path, the amount of fuel, aircraft performance, the proven radio intercepts and importantly the point in time when it becomes certain that the Electra can no longer be airborne. It is that last piece of data that brings us to where we are now which is discussing one of the hypotheses to account for the fliers fate.
The different hypotheses all use this data in different ways and some once they get Earhart and Noonan to wherever it is the hypothesis demands segue into quite imaginary reconstructions of events in which the purported post loss radio messages achieve diagnostic powers far in excess of their demonstrated reality or even content. On this forum alone Betty's notebook has created a whole series of very imaginative scenarios regarding Noonan's state of health, Earhart succumbing tragically under a tree, a plane sitting on a reef for several days then disappearing from view just before the Navy flies over etc. etc. All good fun but all equally completely imaginary.
Bluntly put the proven data doesn't even allow us to place Earhart and Noonan on Nikumaroro, in fact it doesn't even allow us to place them anywhere near the island or any other island. In the last demonstrated radio message from the Electra Earhart broadcasts that she is flying along the 157/337 line looking for Howland. Others, as we know, have equally valid assertions that following that line would not have bought her near Nikumaroro, while others have her landing on East New Britain, the Marshalls, the Gilberts or simply succumbing to the inevitable in the Pacific Ocean. The proof of that colossal uncertainty is that if we had data that allowed such a fairly precise placing they or their remains would have been found long ago.
All one can do in any historical puzzle like this is to establish a time line with the proven data placed on it. In this case the time line finishes in thin air - what happens after that can only be shown by producing more proven data, which it is time TIGHAR did. Relying on what is likely or unlikely is simply hoping that uncertainty will be taken as certainty.
-
Another example is the report by Dana Randolph #41500RH (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/ResearchPapers/Brandenburg/signalcatalog3.html#ID41500RH) in which he states he heard Amelia at around 4:00 am Gardner time on July 4th, giving her location before it faded out. What I find interesting is that "This sequence was repeated an unknown number of times during a 25 minute period."
Brad
This reception in particular is interesting to me for other reasons. One, it was heard by multiple stations at essentially the same time - Dana Randolf in Rock Springs, Mrs. Crabb in Toronto, Pan AM in Ohau, and Pan Am in Midway. If you continue with the details in Brandenburgs analysis that you have linked, you will find the following:
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
According to the local newspaper, Randolph heard a woman say “This is Amelia Earhart. Ship is on a reef south of the equator. Station KH9QQ” at about 0800 MST. The woman then began to give her location, but the signal faded out before it was given. This sequence was repeated an unknown number of times during a 25 minute period.
Source “First Radio Contact with Miss Earhart Made by Rock Springs boy,” Rock Springs Rocket, July 6-7, 1937, p.1; Finding Amelia, p. 142; MSG8.PDF, p. 368; and MSG9.PDF, p. 372.
Probability 0.016
Qual Factors A local Department of Commerce radio operator investigated and verified Randolph’s report, and found that the call sign heard was KHAQQ, and that the signal frequency was “near 16000” kHz, which is close to 15525 kHz, the 5th harmonic of 3105 kHz. It was plausible for Randolph to be tuning there, since 15525 kHz was near a shortwave broadcast band. The investigator also found that the signal included a statement – not reported by the newspaper – that the plane was “on a reef southeast of Howland Island.” The possibility of a hoax can be ruled out, given the investigation and the fact that the newspaper was published every other day, hence printed news of post-loss signals had not yet reached Rock Springs.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So, not only did this 16 year old kid in Wyo hear her give multiple attempts at her location, but she also broadcast other relevant info "ship on reef south of Equator" and "on reef southeast of Howland Island".
What is interesting about this one is the "ship on reef" which could be interpreted to mean the aircraft, commonly called a ship in the 30's, or the Norwich City, literally a ship on the reef. South of equator, and southeast of Howland are both excellent descriptions if you don't have exact coordinates to give, your navigator has suffered a head injury or has otherwise gone bonkers, and that is all you know.
Same with the Betty notes, I find that there are quite a few oddities that in a vacuum she wouldn't have come up with, but the New York City getting repeated over and over could easily have been AE's attempt to give the best info she could on her location. Anyone looking up the Norwich City could have figured out where it ended up. There is logic to it in the context of Earhart that doesn't otherwise make sense.
Gary, isn't this exactly the kind of info you are arguing she would have broadcast?
So it would seem that there are multiple examples in the body of post loss signals that do exactly what you are saying didn't happen, and which you base your conclusion that the signals did not come from Nikumaroro? Are you now willing to reconsider possibility, especially in light of the radio DF bearings, one of which (Pan Am Mokapu Ohau bearing 213°) apparently was taken during the same reception as the one Dana Randolf heard? Think about it, you've got a radio reception essentially saying "Ship on reef southeast of Howland, south of equator" and a DF bearing that hits Gardner island from the same transmission. Where would you go look?
Malcolm says:
"I can't see them running ashore and exploring if the aircraft with a working radio is sitting on the reef."
I agree, they would not have strayed far, but they could not have remained in the aircraft during the day as the heat would have done them in. The intensity of the light, both direct and reflected, would have turned the Electra into an oven and without huge amounts of fresh water it would have been a very dangerous thing to try to attempt. Mark Smith, our camera / videographer on the last 3 expeditions, measured something like 3 times the ambient lumens on the reef flat compared to a normal sunny day in NYC area where he lives. Being out there on the reef flat is a near painful experience it is so bright, and that is with hats and polarized sunglasses. I don't think they went exploring far until after the Electra went over the edge, and the sound of the Colorado's airplanes faded away, and the realization that no one was coming sank in.
Which illustrates another aspect of the post loss radio signals. Most of them were logged when it was nighttime and at or near low tide at Niku. That does't mean that there weren't daytime transmissions that simply weren't heard for propagation reasons, but being out in the Electra during daytime or at high tide would have been very uncomfortable. The pattern makes sense.
Andrew
-
Having read all the posts on this thread the only question I have is did the post loss transmissions end?
If they are the sort of 'normal' background/unexplained/unknown signals that recievers pick up now and again then they would have continued and, continued to be monitored and logged presumably by the professional/military/aviation stations around the Pacific and recorded as unknown origin?
Is there a date recorded where these transmissions stopped, if they ever did?
Do records exist for 1938-1939?
Would that not provide a clue?
-
Malcolm, you say "The proof of that colossal uncertainty is that if we had data that allowed such a fairly precise placing they or their remains would have been found long ago". The archaeological artifacts (shoe pieces, lotion bottles, aluminum pieces, etc.) are real. They are physical items. You can touch them. The reports on the bones found by the islanders are real reports. Not invented. This is real physical evidence that "someone" died on the island and left their remains. This "may" be exactly what you're suggesting in your sentence above.
But neither myself or TIGHAR are making that claim that this is proof positive. Only making an assumption.
You say that I am falling into the trap of conveniently cherry picking the pieces that fit the hypothesis. I don't believe I am doing this. The post loss signals are a fine example to use.
Ask yourself.... Did the signals exist? We're they real? Or did 5 independent professional radio operators all make up false reports? Two possible answers. Yes or no. I can't answer for you Malcolm. I can only answer for me. As such I have the right to my opinion as you have to yours. You really can't state that I'm wrong unless you have proof that shows my assumptions are wrong. TIGHAR is attempting to find that proof.
You also say that it's time TIGHAR produced more proof. I would like to interpret that in a good way by saying you mean this as "given the constraints of time and money allows.". Remember that TIGHAR is under no obligation to prove anything. TIGHAR's name states the mandate which is historical aircraft recovery. Not "responsible for solving the earhart mystery".
Jeff Hayden. Review has shown the last "credible" reports were received on the evening of Wednesday, July 7, Gardner Island time. See the post loss signal reports here. http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/ResearchPapers/Brandenburg/signalcatalog3.html
-
Irv
I was trying (badly) to enquire whether the 'normal' background unknown origin transmissions that you get increased during the period 3rd to 10th July and then returned to 'normal' after this period, does that sound right?
Here's a primitive graph to show what I mean
(http://)
-
Hi Jeff
I am not clear on what you're really looking for. "Background unknown origin transmissions" would not likely have been a part of the analysis done by Brandenburg and crew as they are in fact "unknown origin". Background noise would be a question for Brandenburg. Can you help me (us) understand where you are trying to go with this? I think you are trying to figure out if the signals reported were just part of normal background noise clutter or real signal fragments.
-
I'll have a go Irv.
Any recieving station picks up transmissions which it can't understand/decipher or make sense of over any given period of time. Was there an increase in the number of these such transmissions in the time period of 3rd July to 10th july and, thereafter returning to usual level?
-
Hi Jeff
I spent some time looking for this type of information to see if there was any review made like this before. I believe the background paper clearly indicates that only messages reported from July 3 thru July 10 were considered by Brandenburg. No analysis exists, that I can find, outside of those dates.
I think Jeff that the definition given in the background paper provides the insight into what WAS analysed. The sentence in bold is where these types of signals you refer to would lie. I think. Bob Brandenburg or Ric are much better qualified to answer the question as they are the two principal researchers who undertook the analysis. Here is the section in question.
"A determination as to whether the evidence supports a conclusion that a signal was sent from NR16020. A signal is rated as Credible if it was heard on 3105 kHz, 6210 kHz, or a harmonic, and positive qualitative factors were present. A signal is rated Not Credible if there are factors precluding a finding of credible. If there is insufficient evidence to decide whether a signal is credible or not credible, it is rated Uncertain."
Thanks Jeff N for your input. That helps too.
-
Thank's Irv. I think John has got what I was trying to put across and, he has explained it much better than I did, thank you John.
-
This is actually an interesting thought. If we had reported transmissions after the 7th, they would be in the database and categorized as either credible or not credible, but we don't. Why?
Either all those hoaxers quit after the 7th, or something else happened. My bet is that something else happened.
Andrew
-
You got it Andrew. They stopped or went back to what they were before the disappearance, if any.
-
So we could debate why they started and why they stopped but then we would be then forgetting the significant point, the dates and times. When they started, when they finshed. What could explain the increase and subsequent decrease in these transmissions?
Is it... They were not monitoring prior to and after these dates, or recording what they heard?
-
Before continuing down that path Jeff H, lets just review the background given for the Brandenburg Post Loss signal Analysis report. Found here. http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/ResearchPapers/Brandenburg/signalcatalog.html
This background summary covers much of what needs to be discussed as you suggest Jeff, while a quick review shows that of the 182 reports analyzed only 12 are after the last "Credible" classified signal (Signal number 175 on page 5 of the report. Since the report starts on July 3 with 175 calls taking place between the first radio call and the last credible radio call then it seems there was either a sharp drop off in hoaxers and real calls being reported or Brandenburg chose to ignore any additional reports past July 10. Why then report the 12 calls after the last credible if you are going to arbitrarily cut them off? Bob has to answer that one but, and here I go with another assumption, I am assuming Bob used all the available reported signals and calls he found related to AE and did not have a start and end period he worked within.
-
BTW. The reason that July 7th is an interesting date is that the navy overflew the island on July 9th around noon. If the Electra was able to transmit on July 7th at 2018 and not visible on July 9th then we know when it went over the reef edge. Or at least thats MY ASSUMPTION. :)
-
There are the 2 significant points about the drop off or cut off in radio transmissions Irv...
there was either a sharp drop off in hoaxers and real calls being reported and...
or Brandenburg chose to ignore any additional reports past July 10.
Did all the hoaxers agree to pack it in at the same time, past July 7th?
Were any additional calls not reported after July 7th? (if any)
Did Brandenburg choose July 10th as the cut off date because there were no more to report, or was it simply an arbitrary date chosen.
-
That would explain the cessation of the transmissions Irv for sure, it's just a matter of the times of the last credible transmissions and, the fact that none were picked up thereafter.
-
But to play the devil's advocate is it possible that Earhart and Noonan were broadcasting for help continually when circumstances allowed and in a much more logical fashion like "(call sign) on reef (position)" or some other similar but short message. Yet radio faults, poor reception etc. conspired to allow only the rather garbled and desperate plea that Betty picked up. Throughout the efforts to raise help Earhart and Noonan may have had no idea that their transmissions were simply not being picked up so one can expect an a feeling of frustration to creep in, and for one or either of them to get angry, especially if the aircraft was noticeably closer to being swept away. That persistence may have delayed them searching the island for food and water until whatever reserves they had on the aircraft were dangerously depleted, and would make a search for sustenance that bit more difficult. Staying with the Electra was for several days, I would imagine, the best alternative because both would expect a search to be underway - I can't see them running ashore and exploring if the aircraft with a working radio is sitting on the reef.
Don't look now Doc, your starting to get the hang of it! ;D
I am convinced that working out a possibility of what might have happened in a given situation is essential to working out what actually occured. If thinking out a "scenario" that fits a given set of facts is not a scientific way of thinking about something, then why have scientists and archeologists spent so much time and effort into trying to deduce what happened to Otzi the Iceman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ötzi_the_Iceman), Tutankhamun (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tutankhamun) or even figuring out the Rosetta_Stone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosetta_Stone). If these learned individuals can look at a set of facts and arrive at a plausable explanation that explains those facts, why can't we?
Brad
-
Jeff H.... The skeptics haven't weighed in yet. There were hoax reports and reports that were probably well meaning but not accurate. That's why I use the 5 professional operators as my examples. It isn't likely they were a hoax.
I like Brad's point too. In fact men and women do this everyday. It has been raised in this forum before. It's called the "jury" system. Bits of evidence presented to convince a group of people that events transpired in a specific way. People have lost their freedom and their lives in this system.
-
Malcolm, you say
You also say that it's time TIGHAR produced more proof. I would like to interpret that in a good way by saying you mean this as "given the constraints of time and money allows.". Remember that TIGHAR is under no obligation to prove anything. TIGHAR's name states the mandate which is historical aircraft recovery. Not "responsible for solving the earhart mystery".
No I meant what I said - the reality is that if you rely on donor funds for a particular task (the Earhart search is such a defined task) then you do ultimately reach the point where you have the obligation to either produce results or show why you can't. I am not accusing TIGHAR of malpractice - far from it, but as a person with some familiarity with administration of things funded by donor funds I can say that there are obligations firmly attached.
-
But to play the devil's advocate is it possible that Earhart and Noonan were broadcasting for help continually when circumstances allowed and in a much more logical fashion like "(call sign) on reef (position)" or some other similar but short message. Yet radio faults, poor reception etc. conspired to allow only the rather garbled and desperate plea that Betty picked up. Throughout the efforts to raise help Earhart and Noonan may have had no idea that their transmissions were simply not being picked up so one can expect an a feeling of frustration to creep in, and for one or either of them to get angry, especially if the aircraft was noticeably closer to being swept away. That persistence may have delayed them searching the island for food and water until whatever reserves they had on the aircraft were dangerously depleted, and would make a search for sustenance that bit more difficult. Staying with the Electra was for several days, I would imagine, the best alternative because both would expect a search to be underway - I can't see them running ashore and exploring if the aircraft with a working radio is sitting on the reef.
Don't look now Doc, your starting to get the hang of it! ;D
I am convinced that working out a possibility of what might have happened in a given situation is essential to working out what actually occured. If thinking out a "scenario" that fits a given set of facts is not a scientific way of thinking about something, then why have scientists and archeologists spent so much time and effort into trying to deduce what happened to Otzi the Iceman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ötzi_the_Iceman), Tutankhamun (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tutankhamun) or even figuring out the Rosetta_Stone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosetta_Stone). If these learned individuals can look at a set of facts and arrive at a plausable explanation that explains those facts, why can't we?
Brad
Be careful using the word plausible. My archaeology professor way back when I was a student used to say "Very plausible, very plausible" when in fact he was getting ready to completely demolish a very weak hypothesis. I use plausible the same way.
The Rosetta Stone contained a simple inscription in three languages which provided a translation in a known text for another in a text we did not know - elementary code breaking.
Otzi has had his life and his demise reconsidered every time the wind changes but the artifacts are very interesting - if the Neolithic turns you on.
Tutankhamun offered no puzzles, except that it is entirely likely that Carter may have been a little liberal with the truth. However the grave goods have provided us with a snapshot of conspicuous consumption in ancient Egypt.
My interpretation of Earhart and Noonan on Nikumaroro is simply fiction - no more, no less. Remember that the veracity of Betty's notebook relies as much on Earhart and Noonan being on an island as does finding evidence of Earhart and Noonan on Nikumaroro confirms the Nikumaroro hypothesis. That's the problem with complex hypotheses - each part must fit or the whole crumbles.
-
I see a whole body of evidence (http://ameliaearhartarchaeology.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/summary-of-data-for-nikumaroro.html) picked-apart one thread here, another there - when in aggregate it represents a far more 'plausible' reason to have confidence here than any other search party has provided for other places to look.
LTM -
A body of evidence is like a chain - its strength relies on its weakest part. As I said in regard to the Betty notebook, its validity as an account of post loss events rests upon finding that Earhart and Noonan survived on an island like Nikumaroro. And part of the evidence posited for that island being Nikumaroro is the Betty notebook. So they are mutually dependent. Taking two unproven hypotheses and linking them together to create a plausible scenario is always problematic.
-
I keep seeing comments alluding to the idea that if the post-loss radio messages were from Amelia on Gardner, why didn't she give her position? I believe she did every time she keyed the mic. The first report we get is on July 2 at about 9:00 pm Gardner time. If you look at report #30800LE (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/ResearchPapers/Brandenburg/signalcatalog2.html#ID30800LE), Mrs. Mabel Larremore reported “On the first night of Amelia Earhart’s disappearance I heard her SOS loud and clear, not on the frequency but on the one President Roosevelt said she might use. Her message stated the plane was down on an uncharted island. Small, uninhabited. The plane was partially on land, part in water. She gave the latitude and longitude of her location. I listened to her for 30-45 minutes.… I heard her message around 2 A.M. daylight saving time from my home in Amarillo, Texas. She stated that her navigator Fred Noonan was seriously injured. Needed help immediately. She also had some injuries but not as serious as Mr. Noonan.” Now I know that Mrs. Larremore didn't come forward until 1990, but as you can see from the link, "Nauru (Identifier #s 30831NA and 30843NA) and Itasca (Identifier 30843IA) reported credible voice transmissions during the time Mabel claimed to have heard Earhart. In 1990, that information had not yet been compiled, let alone published", and as you can see, the report has been deemed "credible". Another example is the report by Dana Randolph #41500RH (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/ResearchPapers/Brandenburg/signalcatalog3.html#ID41500RH) in which he states he heard Amelia at around 4:00 am Gardner time on July 4th, giving her location before it faded out. What I find interesting is that "This sequence was repeated an unknown number of times during a 25 minute period." Thelma Lovelace #71230LC (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/ResearchPapers/Brandenburg/signalcatalog5.html#ID71230LC) reported " While tuning around a frequency where she usually heard a program of Japanese music every morning, she heard a voice, loud and clear, saying “Can you read me? Can you read me? This is Amelia Earhart. This is Amelia Earhart. Please come in.” Earhart then give her latitude and longitude, which Thelma wrote in a book, and continued: “we have taken in water, my navigator is badly hurt; (repeat) we are in need of medical care and must have help; we can’t hold on much longer.” Even Betty Klenck (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Notebook/notebook.html) said she heard a series of numbers.
I have a feeling that if it was Amelia Betty heard, she heard latitude and longitude, she just didn't write it down, or misunderstood it. I find it hard to believe that someone with the experience of Amelia and Fred Noonan would have just picked up the radio mic and just start babbling useless information.
Brad
First, for the record, I do not believe even one of the post 2013 Z radio messages originated from Earhart. Nor do I believe that the vast majority of them were hoaxes, they were just the normal background of signals that were occurring every day but that no one took notice of prior to the search for Earhart, nor after.
The point I was making with the experiment is that the messages claimed to have come from Earhart internally are not the type of messages a person in distress would be transmitting and this is obvious to even untrained people off the street. This is a sufficient reason to reject all of them without even getting into the radio propagation issues (and there are many of those that I will get to later.) The experiment also showed that the same untrained people off the street would appreciate the critical importance of the location information if they happened to hear an emergency radio signal. You pointed to three reported receptions by people who claimed that they heard latitude and longitude, so where are those notes? "Oh, I wrote it on the back of my homework paper and the dog ate the homework." Since the importance of location information is obvious to everyone, as shown by my experiment, why didn't Thelma and Mayble turn their notes over the the authorities at the time? Why did they let such historically important documents get eaten by the dog?
From the the data base: "The woman then began to give her location, but the signal faded out before it was given. This sequence was repeated an unknown number of times during a 25 minute period." This was reported by Dana. So the signal, at the point that the location information was being given, just happened to fade out and it just happened to fade out at that same point many times in the 25 minute period. Right, excuse my skepticism.
Now we get to Mable. She claimed "Her message stated the plane was down on an uncharted island. Small, uninhabited." Gardner, hardly uncharted since the reason that TIGHAR believes that they proceeded so far south along the LOP was that Earhart and Noonan were heading for the Phoenix islands because they thought they had a better chance of spotting one of those islands than continuing to search for Howland. Obviously for this to be true Earhart and Noonan had to know about the Phoenix islands, they had to be on Earhart's and Noonan's charts. And most of you guys are on record as agreeing with this theory:
As Jeff Nevil said: (https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,452.msg5631.html#msg5631) LOP is another matter. Once established and attained it makes sense that FN would have had AE fly along the line NNW (337) first, then not finding landfall after reasonable time (fuel burned) turn to SSE (157) until landfall SOMEWHERE. If not found at Howland or Baker, then Gardner happens to be next best candidate. The logic is the lay of the land, literally: there were no reachable lands NNW of Howland, so exhausting reasonable time in that direction one turns 180 to the known lands SSE of Howland and Baker. The NNW excursion would have to be limited by time lest one lose the opportunity to gain landfall to SSE. It fits.
https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,452.msg5631.html#msg5631 (https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,452.msg5631.html#msg5631)
As Harry Howe said (https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,452.msg5636.html#msg5636): again not spotting Howland, so they continued SSE in accordance with their Alternate Pplan B, i.e. fly to Gardner.
https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,452.msg5636.html#msg5636 (https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,452.msg5636.html#msg5636)
As Ric said: (https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,452.msg5540.html#msg5540) The only thing that makes sense is to go northwest as far as you dare first, then turn around and head southeast and just keep going. ...But you do know that all of the other islands are southeast of Howland so you had better just keep going SE, hoping to find Howland but knowing that even if you're headed away from Howland you're headed toward land.
https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,452.msg5540.html#msg5540 (https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,452.msg5540.html#msg5540)
And: 10. Noonan know (https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,452.msg5522.html#msg5522)s that all of the other islands on or near the LOP are southeast of Howland.
https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,452.msg5522.html#msg5522 (https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,452.msg5522.html#msg5522)
As Irving said: (https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,452.msg5478.html#msg5478) Noonan has a chart showing the Phoenix island group and knows if he heads south on the LOP then he will "likely" find an island.
https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,452.msg5478.html#msg5478 (https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,452.msg5478.html#msg5478)
gl
-
What is interesting about this one is the "ship on reef" which could be interpreted to mean the aircraft, commonly called a ship in the 30's, or the Norwich City, literally a ship on the reef. South of equator, and southeast of Howland are both excellent descriptions if you don't have exact coordinates to give, your navigator has suffered a head injury or has otherwise gone bonkers, and that is all you know.
Same with the Betty notes, I find that there are quite a few oddities that in a vacuum she wouldn't have come up with, but the New York City getting repeated over and over could easily have been AE's attempt to give the best info she could on her location. Anyone looking up the Norwich City could have figured out where it ended up. There is logic to it in the context of Earhart that doesn't otherwise make sense.
Gary, isn't this exactly the kind of info you are arguing she would have broadcast?
Andrew
No, the name of some ship wreck (assuming she could even determine its name) was not the best info she could give about her location. If I were Earhart I would have said that I was on one of the Phoenix islands since it was our plan, mine and Noonan's, to fly southeast to get to that group of islands when we couldn't find Howland which is the TIGHAR theory. Earhart and Noonan knew those islands were there or else they would have desperately continued searching for Howland (and Baker) if those were the only islands they knew about.
So after following the TIGHAR plan "B" they end up on Gardner Island, one of he Phoenix group, and after landing (safely enough so as to not damage the plane enough to prevent running the engine) do you think they suddenly forgot that they had been flying to the Phoenix islands? Why would they be sending cryptic messages about the name of a ship when they knew they were in the Phoenix's? Do you think they would try to hide the ball like they were hiding the ball when they crossed their fingers behind their backs and sent the message about their fuel state, keeping it secret that they meant until their fuel reserve? Come on! And why didn't she write down the numbers that she says she thinks she heard since, as I pointed out before, the critical nature of location information is obvious to everybody including teenage girls?
I suggest that what Betty heard was a combination of broadcasts on close together frequencies, one fading in while another faded out, one of which talked about New York, she was tuning to an international broadcast band, don't forget, and many stations broadcast on adjacent frequencies. Those old tube radios had poor selectivity (the ability to keep out signals on close frequencies) especially on the higher frequency bands as anybody who has spent any time listening to short wave radios can attest.
And remember, even with Brandenburg's finest efforts he could only get the probability that Betty could have even have heard Earhart up only one chance in 1.4 million, about like your winning the lottery.
I have avoided getting into the weeds of radio propagation up til now but we need to look at it in regards to Betty. I have pointed out several times that Brandenburg refuses to tell us his assumptions and methods but as to his analysis of Betty he did give us some of this information. In his Harmony and Power (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/ResearchPapers/Brandenburg/HarmonyandPower.htm)paper he discusses the assumption he made for the required Signal to Noise Ratio (SNR) and he assumed that it only required a 43 dB SNR for Betty to hear Earhart however this assumption is not warranted as it is not supported by standard reference works. I have attached two such standards and they both have the same table specifying that for a double side band AM signal, which is the kind of signal we are talking about, the required SNR is 51 dB. I know your eyes are rolling back and you are saying "what's the difference, 51..43 it's only a difference of 8, what's the big deal?" Without getting into the details of the decibel scale (you can Google it if you want) a difference of 8 dB means a power ratio of a little bit more than 6 which means that Brandenburg's computation was basically assuming that Earhart had a transmitter that put out over 300 watts instead of its actual output of only 50 watts. Or to look at it another way, in order for him to get to even the 1.4 million to one odds against Betty hearing Earhart, Brandenburg is assuming that Betty came to Earth with Jar-El from Krypton with super hearing so that she can hear a mouse fart ten miles away. If he had used the correct value of 51 dB SNR then the odds of her hearing Earhart get much worse than the already highly unlikely odds of 1.4 million against.
And do you think Earhart had to give her EXACT coordinates?
'"Chief Bellarts?
"What is it now, Galten?"
"Well, I keep hearing a woman's voice repeating just one word, 'Phoenix...Phoenix...Phoenix'"
"Oh, just ignore that, don 't even bother to log it, it's probably just some dizzy dame looking for a beauty shop in Arizona."
"Sure thing, don't log it, aye, aye."
gl
-
I have a hard time buying off on the theory that all the signals recieved were fragments of some other transmission. These people (for the most part) were trained radio operators. As such I would tend to believe they could tell the difference between a spurious signal and one that was deliberately generated, however weak and fragmented it may have been on the reciever end. As for Betty, I'm sure it was a common thing to do in the summer of 1937 for 15 year old girls to write down every "combination of broadcasts" they heard. As for all the gobble-de-gook about 14 godzillion to one odds that it didn't happen or couldn't happen is all fine and dandy, but the fact is, several proffesional radio operators across the vast Pacific heard and logged numerous transmissions from a station sending from somewhere in the South Pacific. Several of these proffesionals were equipped with radio direction equipment which they used to get a bearing on where these signals originated. Now I'm sure that these folks led such a boring life that they used this equipment to home in on "combinations of broadcasts" every day when the supervisor wasn't looking. Oh I almost forgot, these proffesional radio operators? The direction these signals originated from was somewhere in the Phoenix Island Group. If these transmissions were "combinations of broadcasts" then they all must have been sending from the same place. I'm sure somebody spent alot of 1937 coin to float some transmitters to the Phoenix Islands so they could transmit a "combination of broadcasts".
Brad
-
they were just the normal background of signals that were occurring every day but that no one took notice of prior to the search for Earhart, nor after.
This is the part that worries me. I am confident in the abilities of the professional radio operators (Navy, Pan Am etc) that picked up these signals, less so with radio 'hams' that heard garbled messages.
So, staying with the signals the profesionals picked up and, traced to their point of origin.
As Gary points out, we have no way of knowing if these signals existed prior to and, after the search.
Example: If they had continued to monitor the area for another 2 months after the disappearance would they still have heard signals that they could trace back to the point of origin, be it the Phoenix Islands or timbuktu. If so it would certainly point to the signals being part of the everyday background noise. IMHO
-
A body of evidence is like a chain - its strength relies on its weakest part.
In a circumstantial evidence case, the body of evidence is like a rope, none of whose fibers taken separately can bear the load, or like an aircraft, none of whose parts taken separately can fly.
-
I don't see any conflict there, Gary. If FN wasn't certain of the place they'd landed for any reason, for example, and AE was doing the talking, it could very easily have come across the way the lady described - quite credibly so.
That AE and FN would have known of the Phoenix group and perhaps headed there guarantees nothing about them being able to identify exactly which island they had stumbled upon - which is also consistent with all that a number of us have said in the various examples you provided.
LTM -
I think you may have missed my point. I thought that I made it clear that they didn't have to identify exactly which of the Phoenix islands they had alighted upon. The example I gave of the report by Galten to Belarts should have made that clear.
Continuing that exchange:
'"Chief Bellarts?
"What is it now, Galten?"
"Well, I keep hearing a woman's voice repeating just one word, 'Phoenix...Phoenix...Phoenix'"
"Oh, just ignore that, don 't even bother to log it, it's probably just some dizzy dame looking for a beauty shop in Arizona."
"Sure thing, don't log it, aye, aye."
"Hmmm, but Chief, what if it really is Earhart that I am hearing on the radio?"
"Forget it Galten! Even if it is her, unless she tells us exactly which of those islands she is on we aren't going to do anything. We can't go traipsing all around the Phoenix islands just for her, an' I got that straight from the capt'n. Don't bother me again unless she tells us the name of the island she is on!"
"O.K. Don't log it, aye, aye."
"Now get out of here."
You apparently believe that that scenario is realistic (or you are pretending that you do. :P)
gl
-
QUESTION???? In the charts that Williams prepared for Fred to use, I'm wondering if on the image of Gardner, there was any reference to the Norwich City. Since it ran aground in 1929, Mariners knew about it, but whether it was on any charts is the question that comes to mind for a couple of reasons. In the radio transmissions, there were references to NC or something 'possibly' refering to the Norwich City. Now if the radio reception was clear enough, I'm wondering if maybe the shipwreck wasnt on a map of Gardner. If 'Norwich City" was heard, seems to me that one statement could lead rescuers to the one place in the Pacific where the Norwich City was---Gardner.
Might be something I'll look into while I'm in DC-- Its kind of the rescue mission that wa, and the one that could have been . Damn 20/20 hindsight.
Tom
-
QUESTION? ??? In the charts that Williams prepared for Fred to use, I'm wondering if on the image of Gardner, there was any reference to the Norwich City. Since it ran aground in 1929, Mariners knew about it, but whether it was on any charts is the question that comes to mind for a couple of reasons. In the radio transmissions, there were references to NC or something 'possibly' refering to the Norwich City. Now if the radio reception was clear enough, I'm wondering if maybe the shipwreck wasnt on a map of Gardner. If 'Norwich City" was heard, seems to me that one statement could lead rescuers to the one place in the Pacific where the Norwich City was---Gardner.
Might be something I'll look into while I'm in DC-- Its kind of the rescue mission that wa, and the one that could have been . Damn 20/20 hindsight.
Tom
The Phoenix islands were not on William's strip chart for the Howland to Lae leg (which I posted before her (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=549.0;attach=496)e) , but they were depicted on every other chart of the Pacific. If you look at marine charts you will find a symbol for depicting wrecks that are hazards to navigation but they are not called out by name. The Norwich City was NOT the Titanic so what makes you think that the loss of just one more cargo ship in the far reaches of the Pacific was generally known to mariners? Nor had the charts of that area been updated after the the loss of that ship and prior to Earhart's flight. Infact, as posted elsewhere on this forum, the depiction of Gardner on the then current charts was highly incorrect and showed no wrecks. That chart is available here. (https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,677.msg13031.html#msg13031)
gl
-
There is a fundamental clue I think some are forgetting. Any message identified as coming from AE means she is alive. She can't transmit if she is dead so transmitting her Lat and Long is handy but the key is she IS transmitting.
If you hear the voice of AE, or believe it to be a message from AE then keep searching until she is found!! Even if all she did was recite the alphabet it is proof she is alive. It means, if you believe in the post loss messages, that she is on land. She isn't on Howland so get out the charts and search the few islands in the immediate are. Search and re search every inch of land. She didn't crash and sink. That is if you believe in the post loss messages.
But Let me take a page from Gary's style book:
"I'm sorry Chief Bellarts!! Until Amelia identifies where she is in one of these messages then no one is going to look for her."
"But Sir! We know its her voice so that means she is alive!! We must get help to her! "
"Sorry Chief but we all know a message must contain legible information about where a person is who wants to be rescued. Otherwise we must assume its a hoax radio call."
"But Sir, we know what her voice sounds like, its the right frequency, a radio message means her plane is on land, she is asking for help. Lets go help her"
"Darn it Chief! Get back on radio watch and ask Amelia if she could please give us some clues as to where she is. Cryptic or otherwise. We can't go looking until we know where she is. If she doesnt tell us soon we will have to abandon the search."
"But Sir! She is alive!"
"Okay Chief. If she doesn't tell us where she is pretty soon then we are all going home and we will say her plane must have run out of fuel and crashed. A distress message message must contain location information even if we know it's the person we are looking for."
Said with "tongue in cheek". ;D
-
Is this the map Gary?
http://tighar.org/smf/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=549.0;attach=496 (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=549.0;attach=496)
-
QUESTION? ??? In the charts that Williams prepared for Fred to use, I'm wondering if on the image of Gardner, there was any reference to the Norwich City. Since it ran aground in 1929, Mariners knew about it, but whether it was on any charts is the question that comes to mind for a couple of reasons. In the radio transmissions, there were references to NC or something 'possibly' refering to the Norwich City. Now if the radio reception was clear enough, I'm wondering if maybe the shipwreck wasnt on a map of Gardner. If 'Norwich City" was heard, seems to me that one statement could lead rescuers to the one place in the Pacific where the Norwich City was---Gardner.
Might be something I'll look into while I'm in DC-- Its kind of the rescue mission that wa, and the one that could have been . Damn 20/20 hindsight.
Tom
The Phoenix islands were not on William's strip chart for the Howland to Lae leg (which I posted before, I just can't find the link to it right now) but they were depicted on every other chart of the Pacific. If you look at marine charts you will find a symbol for depicting wrecks that are hazards to navigation but they are not called out by name. The Norwich City was NOT the Titanic so what makes you think that the loss of just one more cargo ship in the far reaches of the Pacific was generally know to mariners? Nor had the charts of that area been updated after the the loss of that ship and prior to Earhart's flight. Infact, as posted elsewhere on this forum, the depiction of Gardner on the then current charts was highly incorrect and showed no wrecks. That chart is available here. (https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,677.msg13031.html#msg13031)
gl
Just because the Phoenix Islands weren't on the Williams Strip chart doesnt mean FN didnt remember them being on other charts or had another larger scale, general purpose map. Not being on the Williams charts doesn't remove them from the planet.
The Norwich City wreck was likely known to local mariners and natives. AE didnt care who got her message. In fact she likely didnt realize her messages would be heard in Florida. She knows the voice transmissions dont go as far as morse so she likely suspected any radio message she put out would only be heard relatively locally. And, Guess What? She probably wants someone local to hear her as they can get to her sooner than someone in Hawaii or California.
and finally. Gary are you honestly suggesting the shape of the island as drawn on a chart has anything to do with her not being found? There was land at Gardner regardless of how its drawn on a chart.
-
Is this the map Gary?
http://tighar.org/smf/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=549.0;attach=496 (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=549.0;attach=496)
Yep, thanks for finding it.
gl
-
Hey Gary. I was 'theorising" that the Norwich City was known to mariners. I looked for the map, but didnt find it, but I'll look again.
Crazy as it may seem, I'm trying to corrolate Bettys notebook, the radio transmissions that we believe are accurate, and the search that did NOT take place, and figure out why. So---I was thinking about the shipwreck, and if it were on the charts, and if so , on Williams charts for Noonan. If not, ok, back to where we are, but if they were, and after the 'landing' AE was able to read "Norwich City" on the ship, she would know where they were, instead of just on an island somewhere. Part 2--If she were to find the name of the shipwreck, and the island was Gardner, then why not broadcast 'Gardner Island'? That certainly would have hastened the search to Gardner by a couple of days--maybe July 5.
I'm taking it as the NC was a 'landmark', on Gardner Island, in the Phoenix Group in the Pacific, south of Howland. I would think that if you were wanting to guide rescuers to you, and you had a landmark that was 'known', that would be a good thing to broadcast. But, if the shipwreck wasnt on the maps or charts, maybe Fred, even though he was 'familiar' with the pacific islands, didnt know about the shipwreck.
Good information Gary----and I'll keep looking around. We can talk about it ---and other things in DC. It will be good to meet you!
Tom
-
Sounds logical Tom. If AE could have got 'there's a shipwreck on the reef' message heard it would have been a great help to any search planes even if they didn't know which island it was on or, what it's name was, it would have helped lambrechts fliers for sure.
-
QUESTION? ??? In the charts that Williams prepared for Fred to use, I'm wondering if on the image of Gardner, there was any reference to the Norwich City. Since it ran aground in 1929, Mariners knew about it, but whether it was on any charts is the question that comes to mind for a couple of reasons. In the radio transmissions, there were references to NC or something 'possibly' refering to the Norwich City. Now if the radio reception was clear enough, I'm wondering if maybe the shipwreck wasnt on a map of Gardner. If 'Norwich City" was heard, seems to me that one statement could lead rescuers to the one place in the Pacific where the Norwich City was---Gardner.
Might be something I'll look into while I'm in DC-- Its kind of the rescue mission that wa, and the one that could have been . Damn 20/20 hindsight.
Tom
What is you source for your statement that "Mariners knew about it?" There are thousands of wrecks around the world and very few get any notoriety. Quick! A ship went aground just four months ago with loss of life, what's it's name? Maybe you remembered that one but that was after 24/7 TV coverage and follow up TV specials. There was no TV in 1937. Do you think that Noonan was reading Lloyd's List in 1929? Do you think that Lloyd's List is commonly read by mariners?
But assuming, arguendo, that you are right, transmitting "Norwich City" does not prevent Earhart from also transmitting "Phoenix" which is more likely to be known than that some obscure steamer ran aground somewhere in the pacific eight years earlier. Yet not one of the purported messages, neither voice nor Morse code, contain the word "Phoenix."
Here is a link to the marine chart (https://sites.google.com/site/fredienoonan/discussions/navigation-to-dakar/Chart1.jpg?attredirects=0)used by Noonan on the Atlantic crossing, see any wrecks depicted? See any wrecks with names attached? Here is a link to more of that chart showing Noonan's notations. (https://sites.google.com/site/fredienoonan/discussions/navigation-to-dakar/Chart2.jpg?attredirects=0)
Noonan most likely got this additional information to add to his chart from other publications commonly used by mariners, the Sailing Directions and the Light Lists and the information in his notation from the Light List. It is possible that Noonan consulted the Sailing Directions for the Pacific as part of his planning so may have obtained additional information about Gardner island from this source. I have attached an excerpt from the 1885 Sailing Directions for Gardner. These publications are only updated sporadically so it is possible that this document had not been updated prior to the Earhart flight. You will see that it doesn't state the size of the island and that is misplaces the island 12 NM west of its actual position. Even if it was updated after the wreck of the Norwich City, it would not have included the name of the vessel as the information about conspicuous wrecks is provided only for navigational use by mariners. I have attached an excerpt from the 1988 Sailing Directions which mentions the "conspicuous wreck" at the NW end of the island for use by mariners to avoid the reef. A mariner, observing just the wreck above the horizon, knows to keep well to the west or to the north of this landmark to avoid the reef. The mariner has no need to know the name of the vessel to do this.
gl
-
Just because the Phoenix Islands weren't on the Williams Strip chart doesnt mean FN didnt remember them being on other charts or had another larger scale, general purpose map. Not being on the Williams charts doesn't remove them from the planet.
Of course not, the entire TIGHAR theory is based on Earhart and Noonan knowing about their existence as I pointed out before. Because they knew of their existence they headed there when they couldn't find Howland (according to TGHAR) so they would also remember their name after landing and could transmit that information in their emergency messages, but they didn't. So if you think that they didn't know the name of the island group where they landed, so as to be able to transmit that information, then you have a direct conflict with the TIGHAR theory which requires that they knew that information.
The Norwich City wreck was likely known to local mariners and natives. AE didnt care who got her message. In fact she likely didnt realize her messages would be heard in Florida. She knows the voice transmissions dont go as far as morse so she likely suspected any radio message she put out would only be heard relatively locally. And, Guess What? She probably wants someone local to hear her as they can get to her sooner than someone in Hawaii or California.
But there were no local mariners or natives.
and finally. Gary are you honestly suggesting the shape of the island as drawn on a chart has anything to do with her not being found? There was land at Gardner regardless of how its drawn on a chart.
No, that was only to illustrate that no ship wreck was depicted with, or without, a name attached.
gl
-
Just because the Phoenix Islands weren't on the Williams Strip chart doesnt mean FN didnt remember them being on other charts or had another larger scale, general purpose map. Not being on the Williams charts doesn't remove them from the planet.
Of course not, the entire TIGHAR theory is based on Earhart and Noonan knowing about their existence as I pointed out before. Because they knew of their existence they headed there when they couldn't find Howland (according to TGHAR) so they would also remember their name after landing and could transmit that information in their emergency messages, but they didn't. So if you think that they didn't know the name of the island group where they landed, so as to be able to transmit that information, then you have a direct conflict with the TIGHAR theory which requires that they knew that information.
I have no direct or indirect conflict with the TIGHAR theory. If AE and FN didn't mention "Phoenix" then we must ask why. They were trying to be more exact by giving co ordinates, and/or identifiable features of the island. Perhaps Fred got hit on the head and forgot the name. Since there are messages with content consistent with trying to be more exact as to which island they were on then I will assume you also believe they knew what island they were on. They just didn't get recorded as saying it.
The Norwich City wreck was likely known to local mariners and natives. AE didnt care who got her message. In fact she likely didnt realize her messages would be heard in Florida. She knows the voice transmissions dont go as far as morse so she likely suspected any radio message she put out would only be heard relatively locally. And, Guess What? She probably wants someone local to hear her as they can get to her sooner than someone in Hawaii or California.
But there were no local mariners or natives.
Gee. You think she knew that? AE was broadcasting in the hopes that ANYONE might hear her and come to help. I don't think she was tailoring her rescue me speeches to certain demographic groups.
and finally. Gary are you honestly suggesting the shape of the island as drawn on a chart has anything to do with her not being found? There was land at Gardner regardless of how its drawn on a chart.
No, that was only to illustrate that no ship wreck was depicted with, or without, a name attached.
gl
As you pointed out yourself, there are no shipwrecks marked on the English flight maps created by Williams.
Is the reason for that the same reason that today's aeronautical charts are different than maritime charts? All charts are not created equal. Williams charts were custom created for AE's trips.
-
In an attempt to get things back on track here, I will make one firsthand observation about constructing signals or markers or monuments, in 100 degree-plus heat, with little or no water or food, over the course of several days (let's toss in little or no sleep as well): It can be extremely difficult to mentally whip yourself into venturing out onto that glaring white hot hell known as the beach - where your signals will have to be made to have any hope of being seen - hour after hour and day after day, even if you know your life depends on it. Survivor apathy can be quite debilitating when coupled with extreme physical deprivation. If you haven't experienced it, don't discount it lightly.
And that's all I've got to say about that.
LTM, who prefers umbrella drinks,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 CER
-
Uh Gary--Not being a sailor I stand corrected. I would think that mariners in the area would have charts of the area with potential landmarks. HUM---now that I think about it, the NC obviously didnt realize how close she was to Gardner, even with the storm.
Gee---I missed the point all around!
-
I quite agree with with Gary in his post #63 above. To which I add that which I said in my post #62
A body of evidence is like a chain - its strength relies on its weakest part. As I said in regard to the Betty notebook, its validity as an account of post loss events rests upon finding that Earhart and Noonan survived on an island like Nikumaroro. And part of the evidence posited for that island being Nikumaroro is the Betty notebook. So they are mutually dependent. Taking two unproven hypotheses and linking them together to create a plausible scenario is always problematic.
These post-loss transmissions simply provide no usable data and therefore must be read as either background noise generated by normal traffic or nice hoaxes to generate newspaper sales. I find it unbelievable that if they were transmitting that they would not have mentioned at least the name of the chain of islands they had landed in, even if they didn't know they were on Gardner.
The other thing which I still find to be rather too convenient is the explanation that when the Navy flies over Gardner they cannot see the Electra because a big wave has washed it off the reef (the maritime dog that ate the homework). Yet a couple of years later we have Nikumaroroan settlers claiming that there, in plain site, is aircraft wreckage which even when Gallagher is investigating what he thinks is Earhart's skeleton they don't even mention to him. That is the problem with weak links in the evidence chain, as Lady Bracknell would have said one is inconvenient but two are sheer carelessness.
-
Just to be clear Malcolm.... You are dismissing the post loss radio signals as background noise or "nice" hoaxes. (what is a nice hoax?). The reason for this is because the messages are not worded the way you think they should be? I sincerely hope you never man a 911 call centre or coast guard radio.
"No ma'am. I won't send the fire dept out to your house until you use the proper wording format for the request. I think your call is a hoax and I am going to ignore it."
How scientific is your evaluation?
But Let's clear one point up. Does this mean the signals existed or that they didn't?
-
I do recall having taken your 'fable' as sarcastic humor and readily confess that I likely didn't delve into it so deeply - and usually enjoy your acerbic efforts as lighthearted. If that is somehow dense of me it certainly does not make me a liar.
LTM -
Jeff, I'm sorry, and I apologize profusely if you interpreted my words as calling you a liar, that was certainly not my intent nor my belief. Please accept this apology.
gl
-
Just to be clear Malcolm.... You are dismissing the post loss radio signals as background noise or "nice" hoaxes. (what is a nice hoax?). The reason for this is because the messages are not worded the way you think they should be? I sincerely hope you never man a 911 call centre or coast guard radio.
"No ma'am. I won't send the fire dept out to your house until you use the proper wording format for the request. I think your call is a hoax and I am going to ignore it."
How scientific is your evaluation?
But Let's clear one point up. Does this mean the signals existed or that they didn't?
"No ma'am. I can't send the fire dept out to your house until you tell me your location".
gl
-
"But I'm not sure of my location".
You see Gary you can ask for the location but she couldn't receive a message so no one could ask that question.
You also can't say to someone "Because your message is missing some information that I deem important, I will believe your message is a hoax."
However, Everyone has the right to do just that but you cannot then say others are wrong for not sharing your opinion. Who said your opinion trumps everyone else's?
You and Malcolm have said the post loss signals are not real and should be classified as hoaxes, IN YOUR OPINION. The signals are not believable as real to you. But you can't say that opposing opinions are wrong. You cannot suggest that only your version is acceptable as valid.
Let's go back to my last question which neither of you have answered. Did the signals exist or didn't they?
-
Just to be clear Malcolm.... You are dismissing the post loss radio signals as background noise or "nice" hoaxes. (what is a nice hoax?). The reason for this is because the messages are not worded the way you think they should be? I sincerely hope you never man a 911 call centre or coast guard radio.
"No ma'am. I won't send the fire dept out to your house until you use the proper wording format for the request. I think your call is a hoax and I am going to ignore it."
How scientific is your evaluation?
But Let's clear one point up. Does this mean the signals existed or that they didn't?
"No ma'am. I can't send the fire dept out to your house until you tell me your location".
gl
Exactly :)
-
(what is a nice hoax?).
But Let's clear one point up. Does this mean the signals existed or that they didn't?
I am using "nice" in its original meaning.
The signals exist but incontrovertible evidence that they are from Earhart doesn't.
-
I will agree that their mere existence is not proof of Earhart evidence if you agree that it could be.
But if they are real as you agree, then you are determining they are real signals but the content is a hoax. Correct?
-
I will agree that their mere existence is not proof of Earhart evidence if you agree that it could be.
But if they are real as you agree, then you are determining they are real signals but the content is a hoax. Correct?
We know that many of the post-loss Earhart "messages" are hoaxes or misunderstandings of the March of Time broadcast. At present there is no reason to conclude that the messages received by Betty and the other woman (Mabel?) do not fall into the same category. As for the carrier wave receptions with no content these I would conclude are what Gary says. I find it a little strange that both people wait for many years before they come forward (A point I return to below regarding the wreckage and skeletons).
I have read Brandenburg's analysis many times
http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/ResearchPapers/Brandenburg/HarmonyandPower.htm
and while it is interesting it relies a little too much on postulating how Betty may have heard the message rather than what it should do which is to question the lack of content about location. Gary is perfectly right in his assessment of that peculiar feature.
And as I have said regarding the supposed aircraft wreckage and skeletons reported by Emily Sikuli, Pulekai Songivalu and Tapania Taiki I find it very odd if not slightly unbelievable that these things were not reported to Gallagher by the settlers who found them when he was excavating the skeleton of someone he thought might be Earhart. There was no animosity between him and the PISS settlers, they were not unwilling conscripts but people who had voluntarily come because of overcrowding on their home island. They had no reason to keep this information from him. Yet all of this only comes out later when there is sudden interest from people keen to further the idea that Nikumaroro was where Earhart and Noonan landed. Helpful witness syndrome?
-
As you pointed out yourself, there are no shipwrecks marked on the English flight maps created by Williams.
Is the reason for that the same reason that today's aeronautical charts are different than maritime charts? All charts are not created equal. Williams charts were custom created for AE's trips.
The marine chart Noonan used for the Atlantic crossing (https://sites.google.com/site/fredienoonan/discussions/navigation-to-dakar/Chart1.jpg?attredirects=0) was at a scale of 5,281,950 to 1 meaning that one inch represented 72.5 NM.(83.4 SM.), 72.5 NM. The chart that Noonan used for the flight from California to Hawaii was the standard Pan Am flight navigation chart at a scale 3,200,000 to 1, one inch equal to 43.5 NM (50 SM) on the ground. Neither of these charts show any ship wrecks. The standard chart used for flight navigation by the U.S. Air Force have a scale of 5,000,000 to 1, 67 NM (79 SM) per inch. Here is a link to the standard flight navigation chart that covers Gardner (https://sites.google.com/site/fredienoonan/resources/trial/gnc-20-7.JPG?attredirects=0). Here is a link to a large scale flight chart covering Gardner (https://sites.google.com/site/fredienoonan/resources/trial/onc-m-17-4.JPG?attredirects=0). This chart is at a scale five times larger than the previous chart, 1,000,000 to 1, one inch equals about 14 NM (16 SM.) Notice that even the large scale chart does not show the wreck of the Norwich City.
Ship wrecks are depicted on marine charts if they present a hazard to navigation or if they are conspicuous enough to be use for navigational purposes. Unless you are flying your plane only a few feet above the ocean it is hard to see how a ship wreck could be a hazard to flight navigation so they are not depicted on flight charts. As seen from the bridge of a ship a wreck may be more visible than the nearby land so might be depicted on a marine chart but this is not true from a plane so they are not depicted for that reason either.
gl
-
My problem with Betty's notebook is the age of Betty when she wrote the messages down in 1937: She was 15, and she might have been a day-dreaming girl, who knew about E.A. missing. I don't say she wanted to create a hoax, but I think it is quite possible that she didn't really hear what she wrote down. Many teenage girls and boys create their own fantasies.
I DON'T SAY it was just a fantasy, but I think it could have been.
-
... all do not rise to your academic standards for a search is what I think I am reading in that - about right?
The airplane had to go somewhere. What hypothesis then is based on firmer points that you can believe in, and do you therefore see as less problematic? Where then, if people would like to find the Electra, should they search?
Just wondering.
Well having academic standards is what old retired academics have :)
Frankly I must admit that I have never ever felt that there was any need to find the Electra - Earhart's flight is, even from the most friendly view, rather a footnote to history. It was unnecessary at the time and all it achieved was the death of two people. In fact without intending to be harsh I suspect that if Earhart and Noonan had completed the flight successfully they would be largely forgotten today. The only reason people look is that her disappearance added mystique to what was in reality a pretty mundane affair.
I haven't ruled out Nikumaroro, I have just applied the blowtorch of my academic reason to the evidence and found that I cannot accept it as anything more than a string of guesses and assumptions loosely gathered to support a hypothesis. Now if it is to be shown that Earhart and Noonan did come down at Nikumaroro then it goes without saying that someone better find something a bit more convincing than the sole of a shoe, and a reassessment of some lost human bones. You mention aircraft wrecks - I say what aircraft wreck? The only evidence to support that is the testimony of Emily Sikuli, Pulekai Songivalu and Tapania Taiki which as I have already show is flimsy to say the least - even TIGHAR admits to being less than happy with it. The radio messages are of the same testamentary value as Gary has pointed out and with which I agree.
As for the archaeological evidence I refer you to my last post #31 on the Norwich City Survivors and the Seven Site thread.
If you want my opinion of where to look for the Electra - I suggest at the bottom of the Pacific, perhaps off Nikumaroro, perhaps not. I am quite happy if someone finds it and actually proves the Nikumaroro hypothesis but on present evidence it is far from demonstrated to be the right one.
-
Interesting, Malcolm.
I simply see it another way - humans leave tiny tracks all the time - a garbage pit, discarded items of life, you name it. What you see as a "string of guesses and assumptions loosely gathered to support a hypothesis" I see as a pile of artifacts found in situ which relate to some person or persons on Niku,
LTM -
I am well aware of the fact that human beings leave material traces - I am an archaeologist after all. That's what archaeologists do, they examine those material traces. And as I have pointed out none of those traces can be demonstrated to originate solely from the presence of Earhart and Noonan at the moment. If I was the site archaeologist that is exactly what I would tell TIGHAR.
People who are interested enough to try and find the Electra have to accept that they will be dealing with physical evidence alone and it is that which at present is missing, and accordingly it is that lack which is the reason that people like myself with advanced archaeological and historical qualifications remain unconvinced. Someone mentioned that all this discussion of the veracity of the evidence sounded a bit too legalistic - well I have news for them, lawyers are softies compared with people like myself. We don't do plea bargains, accept mitigation or tell the jury that they cannot convict if there is reasonable doubt - we hard nosed archaeologists want it clear cut and 100% correct if we are going to agree that Earhart and Noonan spent quality time on Nikumaroro. Otherwise what's the point. :)
-
The only evidence to support that is the testimony of Emily Sikuli, Pulekai Songivalu and Tapania Taiki which as I have already show is flimsy to say the least - even TIGHAR admits to being less than happy with it.
Please do not dignify these stories with the appellation of "testimony." Testimony is something completly different, it is given under oath and, much more importantly, subject to cross examination. James Wigmore wrote (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Henry_Wigmore) in his 1904 Treatise on the Anglo-American System of Evidence in Trials at Common Law (usually known as Wigmore on Evidence or just Wigmore) that cross examination is the "greatest legal engine ever invented for the discovery of truth." This axiom has been quoted many times by the U.S. Supreme Court as well as all the courts in the states. For example, the U.S. Supreme Court stated in the 1970 case of CALIFORNIA v. GREEN, (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=volpage&court=us&vol=399&page=158#f11) 399 U.S. 149 at 158:
"This conclusion is supported by comparing the purposes of confrontation with the alleged dangers in admitting an out-of-court statement. Confrontation: (1) insures that the witness will give his statements under oath - thus impressing him with the seriousness of the matter and guarding against the lie by the possibility of a penalty for perjury; (2) forces the witness to submit to cross-examination, the "greatest legal engine ever invented for the discovery of truth"; 11 (3) permits the jury that is to decide the defendant's fate to observe the demeanor of the witness in making his statement, thus aiding the jury in assessing his credibility."
All these stories lack these safeguards.
My job for more than 25 years has been cross examining witness, including many, many expert witnesses, and the questioning under cross examination draws out inconsistencies and fabrications and any lack of a basis for the witnesses' stories. It finds holes in their stories, it detects when a witness is "blowing smoke."
That is why I do not give much weight to the stories of these islanders or to the similar stories told by Marshall Islanders about the Japanese capture theories.
gl
-
There is another problem that you guys who believe that Betty heard "Norwich City" have to find an explanation for. You guys have argued that Earhart transmitted "Norwich City" because she thought that that was the best way to send her location information to anybody that might hear her transmissions. O.K. you guys are right, then why did she only do it that one time, the time when Betty was listening? Why are the words "Norwich City" (as well as the word "Phoenix") not found in any of the other reception reports? Hmmmmm?
gl
-
Please do not dignify these stories with the appellation of "testimony."
gl
Well I did say flimsy to say the least ;)
However I am in complete agreement with you Gary. The only further comment I would make is to say that I am surprised that it has got the exposure it has. The inherent weaknesses of it which I have already shown on a couple of occasions would have been enough for me to reduce it to footnote status or not even bother with it.
-
A very interesting thread. A striking observation I note from this thread is that AE's communication problems didn't suddenly improve after the disappearance, they remained just as problematic given the scenario we are discussing.
Failure to communicate...
http://tighar.org/wiki/Failure_to_communicate (http://tighar.org/wiki/Failure_to_communicate)
-
In fact without intending to be harsh I suspect that if Earhart and Noonan had completed the flight successfully they would be largely forgotten today.
Perhaps that flight would have been largely forgotten but I highly doubt that AE would have been forgotten. AE was already a national celebrity and probably would have gone on to bigger and better things. She was already one of the most recognized persons in the world at the time. We cannot assume that she would have just folded up her tent and disappeared in to the obscurity of aviation history after that flight. I am sure she would have an impact on our culture being some sort of celebrity (like say Bob Hope) or even perhaps became involved in politics.
-
2. Why didn't overflights of the island detect their presence, because they would have constructed SOS land signals seen from the air?
I think some folks are of the opinion that they did not build SOS markers because they did not expect rescue to come from the air. Rather, they expected a sea-based rescue.
-
I must say that this thread is getting interesting. My friend Jeff Nevill and I have talked at length about this whole investigation, and I would assume that we will talk more in DC. So, Dr. Malcolm is an archaeolgist? I'm probably wrong, as usual, but isnt archaeology the study of activity through "artifacts" from previous times? Please correct me if I'm wrong---since I havent been in school for 38 years, but isnt the Electra wreckage and ARTIFACT of previous times?
I'm not saying the images we see in the underwater pics is the electra. Sure looks like it might be a plane, but the Electra NR16020? I dont know. Could be a Japanese warplane for all I know, and tht is a real possiblilty. Does it warrant an investigation? If to rule out the true identification and move forward, yes I think so. In my VERY simple mind----there are 3 possibilities.
1) it isnt aircraft wreckage after all, which makes 2 & 3 moot points.
2) It is aircraft wreckage, but not of the Electra, as Identified by being onsite and digging up the artifact, and examining it for positively identifiable parts.
or 3) It IS the Electra NR16020 as not only identified by markings, characteristics, and or large NR16020 on battered but identifiable wings. So---an Archaelogists would excavate--underwater archaeologist-and bring forth the artifact for examination.
When Dr. Ballard found the Titanic, I would bet that he knew what he was looking for, and had a good starting point. But I bet when he found her, it wasnt what he expected. Were there other sunken ship in the area of the Titanic? Gee I dont know. Possibily some former German U-Boats, but not a 900 foot ocean liner. Maybe there is anothe ship there. but what he did was make corrolate a theory on where to look, and then LOOKED. Not inlike what TIGHAR is doing here. Dr King and others have done archaeological digs on Niku several times, and have found artifacts. Are they proven to be from AE & Fred? I dont know, and I'm not convinced.
Is the 'wreckage of the Norwich City on the reef and the ocean bottom of Niku? Yep---because people were there and documented it. Did Dr Ballard find the Titanic, the Bismark, PT109 and other things? (i'd like to hear the story onthe PT109 search---a REAL needle in the Pacific!). Yes---because he went and documented it, and has artifacts to show.
Dr. Malcolm, as an archaeologist, you take a theory and go investigate and try to come up with visual documentation by way of artifacts to prove the theory. If I'm wrong----please explain it to me in VERY simple terms so I can understand them, like Gary did a while back on navigation. You dont have to agree with the theory, just how to go about proving its validity. (Was the Bimini Road constructed by ancient astronauts? Is Thera and Santori the site of Atlantis? Why are there Pyramids in Egypt, and the Americas? Is there cheese on the moon? ) All good things to investigate--except the cheese on the moon, but we went there anyway for other archaeological and geological purposes. So---just because you dont agree with the purpose or direction of TIGHARS direction of the Earhart Project, dont bash those of us that have other opinions, and have expressed them here for all to see. It you have one---do tell, and back it up. If you thing the AE & Fred were hit by lightning and disentegrated--say so and show us. OR---show up in DC and you and I and everyone else can discuss this and get a better understanding.
I look forward to learning from you.
Tom
-
Why should we assume FN had a map that identified Gardner Island by name?
I've previously referenced the Cape Verde Islands shown on Fred's Atlantic strip map, which can be viewed using Gary's link, above. Find the islands Sta. Lusia and St. Nicolao. Between them are some unidentified small islands. Finding the names of those two islands is easy using the internet, but the strip map we know Fred used did not name them. They're roughly the same size as Gardner in the Phoenix group of the Pacific. Gary also provides links to more modern maps that clearly identify Gardner, but we don't know what maps Fred had with him, nor what detail was on the maps he did have. If he had maps comparable to the Atlantic strip map, then Gardner and similar size islands may not have been named, and hardly present any identifying features beyond dots of land. I would not be surprised by a message from one of those islands to refer to it as "unidentified".
Isn't TIGHAR's hyothesis also based on some degree of navigation failure? To know which island you see in the Phoenix group requires the ability to match their location or their physical features with some record. The hypothetical maps that Fred had may not have had such a record. Is there any evidence to the contrary?
I would conclude that it is a mistake to apply modern standards to 1937 events. If you want to know what 10 random stranger's radio messages would be, those strangers need to be asked in 1937, not 2012. Knowledge of radio was very different back then. Amelia's record of poor use of radio, by modern standards, leads me to suspect that any post-loss transmission might contain equivalent poor quality information. Good grief, remember that she didn't talk with the Itasca or tell them her position even after telling them she had heard their signal.
-
Why should we assume FN had a map that identified Gardner Island by name?
I've previously referenced the Cape Verde Islands shown on Fred's Atlantic strip map, which can be viewed using Gary's link, above. Find the islands Sta. Lusia and St. Nicolao. Between them are some unidentified small islands. Finding the names of those two islands is easy using the internet, but the strip map we know Fred used did not name them. They're roughly the same size as Gardner in the Phoenix group of the Pacific. Gary also provides links to more modern maps that clearly identify Gardner, but we don't know what maps Fred had with him, nor what detail was on the maps he did have. If he had maps comparable to the Atlantic strip map, then Gardner and similar size islands may not have been named, and hardly present any identifying features beyond dots of land. I would not be surprised by a message from one of those islands to refer to it as "unidentified".
I have attached a portion of the 1935 National Geographic Map of the Pacific, here is a link to the entire map (http://www.maps.com/map.aspx?pid=15967). Even though this map is a small scale map, 35,000,000 to 1, seven times smaller than the navigation charts that we know Noonan actually used for navigation, it clearly identified Gardner. But, more importantly for the point I have been making, it clearly identified the Phoenix Islands. This map is found in the Purdue Earhart Collection so it is reasonable to believe that Earhart and Noonan had consulted it in planning the flight. We have all seen the photo of Earhart and Noonan with a chart spread out on the horizontal stabilizer of the plane ( I can't find it right now) and I believe you can read that chart well enough to see "Phoenix." It is also reasonable to believe that if Gardner was called out by name on a small scale map that it would almost certainly have been called out by name on the large scale charts actually used by Noonan for navigation. We don't know exactly what chart he was carrying on the last flight since "it went down with the ship" but we do have the charts that he used on prior legs since they were sent back and are now at Purdue. His practice was to use the most detailed charts available at a scale of about 3 to 5 million to one and these were marine charts just like the one he use for the Atlantic crossing. The marine chart of the area would have identified Gardner.
gl
-
here is pic will find link for u
-
I, for one, am a believer that the chart and FN knew about the Phoenix Islands and Gardner by name either from memory or from a chart.
HOWEVER, the ongoing assumption here is that she knew she was on Gardner Island in the Phoenix Island group and failed to mention this in her radio broadcasts. I, for one, think she did NOT know what Island she was on.
When they were giving the last message to Itasca about "we must be on you" there was no mention of "we think we are lost, or were lost or dont know where we are". Nothing to indicate they were in fact not "AT" Howland. Therefore all they knew was to fly the LOP. But that's no guarantee they knew Gardner was Gardner when they got close. For all we know the island they landed on was "uncharted" to them. They just knew they were on an island. If they gave out the wrong island name then they send the searchers on a wild goose chase to heaven knows how far away. They needed to get someone to figure out the right island first time as the tide was coming up on the Electra. (A fact according to tide tables) and the radio opportunity would last only a few days until full tide pulled the Electra over the reefs edge. No time for second chances.
Dont forget that islands dont have their names posted or etched in the soil like a Hollywood cartoon. Stop "presuming" they knew where they were and rethink what radio message they would send out. Is it still a hoax radio message if someone doesn't know where they are?
Ha! Jeff Nevill just posted a similar message to mine. I believe Gardner was posted on the chart but AE and FN didnt know they were on Gardner. If they were already many miles south east of Howland when they realised they were lost then did they really trust they knew what Island they were looking at to land on? Were they just so relieved to find land that they said lets get down their first and we will figure it out?
Dont forget that we dont know why they didnt make Howland. And this whole disappearance thing is a mystery and there are only a few real facts that are available. I think Marty said it here or on another post. Its like a rope. The individual strands cant hold the weight but the combined strands can (he was much more eloquent).
-
So, Dr. Malcolm is an archaeolgist? I'm probably wrong, as usual, but isnt archaeology the study of activity through "artifacts" from previous times? Please correct me if I'm wrong---since I havent been in school for 38 years, but isnt the Electra wreckage and ARTIFACT of previous times?
........................
Dr. Malcolm, as an archaeologist, you take a theory and go investigate and try to come up with visual documentation by way of artifacts to prove the theory. If I'm wrong----please explain it to me in VERY simple terms so I can understand them, like Gary did a while back on navigation. You dont have to agree with the theory, just how to go about proving its validity.
..................................
I look forward to learning from you.
Tom
I may be a little slow but I don't understand the question - I thought I had made my views plain. I am not disputing the the desire or right of people to search for Earhart and Noonan. I quite simply said that to me personally it didn't seem all that important, and that so far what has been found doesn't offer clear proof that they landed on Nikumaroro. Now as for the latter I would say that not only the archaeological and historical world in general but even TIGHAR agrees with me because they are going back again to find that clear proof if it exists.
Archaeology is simply the means by which, in the absence of historical data, we use the material remains of cultures to reconstruct a historical understanding. It is an immensely complex process because it relies on a whole range of scientific disciplines to gather together an understanding. The archaeologist doing the excavation is just the beginning of the process. The artifacts and other material remains will be subjected to a range of study by people from different scientific disciplines most of which the archaeologist only has a nodding acquaintance with. There'll be other archaeologists with specific specialties in pottery or lithic technology etc., botanists, physical anthropologists, anatomists, geologists, physicists, dendrochronologists etc. in fact more ists than you can shake a stick at, and in the end all the data comes back to the archaeologist who puts the picture together.
Now as an archaeologist my problem with the material evidence found so far is that none points clearly to the presence of Earhart and Noonan, that is all. If something is found which closes the mystery well and good, I'll accept it. However archaeology, as I explain constantly to people who think digging up things is cool, really isn't much use in a situation where you are trying to isolate one quite ephemeral event in such a defined short period of human settlement in a place where all the artifacts are basically from the one cultural background.
TIGHAR have gone about it the right way by excavating but they haven't found the "smoking gun". We all know that - the artifacts just don't give them the definition they need. All the conjecture in the world about cats paw shoes, compacts and freckle cream etc. doesn't prove anything because none of the artifacts can be explained in one single way that clearly rules out non-Earhartian origins. So the imperative for TIGHAR is now to find either the wreck or some clear irrefutable artifact that says Earhart and Noonan were there, or just say that they searched and found nothing. As an archaeologist that's how I would approach it if I was hired to do so - becoming emotionally attached to any theory is bad science.
-
here is pic will find link for u
Here is the link. (http://earchives.lib.purdue.edu/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/earhart&CISOPTR=728&CISOBOX=1&REC=8)
gl
-
We have all seen the photo of Earhart and Noonan with a chart spread out on the horizontal stabilizer of the plane ( I can't find it right now) and I believe you can read that chart well enough to see "Phoenix."
gl
Here is the link to the chart (http://earchives.lib.purdue.edu/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/earhart&CISOPTR=728&CISOBOX=1&REC=8) I had in mind but it is too blurry to make out whether you can read "Phoenix" on the chart although it is tantalizing.
There a number of photos of this same chart but none of them are clear enought to make out the wording. In fact, this chart was used on the cover of the book, "Last Flight." Here are links to those photos:
http://earchives.lib.purdue.edu/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/earhart&CISOPTR=3687&CISOBOX=1&REC=2
http://earchives.lib.purdue.edu/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/earhart&CISOPTR=221&DMSCALE=6.25&DMWIDTH=600&DMHEIGHT=600&DMX=0&DMY=0&DMMODE=viewer&DMTEXT=&REC=7&DMTHUMB=1&DMROTATE=0
http://earchives.lib.purdue.edu/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/earhart&CISOPTR=222&CISOBOX=1&REC=12
http://earchives.lib.purdue.edu/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/earhart&CISOPTR=223&CISOBOX=1&REC=17
gl
-
Not sure if this fits in with this thread but, it does contain a couple of points of interest
1. AE and FN experience of the temperature inside and outside of the Electra
2. A leaking oleo strut
To the Red Sea
Daybreak starts has been the order of our going because it was wise to get flying finished by noon when possible. Normally, the greatest heat came after midday, to be avoided both by man and machine. Not that either Fred or i particularly minded the occasional broiling of cockpit or fuselage (often the outer coating of the plane's metal was too hot to touch, while the temperatures of its innards sometimes were so high for our peace of mind we avoided recording them). But very hot can make difficult flying. It is thin and lacks lifting power. On equatorial fields, with the sun reflecting from the sands, one has to watch landing speed, which must be faster than normal. Also after a day of heat the air is apt to be particularly rough. Despite our plans we were held until half past one in the afternoon. at Fort Lamy. that was because of a small leak in a shock absorber of the landing gear. Air from one oleo escaped. to pump it up again taxed the manpower resources of the little station almost to capacity. thee are more pleasant diversions than hand-pumping at a temperature well over one hundred degrees
http://www.ourpacificocean.com/oceania_amelia_earhart3/index.htm (http://www.ourpacificocean.com/oceania_amelia_earhart3/index.htm)
-
Well Dr. Malcolm---I think we finally have agreement on something! This project is a complicated task. The artifacts, to date, dont indicate in my mind that Amelia was there---but we know some one was. The point of the Electra is in my mind the key to this piece of the puzzle. IF the wreckage that we are looking for turns out to be the Electra, then that shows it was on the island. Not necessarily landed there, but was there never the less.
It is an artifact, and subject to all the different investigating tools available, archaelogical and others.
Look---I'm a common sense kind of guy. Show me. I dont understand e=mc2. Or lasers, or in some case navigation, although Gary helped a bunch. I dont get extracting DNA from bones. Thats wayyyyy out of my league, and I admire those that can do it. But ---you show me confirmed wreckage of NR16020 on the reef at Nikumaroro, and I'll say ok---but it COULD have crashed, sank, drifted, and is now there.
See, for me, 75 years is what may be the deciding factor. Wind, waves, seismic activity, and erosion of materials are all working against us. TIGHAR, is attempting to reverse time, for a while, to find artifacts to so that Amelia was on Niku. For me, it sounds good so far, but and show me.
You know-----others may be right also. I believed she died in the Pacific area. On Niku? I dont know, but show me.
See you in DC.
Tom
-
Tom, I, personally, believe the post loss radio signals as the key to this whole thing. Ignore, for a moment, all other information you know on the hypothesis. If you believe that even one radio message came from AE then it means several things are true. AE is alive, the plane is on land and upright, it can run the right hand engine. If the plane is on land then there is a limited number of islands she can be on. The Electra didn't crash, sink and drift. It landed.
The main thing is if you believe in the radio messages. They happened or they didn't. That to me is the focal point. Re read the Post Loss radio signal report again. This isn't one radio message being analyzed. It's 182. Independent and separate radio reports. You have to believe that all 182 reporting parties are lying in order to say there isn't one real one. Yes you can say they thought they heard something that wasn't there but now you have no one in the entire Pacific operating a radio who can accurately report what they are hearing. Is that likely?
-
Well Dr. Malcolm---I think we finally have agreement on something! This project is a complicated task.
Hello Tom
Yes I am a very show me kind of person - and my training as an archaeologist and working as one only reinforced it. The hardest thing is this world is telling someone whose deeply held beliefs have metamorphosed into a hypothesis is that the basic data either doesn't support it or is equally capable of being interpreted as something else. Archaeologists in particular seem to have to do this a lot because according to the TV documentaries it is all so damned easy to understand events from a few broken pots and a couple of stone tools. ;D
Regards
Malcolm
-
Tom, I, personally, believe the post loss radio signals as the key to this whole thing. Ignore, for a moment, all other information you know on the hypothesis. If you believe that even one radio message came from AE then it means several things are true. AE is alive, the plane is on land and upright, it can run the right hand engine. If the plane is on land then there is a limited number of islands she can be on. The Electra didn't crash, sink and drift. It landed.
The main thing is if you believe in the radio messages. They happened or they didn't. That to me is the focal point. Re read the Post Loss radio signal report again. This is one radio message being analyzed. It's 182. Independent and separate radio reports. You have to believe that all 182 reporting parties are lying in order to say there isn't one real one. Yes you can say they thought they heard something that wasn't there but now you have no one in the entire Pacific operating a radio who can accurately report what they are hearing. Is that likely?
Well, that's true. But if we think only one of all the messages is real, we don't know much more. Only Ellen Long (Crashed and sank) would be wrong, but all the other theories, especially the Marshall Island hypothesis (Captured by the Japanese) could be right.
-
Tom, I, personally, believe the post loss radio signals as the key to this whole thing. Ignore, for a moment, all other information you know on the hypothesis. If you believe that even one radio message came from AE then it means several things are true. AE is alive, the plane is on land and upright, it can run the right hand engine. If the plane is on land then there is a limited number of islands she can be on. The Electra didn't crash, sink and drift. It landed.
The main thing is if you believe in the radio messages. They happened or they didn't. That to me is the focal point. Re read the Post Loss radio signal report again. This is one radio message being analyzed. It's 182.[/b] Independent and separate radio reports. You have to believe that all 182 reporting parties are lying in order to say there isn't one real one. Yes you can say they thought they heard something that wasn't there but now you have no one in the entire Pacific operating a radio who can accurately report what they are hearing. Is that likely?
Don't get carried away by numbers, even TIGHAR says that 130 out of the 182 are NOT credible. Of the remaining 52 that TIGHAR claims are credible, 7 are duplicates so there are really only 45 messages supposedly sent by Earhart. However, as I have pointed out, none of those are really credible because none provide a location which even people on the street recognize as being the most important and the first piece of information that should be sent in an emergency message. There are even more reasons for why none of the claimed reports are credible and I will go into that more later.
gl
-
Morning all. This project is getting more exciting each day. I cant wait to get to DC, meet alot of you, see the real evidence for myself, and be able to discuss this very exciting and rewarding subject.
We all have some different views, which is good. We all can discuss them, which is also good. Some of us have had little differences of those opinions, and have still been able to comminucate. That is excellent! I commend all of us.
Now---Irv-on the radio signals. At this point, I have to believe the triangulation of reported signals from the Phoenix group. By believing so, I say the crash and sank theory wont work, and the Electra has to be able to transmit, which means on land. Doesnt necessarily mean she is on Niku, but for me its a stretch to think of another area in the the Phoenix Group where she could be. But---its a starting point for a search.
DR. Malcolm--in my previous 'life', I used to race cars, and one thing we learned quickly is to formulate ideas to play in the 'gray area' of the rules to get a competitive advantage. Yeah, I know, but 2nd place is the first looser. Anyway the point is we formulated ideas to make the car faster, and went and did repeated testing to see if our idea gave us the results we wanted. No matter what the theory or idea was, you have to believe the result. (The moon is not made of cheese, its rock). So---if your results validate the theory, then great. If the results didnot validate then, it doesnt mean the theory is bad, it just means the results were different than what you thought they were going to be. Perhaps the theory was off alittle. The results give you a baseline to improve the theory. In TIGHARS case, we have a theory: Amelia and Fred, landed the Electra on the Northwest reef edge of Gardner Island near the wreck of the Norwich City in 1937. To test that, TIGHAR needed to figure out if it was possible to get there. Total possible time aloft was good, so yes, it was possible. Probable: well does anything point to her being there? Post loss radio signals from 3 days and nights, that were triangulated to have possibly originated from the Phoenix Island group near Gardner Island. If you can attribute those signals from being from her, then yes it is a starting point. Were they hoaxes? Possibly, but its a theory.
Now---I'm not big on archaeology--sorry Malcolm, but I certainly do understand the importance of it. But---I do think that search for potential Electra wreckage is archaeology in a sense, so that excites me. So, whether or not the stuff on the reef is aircraft wreckage is, in my mind at least, an archaeological expedition---aviation archaeology. It may not be, but I think that as a archaeologist you probably have done some excavations that didnt produce the result that yo were looking for. The wreckage may be from a Japaneese seaplane from the war. I dont know, but we should be able to figure that out soon enough. IF, it is parts of the Electra, then we know the plane was there--not a crash and sink in the ocean. Part of the theory is then validated---the Electra made it to Gardner. Doesnt mean landed on the reef, doesnt mean Amelia was at the seven site, just means the Electra was at Niku. IMHO-to test the landing, the landing gear"nessie' theory, you have to find parts of the left wing/engine mount/gear area. If you DO find them ( OH BOY) on the ocean bottom, and the gear mount has been ripped and twisted off, then that is pretty convincing of the gear stuck in a reef trough, and wave action tearing it apart. Alittle thinking says that 'maybe" AE & Fred were able to use the radio for a period of time, before the destruction. Doesnt mean Nessie was the gear, but ideas are beginning to line up.
Look gentlemen and ladies----we dont know what happened, but we have some very good thought processes. TIGHAR is going to Niku, with the best equipped expedition to try and validate the landing theory by trying to locate and identify aircraft wreckage. They will have results, one way or the other. Either it is, or it is not. If it is, its either the Electra, or its not.
If it is, we have validated several theories. IF now, we make some new ones.
Looking forward to seeing alot of you in DC! Thanks for aloowing me to ramble on for a few minutes.
Tom
-
First, let me say that I support the Niku search overall. As of this time it would seem that the best available evidence supports this hypothesis, at least to the point of testing the hypothesis. Having said that, I think maybe we should examine the three questions George posted a little more carefully.
"Why didn't they transmit their position?" I learned much of what I know about flying from aviators that began their careers in WWII. While not contemporaries of AE & FN, they weren't all that far removed. One of the things I had drilled into me from day one was the format for a position report. IPTAR: Identificaqtion Position Time Altitude Remarks. Even if we consider AE as a marginally experienced aviator, FN was a highly experienced navigator. As such, "position" becomes almost part of your DNA. What is more, this isn't unique to aviation. Marine navigation (from which air navigation draws its essence) follows much the same pattern. In other words, AE should have known and FN most certainly knew the importance of position, even an estimated position, in any post landing transmission. For those who think FN didn't know where they were, he could have (and as an experienced navigator would have known how) determined his longitude to an accuracy of 2-3 degrees with nothing more than a wristwatch. He could also have determined latitude with his bare hands to an accuracy of less than 5 degrees and could have improved that to 1-2 degrees with a Weems plotter (a variant of which had been used in marine navigation for a long time). In short, he could have given a position with a circular error of, perhaps, 200 miles or less which certainly would have reduced the search area. Precedent for format, equipment, and training were all in place. That makes it seriously questionable that no position was given.
"Why no signal?" Again, marine precedent says "make a signal". I also remember my father bringing home from WWII a USAAC pilots survival manual. As a kid, I must have read that thing a hundred times and one of the first entries..... Make a signal! Some have made a point that water and food would have been a problem and AE & FN might have been too weak to take such action. While that is one of the reasons making a signal is one of the FIRST things to be done, that same survival manual I referenced above gave information on finding water on "waterless" islands. Basically, fresh water is less dense (lighter) than salt water and tends to "float" on top. In open ocean, wave action causes rapid mixing but the sandy soill of an island inhibits that mixing and you end up with a "lense" of fresh water "floating" on salt water. To get fresh water just pick a spot above the high tide line and dig. Not enough to support a population, perhaps, but enough to support a couple of castaways. Food is even less problematic. Much has been made of the crab population and their nightly "attacks". Here's the equation: "crab" + "rock" = "lunch". That doesn't even get into the fish and mollusks available in tidal pools on the reef or the various edible seaweeds. Again, all information from a USAAC survival manual roughly contemporary to these events.
"Why no memorial structure?" This one is a bit less compelling. I don't see why one would necessarily expect to find some sort of memorial structure half a century after the event. Even closer to the event in time, such a structure might have been misidentified and razed or simply left to fall apart.
I'm not making an argument against the Niku hypothesis here. It still seems the best available from limited, and sometimes questionable, information. AE & FN could have been dumber than a bag of rocks, been totally incompetent in their selected fields, and given no thought to the possibility they might have to survive at a remote location for weeks or months. They could have hit the ground and just "given up" (actually, not all that remote a possibility if they really were that unprepared). These are, however, questions that merit some thought and deserve more that superficial rejection.
William
-
DR. Malcolm--in my previous 'life', I used to race cars, Now---I'm not big on archaeology--sorry
Tom
Tom I'm not big on racing cars, and you're not big on archaeology - good we are in agreement.
As I have said consistently if TIGHAR do find the evidence either in the form of something demonstrably from Earhart or Noonan like bones or an artifact, or they find parts of the wreck then that will offer affirmative prove of their hypothesis. If they don't then that will offer proof that their hypothesis isn't correct.
That's how it works - belief is never a good substitute for proof.
Regards
Malcolm
-
Sorry Malcolm. You just wrote that if TIGHAR doesn't produce evidence that proves their hypothesis then that "will offer proof that their hypothesis isn't correct". How so? Doesn't lack of evidence mean only that there is a lack of evidence? Lack of evidence proves nothing.
-
Sorry Gary. I said in my post "This isn't one radio message being analyzed. It's 182. Independent and separate radio reports. You have to believe that all 182 reporting parties are lying in order to say there isn't one real one.". The key words are "being analyzed". I never claimed all 182 were real nor that TIGHAR claimed that. As your post said, even 45 is a large number. However you have imposed a condition on those 45 that says, to be credible, the messages must provide a location. Why? Because others agree that putting a position in the message is important? That doesn't make it not credible.
Let me approach it this way. Lets take my favourite five that triangulaed to Gardner. If the messages were not AE because no position report was given in the message then who made the messages that triangulated back to Gardner? The radio messages existed so who made them? I will also ask how they did it from the triangulated position? I wont even ask why they did it. I will assume you think it's a hoax call. Malcolm, you can jump in here too.
-
How is it possible to get 5 stations to triangulate on a "sunspot" signal? I'm familiar with sunspot activity, and the weird signals it can create, but I'm not aware of any examples of stations triangulating on a "sunspot" signal, let alone 5 simultaneously. This is not to say that it hasn't happened, only that I'm not aware of the test having been performed.
I now realize that I've assumed that sunspot signals would have a random direction on DF. Can someone provide proof that they do not? I've had lots of experience of extremely long-range "skip", and gotten pretty good directional information from a rotatable Yagi that has always confirmed a great-circle path aimed towards the station. In my amateur experience with radio DF, even odd atmospheric conditions don't make radio waves turn corners, only make them go further than expected, and in a "straight" line.
The 5 signals didn't actually triangulate at Gardner, but rather to the general Phoenix island area. Gardner has been assumed to be the most likely place an aircraft could land and continue to transmit.
-
Sorry Malcolm. You just wrote that if TIGHAR doesn't produce evidence that proves their hypothesis then that "will offer proof that their hypothesis isn't correct". How so? Doesn't lack of evidence mean only that there is a lack of evidence? Lack of evidence proves nothing.
Well in my backyard I have no evidence to suggest that there used to be an First Dynasty Egyptian pyramid there and that this was pulled down so my house could be built - are you saying that there really is a possibility that there was a First Dynasty Egyptian pyramid there simply because I can't find a trace of it.
Damn!!!! - I'm rich. ;D
-
How is it possible to get 5 stations to triangulate on a "sunspot" signal? I'm familiar with sunspot activity, and the weird signals it can create, but I'm not aware of any examples of stations triangulating on a "sunspot" signal, let alone 5 simultaneously. This is not to say that it hasn't happened, only that I'm not aware of the test having been performed.
I now realize that I've assumed that sunspot signals would have a random direction on DF. Can someone provide proof that they do not? I've had lots of experience of extremely long-range "skip", and gotten pretty good directional information from a rotatable Yagi that has always confirmed a great-circle path aimed towards the station. In my amateur experience with radio DF, even odd atmospheric conditions don't make radio waves turn corners, only make them go further than expected, and in a "straight" line.
The 5 signals didn't actually triangulate at Gardner, but rather to the general Phoenix island area. Gardner has been assumed to be the most likely place an aircraft could land and continue to transmit.
But your Yagi had a front to back ratio, the RDF's used in 1937 didn't.
gl
-
Sorry Gary. I said in my post "This isn't one radio message being analyzed. It's 182. Independent and separate radio reports. You have to believe that all 182 reporting parties are lying in order to say there isn't one real one.". The key words are "being analyzed". I never claimed all 182 were real nor that TIGHAR claimed that. As your post said, even 45 is a large number. However you have imposed a condition on those 45 that says, to be credible, the messages must provide a location. Why? Because others agree that putting a position in the message is important? That doesn't make it not credible.
Yes, the lack of a location ALONE in any of the claimed messages is enough to make them NOT credible. Apparently, everybody, even those taken off the street, recognize the importance of location in an emergency message. Everybody, that is, except those wedded to the TIGHAR theory.
gl
-
However you have imposed a condition on those 45 that says, to be credible, the messages must provide a location. Why? Because others agree that putting a position in the message is important? That doesn't make it not credible.
So it is more credible for Earhart, who everyone claims is down on a reef with the tide rushing in and Fred Noonan going bananas, to crank up the radio and mention New York City and a suitcase in a wardrobe but not where she is broadcasting from? I don't know about you but that just doesn't make it credible to me.
-
Well in response to both Gary and Malcolm, i guess all 182 hoaxers also forgot to include positions in their reports. Heck, let's just boil it down to the 45 that Gary suggests. All 45 faked or non credible calls have no position.
So we have either a bunch of fakers who all forgot to give position or we have one who forgot, if she even knew it. Based on your theory about most people would report position then is it likelier one forgot or all 45?
You didn't answer my questions on who these fakers are or how they created messages tracing back to the Phoenix group.
If you're going to advance your own theory on the post loss signals then your theory needs to be tested. Just stick with the 5 messages for now all originating from the Phoenix group. Who mounted the expedition to take a radio there? Did someone suspect AE was not going to find Howland weeks in advance in order to get a radio transported there? Why did they do this?
-
I have said this once before, however I will say it again. The validity of the radio messages is as much dependent on Nikumaroro being demonstrated to be Earhart's landing spot as is their validity as genuine radio messages which reflect that situation.
Now while that sounds awfully obvious it isn't really because we have a situation where each of the components of the Earhart/Nikumaroro hypothesis have to be tested individually as they are all dissimilar phenomenon, each with their own individual set of physical and psychological features, in the chain of circumstances that creates the hypothesis.
Now we are all aware that the process isn't aided by the hoaxes, the utter disregard for the urgency of accurate information by the radio and print media (nothing new there), the misunderstandings of the March of Time program and the general level of background radio noise that is bouncing around at the time. Furthermore their validity is not helped by the need to second guess every part of Betty's notes (or anyone else's for that part) to say what the Nikumaroro hypothesis demands rather than what the notes actually say. The moment when you start reading a purported eyewitness account and have to start saying "Well this is probably what she heard ..." rather than just accepting that she heard what she said she heard is the moment you have departed company with logic and are creating a hypothesis out of whole cloth. Has anyone considered seriously that what she noted was what she heard, which means why on Earth is Amelia Earhart rabbiting on about a suitcase while claiming that Fred's getting stroppy. If that doesn't indicate a hoax by someone with a mordant sense of humour nothing does.
As for the need of the hoaxers to transmit some actual locations, they have no need because they only want to fool the audience and have a bit of sick fun. While on the other hand if Earhart or Noonan is actually responsible for some of the messages then they go out of their way not to tell us anything - in other words on the one hand you have sick idiots and on the other needy idiots who don't tell us where to find them. And people wonder why some of us view the radio traffic with a raised eyebrow.
The Navy dutifully does a search - one of the islands is Nikumaroro and they don't see anything at all. Now some 75 years later we are second guessing them and saying well perhaps the surf was up and the wreckage was probably hidden, and the observers didn't know what they were doing or Amelia and Fred are passed out under a tree and can't be seen, or they wave but no one sees them etc. etc. etc. Wonderful excuses to explain away the very real possibility that they weren't on Nikumaroro to be seen. Calm down everyone, that's just silly old me being logical and looking at the evidence.
If TIGHAR find the wreck or bits of it, or they find something quite incontrovertibly linked to the pair on or near Nikumaroro then that will validate some small part of the radio traffic (only that however which can be 100% linked to the island's location) - but as no one has found that vital evidence then the radio messages are really about as useful or as uncontaminated as the other ethereal medium, the psychics who plagued George Putnam with messages from the other side.
-
The Navy dutifully does a search - one of the islands is Nikumaroro and they don't see anything at all.
That is not what the lead pilot (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Lambrecht%27s_Report.html) said.
"From M’Kean the planes proceeded to Gardner Island (sighting the ship to starboard enroute) and made an aerial search of this island which proved to be one of the biggest of the group. Gardner is a typical example of your south sea atoll … a narrow circular strip of land (about as wide as Coronado’s silver strand) surrounding a large lagoon. Most of this island is covered with tropical vegetation with, here and there, a grove of coconut palms. 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."
If you wish to discuss this further, there is an extant thread (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,253.0.html) that you may read and comment on.
-
The Navy dutifully does a search - one of the islands is Nikumaroro and they don't see anything at all.
That is not what the lead pilot (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Lambrecht%27s_Report.html) said.
"From M’Kean the planes proceeded to Gardner Island (sighting the ship to starboard enroute) and made an aerial search of this island which proved to be one of the biggest of the group. Gardner is a typical example of your south sea atoll … a narrow circular strip of land (about as wide as Coronado’s silver strand) surrounding a large lagoon. Most of this island is covered with tropical vegetation with, here and there, a grove of coconut palms. 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."
If you wish to discuss this further, there is an extant thread (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,253.0.html) that you may read and comment on.
I'll take it here thank you - by nothing I refer to Earhart or Noonan waving or putting out markers of some sort, not to what is probably vestiges of the Norwich City survivors' camps. I see my shorthand has confused you but I suspect that most would understand that I was referring to the Earhart issue.
-
I see my shorthand has confused you but I suspect that most would understand that I was referring to the Earhart issue.
I was, too.
Your theory is conceivable, but, in the absence of further detail, it is also conceivable that the "signs of recent habitation" were produced by Earhart and Noonan.
The vegetation on the island rapidly covers cleared areas. TIGHAR has seen this at the Seven Site.
After eight years, it seems to me to be unlikely that the the Norwich City camps would provide "signs of recent habitation."
YMMV.
-
Your theory is conceivable, but, in the absence of further detail, it is also conceivable that the "signs of recent habitation" were produced by Earhart and Noonan.
The vegetation on the island rapidly covers cleared areas. TIGHAR has seen this at the Seven Site.
After eight years, it seems to me to be unlikely that the the Norwich City camps would provide "signs of recent habitation."
YMMV.
There is also the possibility of unrecorded visits in the period from 1929 to 1937. Islanders on long trips perhaps blown off course, the possible castaway that might account for the skeleton found in Gallagher's time etc. I recall that somewhere on the forum in a reply Ric (I think) mentioned one TIGHAR trip to the island where footprints and a firearm were found. Not all travel in the Pacific is well-regulated or adheres to shipping timetables.
-
After eight years, it seems to me to be unlikely that the the Norwich City camps would provide "signs of recent habitation."
What about the life boat? Didn't it weight something like 1,800 lbs? That seems like a pretty big object and from the 1938 photo appears to be exposed. From the air it might be difficult to see the condition.
Do we know if this was located near the NC wreck or elsewhere? If it was located near the NC they probably would not have declared to this to be a recent sign of habitation.
-
There is also the possibility of unrecorded visits in the period from 1929 to 1937. Islanders on long trips perhaps blown off course, the possible castaway that might account for the skeleton found in Gallagher's time etc. I recall that somewhere on the forum in a reply Ric (I think) mentioned one TIGHAR trip to the island where footprints and a firearm were found. Not all travel in the Pacific is well-regulated or adheres to shipping timetables.
That quotation is from me, not Ric.
It came from an interview done in Fiji in 2003.
In other words, I am well aware of the uncontrolled nature of the Niku environment. I collected that story and recounted it precisely to make that point.
I am point out the illogic of saying that because the search flight didn't see anybody waving at them, we may (or must) conclude that the "signs of recent habitation" had nothing to do with the crew. Search aircraft miss people waving at them all the time.
-
Heath,
this Map (http://tighar.org/wiki/File:Contour_Map_NZ_Aviation_Survey_(Wigram_AFB_Archives).jpg) shows the location. It is the red arrow pointing towards the notice board.
The map does not indicate the site of the NC life boat, only the location of the NZ Survey camp. One would presume that the camp is likely near of co-incident with the NC survivor camp, but I don't think we've ever been able to establish that.
We've looked for the life boats, but haven't found one yet. The general consensus is that if they were useable or repairable, they would have been put to use by the colonists. Not much is more valuable than a boat when you live on a coral atoll.
Andrew
-
I thought that the photo of the life boat showed it next to the notice board for British Pacific Airway which is the upper arrow of the two that point towards the camp?
(http://tighar.org/aw/mediawiki/images/5/57/Norwich_City_Lifeboat_1938_%28Wigram_AFB_Archives%29%29.jpg)
-
Ahhh, I see it now. Do we know this is the Notice Board? Do we know what the sign says?
Probably been discussed in the past while I wasn't paying attention.
Andrew
-
Ahhh, I see it now. Do we know this is the Notice Board? Do we know what the sign says?
I don't know whether it is the Notice Board, nor do I know what the sign says.
I just figured that it might be the image in question.
Probably been discussed in the past while I wasn't paying attention.
Same here.
I'm pretty sure TIGHAR has been through that area a few times.
There was some sentiment expressed in EPAC to search for "camp 0" for Earhart and Noonan. IF they landed near the Norwich City, and IF they found the remains of camp 1 or camp 2 for the Norwich City survivors (http://tighar.org/wiki/Norwich_City_Survivors%27_Shelter), and IF they left anything there, and IF the natives didn't find what they left, and IF TIGHAR hasn't been over the ground with metal detectors already, then it might be worth attempting on some subsequent archeological expedition.
I don't have a firm idea of where the 1897 coconut operations took place or where the colony's coconut plantations were located. If they were in the vicinity of the Norwich City, all traces of camps prior to 1939 may now be lost and gone forever.
-
Extract from 2001 expedition report
Today they will dedicate the Norwich City plaque around 10 a.m. -- that's in sector WB09. Then they will go to take a close look at the Arundel structures in WE11 to see if any of the construction type materials found at the Seven site can be matched to items there.
2001 (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Forum/Highlights141_160/highlights150.html)
Didn't Gallagher suggest that there was a coconut grove 1 1/2 to 2 miles from the Seven site?
Poor wretch (http://tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/1999Vol_15/clues.pdf)
Thanks, Chris!
-
As my old teacher said in a report "he's a sponge but I wish he would soak up what he needs to pass and not trivia that has nothing to do with his studies"
Sounds like a man who was on your side. :)
I consulted the map with gridmarks. This is a rough approximation of where WE11 seems to end up:
(http://tighar.org/aw/mediawiki/images/b/bb/Arundel.jpg)
-
I am point out the illogic of saying that because the search flight didn't see anybody waving at them, we may (or must) conclude that the "signs of recent habitation" had nothing to do with the crew. Search aircraft miss people waving at them all the time.
And one must also accept that in the absence of evidence to prove the point either way then the opposite is just as likely. But the fact remains that the Navy crew saw no actual human beings and what they did report was signs of recent habitation without actually suggesting how recent or where. While in 1940 Gallagher recovers parts of a skeleton which is thought to be a castaway's but which he also proposes might be Earhart's given the then recent disappearance, then that is identified as a stocky male which later is reevaluated (without benefit of the actual bones) to be a female.
Meanwhile the historical and ethnographic evidence shows that the Polynesians were probably the world's greatest seafarers and undertook regularly long voyages well into the last century. So I return to my first sentence and say both scenarios are, unless further evidence is found, are just as likely. So around in circles we go until something definite is found.
-
And one must also accept that in the absence of evidence to prove the point either way then the opposite is just as likely. But the fact remains that the Navy crew saw no actual human beings and what they did report was signs of recent habitation without actually suggesting how recent or where.
That is an accurate statement of the case.
"The Navy crew saw nothing" is not.
While in 1940 Gallagher recovers parts of a skeleton which is thought to be a castaway's but which he also proposes might be Earhart's given the then recent disappearance, then that is identified as a stocky male which later is reevaluated (without benefit of the actual bones) to be a female.
The doctor took measurements.
As if he were a trained scientist, he wrote down those measurements.
He used those measurements in formulas derived from the study of fewer than 100 skeletons.
There is nothing unscientific or offensive to the good doctor in taking the data he left us and using it in calculations derived from the scientific study of thousands of skeletons.
That's what Dr. Kar Burns, a trained forensic anthropologist with a Ph.D. and years of experience in field work, did on behalf of TIGHAR.
Scientists often take data provided by other scientists and check the other scientists' interpretation of the data. It is part of the tradition of "reproducible results."
Dr. Hoodless results are not reproducible, based on the improvements in osteology.
Yes, of course, it would be better to have the bones to study. And the result of the FORDISC analysis is only a probability, not a certainty. That, too, is fairly common in the world of science.
Meanwhile the historical and ethnographic evidence shows that the Polynesians were probably the world's greatest seafarers and undertook regularly long voyages well into the last century. So I return to my first sentence and say both scenarios are, unless further evidence is found, are just as likely. So around in circles we go until something definite is found.
FORDISC includes analysis of Polynesian features. Of course, random mutations can and do happen, and a Polynesian might be born with European features, and vice-versa.
No one is claiming certitude based on the FORDISC analysis. TIGHAR has always talked in terms of probabilities, not certitudes. That is why it has sent three teams to Fiji, myself to Auckland, and a team to Britain to try to find the bones. We, too, would like to have them re-examined by professionals.
-
And one must also accept that in the absence of evidence to prove the point either way then the opposite is just as likely. But the fact remains that the Navy crew saw no actual human beings and what they did report was signs of recent habitation without actually suggesting how recent or where.
That is an accurate statement of the case ... etc.
Oh I quite agree about the need for results to be reproducible - common problem in archaeology especially as scientific advances give new insights. But given the other possible alternatives which until, or if ever, additional skeletal material from that set of remains is recovered then we remain with the problem that whoever it was could be a gracile Polynesian, a late juvenile Polynesian, a woman of northern European descent or even the remains of a female castaway of mixed European/Polynesian descent. Complicated as ever by the presence of the bones from the Norwich City casualties who don't appear to be really accounted for, especially given the colourful saga of skeletons as recounted by Emily Sikuli, Pulekai Songivalu and Tapania Taiki.
I grant that the TIGHAR Nikumaroro hypothesis is well supported by circumstantial evidence - the reexamination of Hoodless's data, the final proven radio messages, the accounts of Emily Sikuli, and those of Pulekai Songivalu and Tapania Taiki regarding wreckage, the post-loss radio messages, artifacts found on the island that fit the time period, the size 9 shoe sole etc. But in the end none of those can stand alone without being given the major help of some purely imaginary theories regarding Earhart and Noonan's behaviour and their links to it, and that is the really big problem isn't it.
I know that the answer for some members of this forum is to argue that you construct a story and turn it into a hypothesis by trying to make pieces fit and that is how everything like this works, but that isn't really the way it works in science is it. In science or in any inquiry the individual pieces of data that are being used have each got to have their own integrity. If one or several of those has to have some help with achieving that integrity and its place in the hypothesis by fudging the edges a bit, or adding some conditions that are not present in the original data, then not only is that individual bit of data immediately rendered untrustworthy but the whole edifice is weakened.
Therein lies the whole problem with the data so far advanced to support the Nikumaroro hypothesis but I hasten to add that that is the problem with every other hypothesis advanced to answer the mystery of Earhart's disappearance. So far in many of the arguments about the data presented and its value I am reminded of what a friend of mine once wrote in a paper about ideas with similar tenuous links to reality "the thinner the ice the faster they skate". In the end this discussion has not proven that the Nikumaroro hypothesis has any more substance than when it was first advanced but that TIGHAR still has to find something solid and incontrovertible.
-
I quite agree about the need for results to be reproducible
Great!
It had sounded as though you wanted to have it both ways: Dr. Hoodless was such a great expert that no one can question his methods or results, but such a buffoon that no one else can use the measurements that he used to generate his results.
I grant that the TIGHAR Nikumaroro hypothesis is well supported by circumstantial evidence - the reexamination of Hoodless's data, the final proven radio messages, the accounts of Emily Sikuli, and those of Pulekai Songivalu and Tapania Taiki regarding wreckage, the post-loss radio messages, artifacts found on the island that fit the time period, the size 9 shoe sole etc. But in the end none of those can stand alone ...
That's what is meant by a "circumstantial case."
No part of a suspension bridge "stands alone."
No part of an aircraft "flies alone."
If the parts aren't fitted together, there is no bridge or aircraft.
We agree that "none of those can stand alone."
without being given the major help of some purely imaginary theories regarding Earhart and Noonan's behaviour and their links to it, and that is the really big problem isn't it.
All experiments require "imaginary theories." That's how scientists prepare an experiment. They take an idea, imagine what the testable implications of that idea are, then construct the experiments before they know how the experiments will turn out. If they are prohibited from using their imaginations to foresee what has not yet been observed, no experiment could ever be created.
In this case, the "experiment" being conducted is to "search the space toward which some circumstantial lines of reasoning point." Tom King, who holds a Ph.D. in archaeology, explains why TIGHAR is searching Niku (http://tighar.org/aw/mediawiki/images/b/b9/The-Case-for-Nikumaroro.pdf).
I know that the answer for some members of this forum is to argue that you construct a story and turn it into a hypothesis by trying to make pieces fit and that is how everything like this works, but that isn't really the way it works in science is it.
Asking the question of how the pieces fit together is not contrary to the methods of science. If a theory doesn't cover all the facts, that may be grounds to reject the theory. Fudging the data to make it fit the theory is bad, too.
In science or in any inquiry the individual pieces of data that are being used have each got to have their own integrity. If one or several of those has to have some help with achieving that integrity and its place in the hypothesis by fudging the edges a bit, or adding some conditions that are not present in the original data, then not only is that individual bit of data immediately rendered untrustworthy but the whole edifice is weakened.
You've brought back the "weak-link-in-the-chain" argument, dressed in a new metaphor.
You have expressed a philosophical view. People have the right to philosophize. Since your view is not a finding of physics, chemistry, biology, or archaeology, it is something freely chosen and advocated by you.
Therein lies the whole problem with the data so far advanced to support the Nikumaroro hypothesis but I hasten to add that that is the problem with every other hypothesis advanced to answer the mystery of Earhart's disappearance. So far in many of the arguments about the data presented and its value I am reminded of what a friend of mine once wrote in a paper about ideas with similar tenuous links to reality "the thinner the ice the faster they skate". In the end this discussion has not proven that the Nikumaroro hypothesis has any more substance than when it was first advanced but that TIGHAR still has to find something solid and incontrovertible.
Yes, TIGHAR would love to find the "Any Idiot Artifact (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3zpMNNIY0Vk&feature=channel)." The organization has kind of noticed how useful it would be to clinch the case. I think that is why it has spent so much time and money searching where it estimates the artifact is most likely to be found.
-
Ok---Dr. Malcolm. Lets put it this way. TIGHAR is attempting to validate its 'circumstancial' evidence into hard facts----one way or the other.
I would think that archaeology is the same. some finds an old pot somewhere and thinks that it may be from a era that we need to know more about. So he or she convinces some freinds to g dig in the area and look for more. They think they have hit on Atlantis, but have not found the big energy station that propels the alien ships to Alfa Centari. But they find old wooden boat. Circumstancial to fit their theory? Maybe. So they dig and find a layers upon layers of ruins of a lost city with toilets, running water, a movie theater, and a gas station. NO cell phone towers, because they used telepathy. Did they find Atlantis? No, not at least to match their theory.
Just like TIGHAR------we all have theories. TIGHAR is going to prove, right or wrong, its land theory of the Electra, and in doing so, its theory of Amelia being on Nikumaroro.
So, IMHO and all due respect, this is archaeology.
Tom
-
I quite agree about the need for results to be reproducible
Great! etc.
Strangely I also hold a Ph.D in archaeology, also a Masters, perhaps that is why I am interested in the archaeological aspects of the hypothesis and I understand quite clearly why you are searching Nikumaroro. There is nothing wrong about discussing possible scenarios but I learnt fairly early that all the discussion and chatter about possible situations lasts until something tangible is found.
I'll beg to differ about your definition of what constitutes circumstantial evidence, actually circumstantial evidence remains as such regardless of its multiplication. And I'll once more reiterate that when you use circumstantial evidence to build a hypothesis it is necessary for each of the pieces to be able to stand alone - if one is weak then anything coupled to it or built from it by combination is by definition weak. I see that you agree that none stand alone, but unfortunately the capacity for one or a number to stand alone is what is needed. That is why I posted as I did.
The Nikumaroro hypothesis is built on circumstantial evidence, some of it is interesting - the 157/337 message, that size 9 shoe, the reinterpretation of the Gallagher bones. Other parts are very weak - the post-loss radio messages and the highly imaginative reconstruction of Earhart and Noonan's brief sojourn on the island, the claims of Emily Sikuli, Pulekai Songivalu and Tapania Taiki regarding wreckage and the relevance of the European artifacts. The requirement for TIGHAR is to find what it calls the smoking gun - something we would all like. If they do then perhaps some parts of the circumstantial chain will be proven.
-
And I'll once more reiterate that when you use circumstantial evidence to build a hypothesis it is necessary for each of the pieces to be able to stand alone - if one is weak then anything coupled to it or built from it by combination is by definition weak.
I'm not a lawyer nor a scholar/researcher, but what is the authority for your above claim?
As a layperson, it seems to me that "circumstantial" evidence accumulates: more is better, and that although rock-solid proof is never achieved with such evidence, support for a particular hypothesis will grow until, at some point, the point of reasonable doubt has been left behind - even if there's no immediately apparent direct connection among the pieces of circumstantial evidence. Sort of like putting together a jigsaw puzzle.
Or, to put it another way: right now, if a reasonable person HAD TO select the best hypothesis for explaining AE's disappearance, since all the competing hypotheses merely consist of circumstantial evidence, would not a reasonable person select the hypothesis that had the largest accumulation of circumstantial evidence (no matter how unrelated the pieces may now seem to be to one another) and then conduct scientific research in an attempt to prove or disprove that hypothesis conclusively?
IMO, this is TIGHAR's current mission. That's my 2 cents - and worth every penny. ;)
-
Strangely I also hold a Ph.D in archaeology, also a Masters, ...
Yes, you've mentioned that before. More than once. I've noticed your claim to have credentials.
... perhaps that is why I am interested in the archaeological aspects of the hypothesis and I understand quite clearly why you are searching Nikumaroro. There is nothing wrong about discussing possible scenarios but I learnt fairly early that all the discussion and chatter about possible situations lasts until something tangible is found.
Ooooooh. Did you publish that in a peer-reviewed archeological journal? May we treat that as something reliable, Doctor?
I'll beg to differ about your definition of what constitutes circumstantial evidence, actually circumstantial evidence remains as such regardless of its multiplication.
You have my permission to differ from me.
And I'll once more reiterate that when you use circumstantial evidence to build a hypothesis it is necessary for each of the pieces to be able to stand alone - if one is weak then anything coupled to it or built from it by combination is by definition weak.
That simply isn't true. Strong things can be built out of weak components: ropes, bridges, skyscrapers. Each part has to do the work of the part, not of the whole.
But I know you do not have an open mind on this question. Yours is made up, just as mine is.
I see that you agree that none stand alone, but unfortunately the capacity for one or a number to stand alone is what is needed. That is why I posted as I did.
Yes, I noted that you were returning to your assertion that the argument is like a chain, such that it is only as strong as its weakest link.
The Nikumaroro hypothesis is built on circumstantial evidence, some of it is interesting - the 157/337 message, that size 9 shoe, the reinterpretation of the Gallagher bones. Other parts are very weak - the post-loss radio messages and the highly imaginative reconstruction of Earhart and Noonan's brief sojourn on the island, the claims of Emily Sikuli, Pulekai Songivalu and Tapania Taiki regarding wreckage and the relevance of the European artifacts. The requirement for TIGHAR is to find what it calls the smoking gun - something we would all like. If they do then perhaps some parts of the circumstantial chain will be proven.
Yes, that is why TIGHAR is continuing the search this summer.
-
I'm not a lawyer nor a scholar/researcher, but what is the authority for your above claim?
As a layperson, it seems to me that "circumstantial" evidence accumulates: more is better, and that although rock-solid proof is never achieved with such evidence, support for a particular hypothesis will grow until, at some point, the point of reasonable doubt has been left behind ...
No, circumstantial remains circumstantial regardless of the quantity. It is when its apparent circumstantial nature is removed by proof of its relation to an event that it becomes proof. That's why in courts chains of circumstantial evidence tend to be avoided because they possess inherent weaknesses which can easily be exploited or refuted by defence counsels. That is what's happening in this discussion as the relevancy or reliability of the various contributing parts to the Nikumaroro hypothesis are examined - it is a bruising process but in the end well worth it. The secret is never to become emotionally attached to any hypothesis - that's when reason flies out the window.
-
Strangely I also hold a Ph.D in archaeology, also a Masters, ...
Yes, you've mentioned that before. More than once. I've noticed your claim to have credentials.
... perhaps that is why I am interested in the archaeological aspects of the hypothesis and I understand quite clearly why you are searching Nikumaroro. There is nothing wrong about discussing possible scenarios but I learnt fairly early that all the discussion and chatter about possible situations lasts until something tangible is found.
Ooooooh. Did you publish that in a peer-reviewed archeological journal? May we treat that as something reliable, Doctor?
I'll beg to differ about your definition of what constitutes circumstantial evidence, actually circumstantial evidence remains as such regardless of its multiplication.
You have my permission to differ from me.
And I'll once more reiterate that when you use circumstantial evidence to build a hypothesis it is necessary for each of the pieces to be able to stand alone - if one is weak then anything coupled to it or built from it by combination is by definition weak.
That simply isn't true. Strong things can be built out of weak components: ropes, bridges, skyscrapers. Each part has to do the work of the part, not of the whole.
But I know you do not have an open mind on this question. Yours is made up, just as mine is.
I see that you agree that none stand alone, but unfortunately the capacity for one or a number to stand alone is what is needed. That is why I posted as I did.
Yes, I noted that you were returning to your assertion that the argument is like a chain, such that it is only as strong as its weakest link.
The Nikumaroro hypothesis is built on circumstantial evidence, some of it is interesting - the 157/337 message, that size 9 shoe, the reinterpretation of the Gallagher bones. Other parts are very weak - the post-loss radio messages and the highly imaginative reconstruction of Earhart and Noonan's brief sojourn on the island, the claims of Emily Sikuli, Pulekai Songivalu and Tapania Taiki regarding wreckage and the relevance of the European artifacts. The requirement for TIGHAR is to find what it calls the smoking gun - something we would all like. If they do then perhaps some parts of the circumstantial chain will be proven.
Yes, that is why TIGHAR is continuing the search this summer.
Thank you Martin - I note some uncharacteristic snarkiness in your post.
The individually weaker materials in any engineering construction are used only where their applications don't compromise the load carrying capacity of the whole. But as you would be aware that in the far different world of scholarship the strength of an argument is no better than its weakest link because the whole is posited on the integrity of each part. A leads to B leads to C and so on. A wise scholar sticks to the strongest, least compromised, points. And I most certainly have an open mind about the Nikumaroro hypothesis, as I do about any other unproven hypothesis regarding Earhart's fate (apart of course from the kidnapped by aliens hypothesis, although if you have film of that I will quite genuinely be interested).
-
Reading through posts in this thread, the one thing that elicited a repeated eye roll from me, again vis a vis the post loss messages, was the dimissal of them wholesale because of the lack of a particular type of content when, again, all of the post-loss messages, including Betty's Notebook, were garbled and partly or wholly unintelligible.
For all we know AE and FN gave lat/long on all of them, and it just wasn't among the very fragmentary parts of the messages that were picked up, or was misinterpreted. To reach any kind of conclusion based on the content of the messages, when by and large, we really don't know what they were, is pretty silly. And, in thus evaluating all the messages as "static", etc., the pesky coincidence of the multiple DF bearings on Gardner is swept under the rug once again.
I am pleased to see Malcolm acknowledge that TIGHAR has amassed a strong circumstantial case, which I think is a much fairer and, dare I say it, more objectively scientific assessment of the facts and theories at hand.
Don't have much to add otherwise. Great thread! :)
-
Thank you Martin - I note some uncharacteristic snarkiness in your post.
It's not the least bit uncharacteristic of me. If you wish to claim respect because of your credentials, then you ought to respect the credentials of others (Dr. King and Dr. Burns, among others; even Dr. Hoodless, I suppose).
The individually weaker materials in any engineering construction are used only where their applications don't compromise the load carrying capacity of the whole. But as you would be aware that in the far different world of scholarship the strength of an argument is no better than its weakest link because the whole is posited on the integrity of each part. A leads to B leads to C and so on. A wise scholar sticks to the strongest, least compromised, points.
1) If you've done archaeology on "the far different world of scholarship," then your credentials apply. If you haven't, then your claim must be evaluated on other grounds.
2) You merely repeat your assertion that all argument is chain-like, and add the judgment (opinion) about what a "wise scholar" would do.
There is a tradition in the philosophy of science that one may question authority and doubt what others have proposed as true. If I'm not mistaken, you may have mentioned that tradition once or twice in your meditations on the Niku hypothesis.
With all due respect, I question your authority and doubt your assertions when it comes to questions about the nature of evidence and argument. If this were an archaeological question, I would defer to your expertise in digging and dating. But as it is a philosophical question, your credentials don't directly apply.
I've offered images (metaphors) by way of offering a different interpretation of how argument works.
Here is a brief discussion of the difference between direct and circumstantial evidence, picked pretty much at random from a Google search on the terms, but from the "Criminal Jury Instructions" for the State of Connecticut Judicial Branch. Law is not the only field concerned with the nature of evidence and argument, but it is one with which many of us are familiar.
There are, generally speaking, two kinds of evidence, direct and circumstantial. Direct evidence is testimony by a witness about what that witness personally saw or heard or did. Circumstantial evidence is indirect evidence, that is, evidence from which you could find that another fact exists, even though it has not been proved directly. There is no legal distinction between direct and circumstantial evidence as far as probative value; the law permits you to give equal weight to both, but it is for you to decide how much weight to give to any particular evidence.
Circumstantial evidence of an event is the testimony of witnesses as to the existence of certain facts or evidence or the happening of other events from which you may logically conclude that the event in question did happen. By way of example, let us assume that it is a December night and you're preparing to retire for the evening. You look out the window and you see it is snowing. You wake up the next morning, come to court, and testify that the night before it was snowing in the area of your house. That is direct evidence of the fact that it snowed the night before. You saw it and you came into court and testified to that fact.
Now assume that it is another December night, the weather is clear, there is no snow on the ground, and you retire for the evening. You wake up the next morning, you look out the window and you see snow on the ground and footprints across your lawn. You come into court and you testify to those facts. The evidence that the night before there was no snow on the ground and the next morning there was snow on the ground and footprints across your lawn is direct evidence. That direct evidence, however, is circumstantial evidence of the fact that some time during the night it snowed and that some time thereafter someone walked across your lawn.
The only practical difference between direct and circumstantial evidence is that when you have direct evidence of some fact, the main thing you have to do is determine the believability of the direct testimony given, the credibility of the witness. With circumstantial evidence, you must first determine the credibility of the witness or witnesses and decide whether the facts testified to did exist. Then you must decide whether the happenings of those events or the existence of those facts leads logically to the conclusion that other events occurred or other facts exist, and ultimately, whether the crime alleged was committed by the accused.
There is no reason to be prejudiced against evidence simply because it is circumstantial evidence. You make decisions on the basis of circumstantial evidence in the everyday affairs of life. There is no reason why decisions based on circumstantial evidence should not be made in the courtroom. In fact, proof by circumstantial evidence may be as conclusive as would be the testimony of witnesses speaking on the basis of their own observation. Circumstantial evidence, therefore, is offered to prove a certain fact from which you are asked to infer the existence of another fact or set of facts. Before you decide that a fact has been proved by circumstantial evidence, you must consider all of the evidence in light of reason, experience and common sense.
TIGHAR is not saying that it has conclusive proof of the Niki hypothesis--no need to attack that straw man again, Doctor. Nor does it claim that there is no other possible explanation for the information found in its historical or archaeological research. TIGHAR believes (without positive proof to back this belief) that the Niku hypothesis is the most reasonable fit with the data presently available and that, consequently, it is worthwhile to invest time and money to test the hypothesis.
-
Well gentlemen--I dont hold a PHd, a masters, or any of those very important degrees. So, you guys are kinda out of my league. But-I can rationalize for myself. TIGHARS theory is alot better that Fred Goerners in the 1960's. Digging up bones on Saipan with very vague information and claiming to be possible AE remains, AND getting it right was pretty far fetched for me as a young man in the 60's, as is digging up bones at the 7 site and thinking they may be AE & FN. Sorry guys, I just havent gotten that one yet. Must be the digging that i havent come to grips with. So i appologize in advance for all the archaeologists on the forum. BUT-----the wreckage on the reef I guess interests me more. But----in reality for me its the JOURNEY---the intangibles that make up TIGHARS efforts. The theory, and the planning on how to test the theory. The searching for evidence to validate it. That's what sets this apart from all the others.
So, right or wrong isn't the question in my mind. Although I certainly want to find the Electra-to validate that AE was there. Then, Dr. Malcolm and the other archaeologists can do their thing, and dig in the back yard.
I do admire your work, as I do ALL of the contributors to this project.
Lets find the answers for we can look for another historical aircraft---the spacecraft lost at Atlantis---wherever that is. See you all in DC---looking forward to it!
Tom
-
Reading through posts in this thread, the one thing that elicited a repeated eye roll from me, again vis a vis the post loss messages, was the dimissal of them wholesale because of the lack of a particular type of content when, again, all of the post-loss messages, including Betty's Notebook, were garbled and partly or wholly unintelligible.
For all we know AE and FN gave lat/long on all of them, and it just wasn't among the very fragmentary parts of the messages that were picked up, or was misinterpreted. To reach any kind of conclusion based on the content of the messages, when by and large, we really don't know what they were, is pretty silly. And, in thus evaluating all the messages as "static", etc., the pesky coincidence of the multiple DF bearings on Gardner is swept under the rug once again.
Well said Adam!
Perhaps if Dana Randolph had heard the whole transmission that day he would have heard something like "we are down on an island with a large shipwreck - Norwich City - ship is on a reef south of the Equator" instead of only the last part of that sentence?
I know, I know...assumption on my part. ;)
-
TIGHAR is not saying that it has conclusive proof of the Niki hypothesis--no need to attack that straw man again, Doctor. Nor does it claim that there is no other possible explanation for the information found in its historical or archaeological research. TIGHAR believes (without positive proof to back this belief) that the Niku hypothesis is the most reasonable fit with the data presently available and that, consequently, it is worthwhile to invest time and money to test the hypothesis.
I am very glad that TIGHAR like myself is open minded about the Nikumaroro hypothesis. However until what it calls the "smoking gun" is found then it remains simply hypothesis. My interest is in the nature of the evidence and how much it can be relied on if examined in isolation. I understand your reference to the rules of evidence in a court case however I respectfully submit that in science those rules do not have much real force as in law there is also the room for mitigating circumstances and other factors such as illness, mental or otherwise, to allow room for a result that in itself will affect the final verdict. Additionally we have the reality that a jury can be swayed by circumstances which despite the evidence presented will go against what the evidence provides. That verdict being the end product of that process. In science we attempt to reach conclusions free of extraneous issues such as mitigation etc. and only reflect what the data presented dictates. Courts of law allow for human frailty where they can - science doesn't.
But that aside, I cannot recall that I have called into question any of the qualifications of your team and in fact why should I. In any scientific endeavour, unless there was blatant and obvious manipulation of data, one trusts the capabilities of those who present their results. I certainly have never questioned Dr King's results and I cannot even imagine why I should. My assessment of the archaeology of Nikumaroro is based on his published material. Neither have I questioned the work of Dr Burns, again I have suggested that if the actual material was relocated then it would provide a surer basis for claims made about it. There is nothing unreasonable in that as far as I can see.
However none of that affects what is the primary purpose of this forum which is to discuss the Nikumaroro hypothesis and the evidence on which it is based.
-
Hey Lisa Anne--see the KOK out here anywhere? Pics would be cool-
-
> ... I respectfully submit that in science those rules do not have much real force ...
When you declare (assert without evidence) what is true and false about "science," you leave your field of digging and dating and enter a different arena.
You are making generalizations about what "science" is and does.
You are not making these generalizations by using the methods of science, but by using the methods of philosophy, history, sociology, psychology (introspective, not experimental), etc.
I respectfully disagree with your account of how science works.
Newton's theory of universal gravitation as the explanation of Kepler's laws of planetary motion was accepted as a reality long before the experimental data of stellar parallax confirmed Newton's theory. It was entirely a circumstantial evidence case. No one sees gravity; we infer its existence from watching other things happen. Newton did not see that the other planets are essentially just like the earth; he supposed it and showed the consequences that followed from that supposition. He showed how the pieces fit--Galileo's laws of motion, Kepler's ellipses, and his own theory of gravity. People were sold on the idea, and they were right to be sold on it.
The Niku hypothesis is nowhere near that strong. Everything in the case could have come from someone else.
Additionally we have the reality that a jury can be swayed by circumstances which despite the evidence presented will go against what the evidence provides.
Scientists function as a jury, too. The man whose biography I completed for Oxford University Press in 2005 was told that his theory of the adsorption of gases was wrong by Einstein, Planck, and Haber. They were wrong, and Polanyi was right, but he could not show why they were wrong until quantum mechanics was developed.
In science we ...
I know you're using shorthand again. What you meant to say was, "It is my opinion that scientists ..." Unless, of course, you've been appointed the Speaker on behalf of All Scientists.
... attempt to reach conclusions free of extraneous issues such as mitigation etc. and only reflect what the data presented dictates. Courts of law allow for human frailty where they can - science doesn't.
The courts aren't "allowing for human frailty." They accept the fact that sometimes events take place that cannot be directly observed. This is true of all nuclear events. We know them only by their effects; we do not see quantum phenomena.
But that aside, I cannot recall that I have called into question any of the qualifications of your team and in fact why should I. In any scientific endeavour, unless there was blatant and obvious manipulation of data, one trusts the capabilities of those who present their results. I certainly have never questioned Dr King's results and I cannot even imagine why I should. My assessment of the archaeology of Nikumaroro is based on his published material. Neither have I questioned the work of Dr Burns, again I have suggested that if the actual material was relocated then it would provide a surer basis for claims made about it. There is nothing unreasonable in that as far as I can see.
Great! Then we agree that it was a reasonable thing for a scientist of her caliber to work with the measurements provided by Dr. Hoodless. That's a step forward, I believe.
However none of that affects what is the primary purpose of this forum which is to discuss the Nikumaroro hypothesis and the evidence on which it is based.
You're the one who keeps presenting his credentials as a trained scientist, modest, objective, logical, and dispassionate. You assert things about science that are not from the field in which you hold your credentials. When someone makes a statement based on their own personal authority, it seems to me that it is OK to evaluate whether they are, in fact, authorities on the point in question.
-
I respectfully disagree with your account of how science works.
Noted - that is your right.
However for the rest I suspect that you have taken this discussion so far from what is simply an analysis of the Nikumaroro hypothesis and its supporting evidence that perhaps you should start a new section. As for your statement -
"I know you're using shorthand again. What you meant to say was, "It is my opinion that scientists ..." Unless, of course, you've been appointed the Speaker on behalf of All Scientists."
am I right in assuming that you alone claim that right?
As for Kepler and Newton they at least were demonstrated to be right, but so far the Nikumaroro hypothesis remains unproven. That is what this discussion is about and as long as there are claims made for the meaning of the evidence, or new evidence is introduced, then that discussion will continue. And sometimes claims made for the value of something contain so many assumptions that are not supported by the data that one is fully justified in either pointing that out or asking more questions.
As an avid supporter of the hypothesis you should be glad that it is examined rigorously because only through that process will the hypothesis be confirmed or denied. Just be glad that it isn't a legal setting where the verdict is blurred by the random levels of ignorance of the members of a jury - the hypothesis would never be proved either way.
-
I respectfully disagree with your account of how science works.
As an avid supporter of the hypothesis you should be glad that it is examined rigorously because only through that process will the hypothesis be confirmed or denied. Just be glad that it isn't a legal setting where the verdict is blurred by the random levels of ignorance of the members of a jury - the hypothesis would never be proved either way.
Well, but all the other hypthesisis would never be proved either way too, because no one would test them too. And they WERE examined (Goerner, Long, Billings) but they were not proven. (Nothing was found, absolutely nothing.) Why not search at Niku? There is at least some evidence. It's as likely to find the Electra there as somewhere else in the Pacific around Howland.
No, it's more likely. That doesn't mean I think the Niku-theory is right. But it's possibly right. So - why not search there?
Without any search we NEVER will know!
-
I respectfully disagree with your account of how science works.
As an avid supporter of the hypothesis you should be glad that it is examined rigorously because only through that process will the hypothesis be confirmed or denied. Just be glad that it isn't a legal setting where the verdict is blurred by the random levels of ignorance of the members of a jury - the hypothesis would never be proved either way.
Well, but all the other hypthesisis would never be proved either way too, because no one would test them too. And they WERE examined (Goerner, Long, Billings) but they were not proven. (Nothing was found, absolutely nothing.) Why not search at Niku? There is at least some evidence. It's as likely to find the Electra there as somewhere else in the Pacific around Howland.
No, it's more likely. That doesn't mean I think the Niku-theory is right. But it's possibly right. So - why not search there?
Without any search we NEVER will know!
Of course and a search that is interesting. But in this case it is not just the hypothesis that is tested, it is the individual components that together constitute the hypothesis that must be tested before anyone can say that the hypothesis has validity. So far that process of testing the individual parts which constitute the hypothesis has thrown up a number of areas where more data is needed - no one can deny that. Nothing wrong with that - just part of the process of proving a hypothesis. This is simply a historical missing persons case. If Earhart and Noonan finished up on Nikumaroro then we expect that evidence will prove it, if it doesn't then we move on and look for answers elsewhere. Just standard operating procedure in research.
-
"I know you're using shorthand again. What you meant to say was, "It is my opinion that scientists ..." Unless, of course, you've been appointed the Speaker on behalf of All Scientists."
am I right in assuming that you alone claim that right?
No. I claim the right to notice inconsistencies and to investigate whether people apply the same standards to themselves that they expect from others.
As for Kepler and Newton they at least were demonstrated to be right, but so far the Nikumaroro hypothesis remains unproven.
I have conceded that from the beginning. It's called a "hypothesis" on purpose. It is a testable idea. It is being tested.
That is what this discussion is about and as long as there are claims made for the meaning of the evidence, or new evidence is introduced, then that discussion will continue.
Then I will continue to discuss "claims made for the meaning of the evidence," too.
And sometimes claims made for the value of something contain so many assumptions that are not supported by the data that one is fully justified in either pointing that out or asking more questions.
You've made my point exactly! You are making many assumptions about how science works that "are not supported by the data."
As an avid supporter of the hypothesis you should be glad that it is examined rigorously because only through that process will the hypothesis be confirmed or denied.
As an avid supporter of "science," you should be glad to have your assumptions about science "examined rigorously" because, on your account of how science works, "only through that process" will your hypotheses about science be confirmed or denied.
Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
Just be glad that it isn't a legal setting where the verdict is blurred by the random levels of ignorance of the members of a jury - the hypothesis would never be proved either way.
I love the jury system.
It is one of the wonders of western civilization.
Strange things do happen, of course, and there are jury and judicial verdicts that I think are unjust.
But scientists are also human. They, too, suffer from "random levels of ignorance." It is fascinating to me to see how many of them cannot recognize the boundaries of their discipline and don't even realize that they have stopped acting as scientists and started speaking as philosophers.
-
That doesn't mean I think the Niku-theory is right. But it's possibly right. So - why not search there?
Without any search we NEVER will know!
I have never argued that there shouldn't be a search there. All I and several others have done is discuss components of the evidence offered for the hypothesis and found some of them to be unconvincing - but that is how it works. Some people see a hypothesis as a broad brush, others, like myself, like to examine the components. Equally I would support a decent search of East New Britain, more submersible work on the ocean floor around Howland and even a decent survey of the Gilberts. As I keep saying I am completely open-minded.
Before anyone asks, no I am not wealthy enough to support the expense ;D .
-
I love the jury system.
It is one of the wonders of western civilization.
Strange things do happen, of course, and there are jury and judicial verdicts that I think are unjust.
But scientists are also human. They, too, suffer from "random levels of ignorance." It is fascinating to me to see how many of them cannot recognize the boundaries of their discipline and don't even realize that they have stopped acting as scientists and started speaking as philosophers.
Not me Martin - philosophy was always my bete noire, could never find a philosopher willing to give a straight answer without trying to explain each word. However I do thank you for conceding that we are human, although have I stepped outside of my discipline to say that? Still I have always found that a bit of research before one says something can be useful - that way one doesn't make a claim that is at odds with the material evidence.
-
like i said in other post about Tighars search
Tighar have done the research an leg work into Earhart disappearance unlike some
they discovered the letters from Gallagher to high commission, concerning bones found on Gardner
in which he assumes it is a woman's skeleton based on the shoe found, in 1940
Tighar through ground work on the island, find the heel of a shoe which is consistent with the one found in 1940
the Itasca log say's Earhart's last transmission was "we are on the line 157/337 running north and south
Tighar through research discover the line to run in vicinity of Gardner island
Tighar through research discover statements in archives from over flight of Gardner by search planes
that one of the pilot's see's sign's of recent habitation on Gardner which hadn't been habitat-ed for years
Tighar also discover that SOS call's were received in different parts of pacific and else were, that were claimed to be from Earhart saying she was on reef.....
my point is Tighar through finding actual documented stuff, in archives have found evidence, that support the hypothesis that the flight could have ended at Gardner
Tighar are just adding pieces to the puzzle with supported evidence
:)
-
my point is Tighar through finding actual documented stuff, in archives have found evidence, that support the hypothesis that the flight could have ended at Gardner
Tighar are just adding pieces to the puzzle with supported evidence
:)
Indeed, but it is still simply a hypothesis, and that is what the discussion is about.
-
This - that we 'have only a hypothesis' - we well know full well, and work well with.
LTM -
So? we are in agreement.
-
My point exactly, Malcolm - but your implication (which you omitted from your response and didn't answer) was otherwise:
...that way one doesn't make a claim that is at odds with the material evidence.
Which TIGHAR's never done.
LTM -
That remark had nothing to do with TIGHAR, it was in response to something else if you read the relevant exchange more closely you will see.
-
Hum---Dr. Malcolm---I'm not wealthy either. Saved a LONG time to be able to make this trip. Even after paying for it, I debated it for a long time. But ----you have your reasons, and I have mine, and others have theirs. I wanted to learn more about AE's final fight, something I've been curious about since I was a young man. This is the opprotunity for me to learn that, since I cant go to Niku. All the experts in their fields wil be in DC, and I can talk to them. I can see for myself the potential evidence, the facts as we know them, and decide for myself if TIGHAR is right or not.
Its a choice I made, and after the symposium, I'll be smarter for it. And ---I will have met face to face with those of a different view, and discussed it. Its about helping TIGHAR find some answers to questions. I fell that armed with the first-hand knowledge from the symposium, I can better tell fact for fiction, and for that matter who is for real , and who isnt.
-
Nicely said Tom
This is also one of my reasons for attending. We all sit at keyboards and read what others say. We don't get to see the "whites of their eyes". To me this ability to meet the people behind the names is going to allow me an opportunity to get the human factor back into this. I really wish more people could attend as it seems many of you can't get there.
We know you can video conference over the Internet but forum teleconferencing for large groups isn't a standard yet. Some day I'm sure it will be and you will be able to connect in and share in a two way dialogue and not just watch one way. But how do you sit together and enjoy a brew or two that way. That's probably not going to happen. LOL
75th year, big ROV search going ahead. What if they find it? Will there be another symposium? Isn't this the time to get to the symposium?
-
75th year, big ROV search going ahead. What if they find it?
Ric will get to write another book.
Will there be another symposium?
First bet: no.
Second bet: not until the second book is written.
But let's not count our chickens before they hatch.
IF Niku hypothesis is true (note the "if"), this summer's search could still be inconclusive.
- The components of the aircraft may have turned into aluminum sand (one possibility noted by our late oceanographer, Howard Alldred (http://tighar.org/wiki/Howard)).
- Identifiable components may still exist, but may be lost among the debris field of the Norwich City, if there is a debris field of the Norwich City. 5000 tons of tramp steamer went somewhere.
- Identifiable components may be hidden by sand, coral, other vegetation, or silt. I don't know what depth the equipment TIGHAR is using can "see" into sand, silt, or coral.
- Identifiable components may lay outside TIGHAR's search area.
I'm sure that calculating the odds of success will be one of the hot topics all day long and well into the night.
-
Thanks Marty. Excellent reasons to attend the symposium this year!
-
marty---you summerized this better than I could. TIGHAR 'may' find something, but even then, there are still odds that it wont be the Electra. i'm pretty certain they will find something, and then we can see what it is. I think this is the point we've been trying to make to DR Malcolm. We dont know what is down there, although 5000 tons of ship did go somewhere as Marty expertly put it. And yes, if the Electra is there, we may not be able to find it, but not because of lack of effort, but because of the 5000 tons of steamer laying on it.
Just saying---
Tom
-
my point is Tighar through finding actual documented stuff, in archives have found evidence, that support the hypothesis that the flight could have ended at Gardner
Tighar are just adding pieces to the puzzle with supported evidence
:)
Indeed, but it is still simply a hypothesis, and that is what the discussion is about.
yes it is, and it's a hypothesis based on documented evidence, which gives reason to search Gardner island for evidence
i think if there was any credible evidence of the flight ending else were ? Tighar would be searching that area an not Gardner
whether someone else's hypothesis or not...
lets be honest other hypothesis, new Britain, sapien are both based on army personnel recollection's with no supporting evidence,
so until the artifacts on Gardner are proved not to be that of the lost fliers, they are still possible evidence
-
yes it is, and it's a hypothesis based on documented evidence, which gives reason to search Gardner island for evidence
i think if there was any credible evidence of the flight ending else were ? Tighar would be searching that area an not Gardner
whether someone else's hypothesis or not...
lets be honest other hypothesis, new Britain, sapien are both based on army personnel recollection's with no supporting evidence,
so until the artifacts on Gardner are proved not to be that of the lost fliers, they are still possible evidence
Well we seem to be in furious agreement here - but do let's get our facts right first, as far as I can see I have never said that TIGHAR should not be searching on and around Nikumaroro. My only interest has been in examining the individual bits of evidence put forward to support the hypothesis. Others have also done so and for the small group of us here, not completely swayed by the miraculous vision being offered, some of those bits of evidence are less than satisfactory.
That can mean a number of things. If for example the work this July confirms the Earhart presence it does not automatically confirm that every bit of the material evidence offered in the hypothesis is related to Earhart, only individual testing of each can do that. But if the Earhart presence is not confirmed by the July work then that simply returns the hypothesis to the status quo.
You must also agree that if in the end the Nikumaroro hypothesis proves to be unresolved then the other hypotheses will still be in contention. At present the TIGHAR Nikumaroro solution depends on what the cleaned up and enhanced photo of Nessie shows and what will be revealed following the upcoming ROV work off the reef. I sometimes wonder about the capacity of people to confuse discussion of evidence with heresy. Is it because people want to believe rather than be led to an understanding by what the data reveals.
-
Gee---I thought we WERE examining evidence. I thought that was the reason for the symposium, and the expedition to Niku. To examine evidence, gather new evidence, and unravel hypothesis, and perhaps make new ones.
Guess thats why I'm not a scientist--this is driving me nuts.
See you in DC---I'll be the 'confused' one walking around looking lost among all you smart guys!
-
Malcolm wrote -
...if in the end the Nikumaroro hypothesis proves to be unresolved then the other hypotheses will still be in contention.
When is "the end", Malcolm, and who decides what "other hypotheses" are still "in contention", and for what reasons better than TIGHAR has for Niku?
Most of what I've seen is attempted detractions of the Niku theory, not much convincing to take me elsewhere to search. Therefore I still see more problems with the "other hypotheses" than with Niku - despite many of those having been examined and written of exhaustively.
The end? It will be if TIGHAR find something at Nikumaroro to prove their hypothesis correct or they find that there is simply no evidence and accept it. I'm easy with either outcome.
-
no no---its not the end---its a new beginning!
-
no no---its not the end---its a new beginning!
As I said in regard to the question about the end. It will be if TIGHAR find something at Nikumaroro to prove their hypothesis correct or they find that there is simply no evidence and accept it. I'm easy with either outcome.
If TIGHAR then decide to devote resources to look elsewhere I'm happy with that.
I cannot see what there is to argue about, in fact that is the only logical outcome unless people start giving away to zealotry which is simply not healthy in any sense.
-
So we know where 'your' end is then.
I'm 'easy' with TIGHAR continuing to look at Niku.
LTM -
Why? Waste of time and resources if it is discounted.
You clearly didn't understand what I wrote "It will be if TIGHAR find something at Nikumaroro to prove their hypothesis correct or they find that there is simply no evidence and accept it.". I don't think TIGHAR would continue after the second option.
You appear strangely wedded to the idea that I am against the Nikumaroro hypothesis, yet I have never said I was. Oh well some people always interpret any question as opposition and there is nothing anyone can do about that.
-
As I said in regard to the question about the end. It will be if TIGHAR find something at Nikumaroro to prove their hypothesis correct or they find that there is simply no evidence and accept it.
...
I cannot see what there is to argue about, in fact that is the only logical outcome unless people start giving away to zealotry which is simply not healthy in any sense.
Your analysis of the "logical outcome" is incorrect.
1. TIGHAR may find the Any-Idiot Artifact (AIA), which could support the hypothesis.
2. TIGHAR might finishing searching all searchable areas, without finding the AIA. In that case, there are two logical possibilities, not just one:
- The Niku hypothesis is true, but all evidence of AE and FN's presence on the island has been consumed or hidden by natural processes.
- The Niku hypothesis is false.
Of course, figuring out logical hypotheses is a rational activity. It is not determined by the data. No amount of "looking at the data" with an empty head will supply the necessary analytic logic to come to a correct conclusion.
-
I'm 'easy' with TIGHAR continuing to look at Niku.
Why? Waste of time and resources if it is discounted. I don't think TIGHAR would do that.
TIGHAR hasn't exhausted the search space on Niku by any means.
We won't know how much of the deep water around Niku can be searched until the search is complete this summer.
-
I'm 'easy' with TIGHAR continuing to look at Niku.
Why? Waste of time and resources if it is discounted. I don't think TIGHAR would do that.
TIGHAR hasn't exhausted the search space on Niku by any means.
We won't know how much of the deep water around Niku can be searched until the search is complete this summer.
So? If you bother to read what I said which was, and I will rephrase it so that it is clear, that if the search fails to find anything and it is deemed useless to continue then any further searching would be a waste of time and resources which I would think is quite irrefutably obvious and because of that I doubt that TIGHAR would disagree. They may well want to try another hypothesis - who knows. I have no problems with idea - remember that the objective is finding Earhart's Electra not proving that it landed on Nikumaroro, if somehow the first has segued into the second then I suggest that TIGHAR has a problem.
Asking questions Martin is not opposition it is simply asking questions - rather like Freud's cigar which is apocryphal anyway.
Now I'll bet you take each word in that reply and offer every possible alternative interpretation of what it could really mean but what it means is what I said. Sometimes a cigar is a cigar however apocryphal.
-
Apparently then a cigar isn't a cigar. ;D
-
So? If you bother to read what I said ...
Yes, I bothered.
... which was, and I will rephrase it so that it is clear, that if the search fails to find anything and it is deemed useless to continue ...
Here I read a sentence in the passive voice.
The person or persons doing the "deeming" are not identified.
It is not a precise sentence, and so it is susceptible to various interpretations.
Of course, it is a tautology that if TIGHAR "deems" (judges) that it has exhausted both the search space and methods of searching, it would be "useless to continue."
I presumed that you were not speaking tautologically.
... then any further searching would be a waste of time and resources which I would think is quite irrefutably obvious and because of that I doubt that TIGHAR would disagree.
Here is the person who seems to be doing the deeming: "any further searching would be a waste of time and resources, which I would think is quite irrefutably obvious."
So it is not TIGHAR coming to that conclusion in your hypothetical situation; it is yourself ("I would think ... quite irrefutably obvious"). You can't be imagining that TIGHAR has made the decision, because you are indicating that TIGHAR ought to see reality the same way you see reality. You announce that what is obvious to you (a subjective judgment) should be "irrefutably obvious" to TIGHAR.
I don't know whether anything "irrefutably obvious" will come out of this year's expedition. I'm keeping an open mind. I do believe it will be interesting to see what the deep water search will find out about the area around Niku.
... remember that the objective is finding Earhart's Electra not proving that it landed on Nikumaroro, if somehow the first has segued into the second then I suggest that TIGHAR has a problem.
It's too early to tell whether that transition has taken place.
If TIGHAR decides that it has explored all explorable areas by all financially possible means, it does not follow that its only choice is to expend time and money on another hypothesis. TIGHAR's purpose is not to find Amelia's Electra; its purpose is "historic aircraft recovery." There are lots of other historic aircraft to pursue. TIGHAR's opinion (judgment) could well be that the Niku hypothesis is true, but not provable. The failure to find evidence does not prove the Niku hypothesis false; it may only prove that all evidence has disappeared from TIGHAR's view. You may be familiar with the saying of Carl Sagan that "absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence." Even if we imagine that all of TIGHAR's searches fail to find "irrefutably obvious" evidence that the Niku hypothesis is true, it does not follow that the failure of the search proves the Niku hypothesis false.
There are two and only two possibilities about the Niku hypothesis: it is true or false. There are two and only two possibilities about evidence of where NR16020 came down: it exists or it does not exist at the present time.
(http://tighar.org/aw/mediawiki/images/d/d1/Logic-box-Niku.png)
You seem to be reducing the logical possibilities to the top line: search Niku or search elsewhere. But TIGHAR has the option of giving up on Niku without having to make a commitment to search elsewhere.
Asking questions Martin is not opposition it is simply asking questions - rather like Freud's cigar which is apocryphal anyway.
I didn't see any questions in your post. And yes, I did read it. Every part of it was in declarative sentences, some more revealing than others.
Now I'll bet you take each word in that reply and offer every possible alternative interpretation of what it could really mean but what it means is what I said. Sometimes a cigar is a cigar however apocryphal.
Yes, I offer alternative interpretations of what you wrote because what you wrote was ambiguous, at best. And yes, I offer alternative interpretations of what is and is not "irrefutably obvious" because I do not share your philosophical standards for deciding what is "irrefutably obvious."
I'm pretty sure that this is what you were trying to say:
If the next trip finds conclusive evidence, which it now must, that Earhart and Noonan met their deaths on the island then good. If it doesn't then I would say that it is time to consider other options. As for my preferences as to their fate - I admit I have no idea, if I did and had the proof we wouldn't be having this discussion. But questioning evidence claims is what people like myself do, that isn't negativity it is simply working through the data. Oh and it isn't Mr McKay it is actually Dr McKay but you can call me Malcolm.
So, Malcolm, I disagree with your personal opinion that "the next trip" must find "conclusive evidence."
I disagree that if the next trip does not find "conclusive evidence" that the only alternative is to investigate elsewhere.
These two propositions are not logically or existentially the same:
"TIGHAR has not yet found conclusive evidence that the Niku hypothesis is true."
"TIGHAR's failure to find conclusive evidence for the Niku hypothesis proves conclusively that the Niku hypothesis is false."
I'm very encouraged by the fact that you don't mind people challenging your evidence claims.
-
OHHHHHHHHHHH I get it now---how stupid of me. Ok DR. Malcolm---you just found artifacts of Atlantis. So stop there? How intelligent is that?
-
Damn and I was hoping to keep those Atlantean artifacts a secret ;)
Now over to Martin who will use this post to demonstrate that a cigar is actually a UFO ;D
-
Malcolm
i understand the way u think, and analyze evidence given your field of expertise ye
but shouldn't you wait for Tighar to announce the results of investigation on Gardner
before u be so critical of there work..
maybe artifacts so far ain't provided smoking gun evidence but tantalizing ..
but they ain't finished searching yet ?
so due to your field of work your the last person i would suspect of being so critical before investigation is completed ye
-
was that off Paradise Island, or Santorini? Just kidding--
probably not your line of expertise
-
was that off Paradise Island, or Santorini? Just kidding--
probably not your line of expertise
Supposed to be Santorini. Certainly that was destroyed in a massive eruption.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santorini
However whether it is the Atlantis of legend is moot. But I won't go into the arguments either for or against because my knowledge and expertise of the later phases of the Bronze Age in the Mediterranean is at best that of a humble graduate, while tying legends and archaeology together is always very subjective. On the one hand you have people like myself who like our artifact associations to be clear cut while on the other hand there are people who will bend everything to fit the story. Atlantis is a good story for the people who like their archaeology free of the ever present doubts that real archaeologists have to deal with.
-
So it wasn't Niku. It wasn't Mili or Saipan, it wasn't new Britain and it wasn't even the deep, deep Pacific. It was Atlantis. The mystery solved!
;D ;D ;D ;)
-
Dr. Malcolm---can you please explain to me ---so I can understand--- the archaeological theory of Amelia Earhart having lived and possibly perished on Nikumaroro? not say she did , or didnt, but from an archaeologist standpoint---how would YOU proceed?
Tom
-
Dr. Malcolm---can you please explain to me ---so I can understand--- the archaeological theory of Amelia Earhart having lived and possibly perished on Nikumaroro? not say she did , or didnt, but from an archaeologist standpoint---how would YOU proceed?
Tom
Well from their published material it is clear that TIGHAR have done done a pretty good job of searching the island. The artifacts they have found have been appropriately documented and the whole process is open and quite first class. The discussions have been open and where appropriate cautionary in terms of any associations that might be construed. I would also assume that they have filtered out objects that clearly from their nature are of types that could not be related to the particular time period in which the proposed Earhart presence occurred which is in 1937.
The problem is, as many have pointed out, a quite simple one which is that no one particular artifact can be clearly and undoubtedly shown to have been associated solely with Earhart or Noonan. Because of that problem the associations have become circumstantial rather than certain. Now it is not TIGHAR's fault that some of the artifacts have had their circumstantial value distorted by people eager to argue for associations with the pair. As I said TIGHAR have been pretty upfront with their reporting.
From a purely archaeological viewpoint, as an archaeologist, I would say that for an association of an artifact with either Earhart or Noonan to be made then you need some form of clear evidence to show the association. Purely hypothetically this could be a name tag, a personal item known absolutely to have been carried by either etc., or the prize which is the location of the Electra wreck. Anything firm like that will do. Now that is the ideal, but failing that and failing the proof of any of the other hypothesised variations of Earhart's fate then the Nikumaroro hypothesis remains as valid as the others, but simply not proven.
The proof if any lies in the finding of some artifact that can demonstrate conclusively either Earhart's or Noonan's presence. TIGHAR are looking for that and after all the work I hope they succeed. What is not helpful to the overall perceived validity of the search is the tendency for some items that have so far been found to be claimed as proof, by some people, when in fact they aren't as yet demonstrated to be so by TIGHAR. Now that is my archaeological take on it, and I will repeat that unlike some in the wider aviation historical interest group I cannot fault TIGHAR's approach so far in terms of the way they have published what they have found. I suspect that some of the criticism comes from people who have managed only to read headlines but not the actual published material.
Certainly as anyone is aware I have expressed my reservations about peripherals like the radio messages and the accounts of Emily Sikuli and her fellow Nikumaroroans but then I would be remiss if I hadn't. There are many problems with the peripheral and non-artifact evidence and anyone who did not recognise these is in my opinion not examining them closely enough. I have done so also with some of the artifacts because too often the alternate ways these could have come to Nikumaroro have not been examined in depth and it is important that alternatives are considered rather than just the desired one. That is what archaeologists do because artifacts alone are at times very ambiguous things.
-
... What is not helpful to the overall perceived validity of the search is the tendency for some items that have so far been found to be claimed as proof, by some people, when in fact they aren't as yet demonstrated to be so by TIGHAR. ...
This is a discussion forum.
It is open to all who are willing to meet a few very simple requirements.
Not everyone who posts on the Forum represents TIGHAR, even though they may be wildly enthusiastic for TIGHAR's view.
-
Thanks Dr. Malcolm. I do agree that I havent seen any artifact that positively identifies it with AE. I dont think anyone here has stated that, although we alll hope so. Postive identification separated fact from fiction, or hopes, of beliefs. I thonk TIGHAR will find some personal artifacts of AE to prove she was there. Niku is a pretty big island, and the searches havent covered it yet.
As far as the Electra goes, some of us think the wreckage is her, but nothing has been positively identified. All the good work by Richie and Jeff Hayden has opened eyes, but unfortuneately, havent proved anything. BUT---we all asked for a deatiled expedition to Niku for an underwater search with the assets needed for a good job. The assets are available now, thanks to the State Dept, Ric, and in my belief, the work of Richie and Jeff. Perhaps the Nessie photo got things moving, but Richie's photo breakdown of the ROV video raised awareness. And---with any luck, we will be able to compare Richie's pics to new ones taken by ROV's and submirsibles up close and personal. Perhaps even artifacts of the wreckage brought up for analysis.
My view is that TIGHAR is doing this the right way. IF we find the positive evidence of the Electra, I'll bet a major archaeological expedition will follow.
-
... The assets are available now, thanks to the State Dept ...
No State Department funds have been or will be invested in TIGHAR's work.
The State Department provided some personnel, staff support, and a space for a press conference, all of which is consistent with the kind of diplomatic work done by the State Department.
There is no doubt that the press coverage is helpful in fundraising, but we should be clear about what is and is not financed by the government.
-
Oh Yeah Marty---thats what I meant. Really. They opened some closed doors I'm sure. some phone calls with some 'suggestions'. Maybe even some diplomacy for getting Dr Ballard, the Kiribati govt to help with the expedition. I didnt mean financially for sure.
You guys know the behind the scenes stuff alot more than I do of course. But, I would guess that State was about to get some things done---for which we are grateful!
-
Oh Yeah Marty---thats what I meant. Really. They opened some closed doors I'm sure. some phone calls with some 'suggestions'. Maybe even some diplomacy for getting Dr Ballard, the Kiribati govt to help with the expedition. I didnt mean financially for sure.
You guys know the behind the scenes stuff alot more than I do of course. But, I would guess that State was about to get some things done---for which we are grateful!
Yes, there is no doubt that having the press conference under the auspices of the State Department provided great publicity, which is essential for fundraising. We are indebted to them for that.
I just want to squelch the rumor, if possible, that the government is funding TIGHAR in any way. People are, on average, ungovernable, and they will say the darndest things. But we should try to keep the record straight here on this website, at least. :)
-
For sure, and if I gave that impression it certainly was NOT intended that way. But opening doors isnt financial help for the govt.
All is good, and looking forward to DC!
-
Just thinking out aloud. Does anyone know if any of the post 1938 visitors to Gardner island knew that there was already a suspicion that this island was the suspected place of AE and FN's demise?
-
Just thinking out aloud. Does anyone know if any of the post 1938 visitors to Gardner island knew that there was already a suspicion that this island was the suspected place of AE and FN's demise?
here is the link to October 1937 exploration of Gardner
well a previous discussion topic https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,164.0.html
-
Just thinking out aloud. Does anyone know if any of the post 1938 visitors to Gardner island knew that there was already a suspicion that this island was the suspected place of AE and FN's demise?
Not many, if any. Gallagher speculated that the bones of the castaway might have been AE, but that is only recorded in what are essentially secret communications with his superiors. I think the advent of WWII pretty much obliterated any thoughts beyond the immediate, relegating the AE story to the back burner for several years.
Andrew
-
So it is a safe bet to say that there was nothing to influence peoples memories of what they saw or heard if it wasn't common knowledge or on the rumour circuit or folklore.
-
So it is a safe bet to say that there was nothing to influence peoples memories of what they saw or heard if it wasn't common knowledge or on the rumour circuit or folklore.
Yes, under that very restrictive condition - however, despite Gallagher's attempts at secrecy and the subsequent growth and embellishment of the bones/wreckage story as demonstrated by the Sikuli et al. accounts I'd say the old rumour mill was well and truly alive about Earhart once Gallagher started packing up the bones for shipment. Woman's shoe, bones - doesn't take much to get people talking - the islanders didn't live in a vacuum. Not accounts to be relied on unconditionally.
-
That's what I originally thought Malcolm, there must have been a rumour circulating the area that this was the place that was suspected of being where AE and FN met their demise and, subsequent post 1938 visitors to Gardner would have picked this up also.
I haven't seen any evidence or clues to support this theory yet but, I'll dig around a bit and see what I can find. I'm sure there must have been some sort of folklore/rumour floating about after all, it's not exactly an over-populated area of the Pacific.
-
I vaguely remember that on the old forum (by E-mail) Ric talked about this point with one of the original actors (I think that it was Bevington) but surely one of the other cadets, trying to determine if they were aware of the several thousand $ reward offered by Putnam. This could of course have influence the thinking of the young cadets once aware of the existnece of the bones.
Indeed Bevington(?) remembered that they knew about the reward and that the flyer was lost in the general vicinity (define 'vicinity' as you like).