TIGHAR
Amelia Earhart Search Forum => News, Views, Books, Archival Data & Interviews on AE => Topic started by: Chris Johnson on August 31, 2011, 02:18:51 PM
-
This is on the facebook site but just for those who don't do it here is a link to the show about Women in aviation aired on the BBC Radio show Womans hour (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b013ptf4#p00k3jyr)
Now not sure if the content is available outside of the UK but if it is scroll down the page and Ric's bit is in chapter two of the show.
Ric pitches TIGHARS hypothysis against the sceptasism of Dr Tom Crouch, Senior Curator in Aeronautics at the Smithsonian Institution.
-
It was a fun interview. Tom Crouch and I are old friends/adversaries on the issue of what happened to AE. He thinks we've been blinded by our own bias. I think he and his colleagues at the Smithsonian National Air & Space Museum are blinded by institutional prejudice.
-
Interesting that Tom says around about 20mins 10 seconds into the interview "impossible to know whether the bones are in fact those of a white female" taken from the Anthropologists report.
That’s made me re read the reference of the TIGHAR site (http://tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/1998Vol_14/bonesandshoes.pdf)as I had it set in my mind that the report said otherwise. How the mind works tricks on you!
The report actually suggests
(1) More likely female than male
(2) More likely white than Polynesian or other Pacific Islander
(3) Most likely between 5´5˝ and 5´9˝ in height
-
So the Smithsonian doesnt buy the hypothesis of AE being on Niku? Well, I would say, in order to so who's right, and who may be wrong, have them pony some funds and see if the Electra is there. I know---another high profile organisation that is hard to deal with. But, they have the connections to get a well funded expedition done.
-
I know---another high profile organisation that is hard to deal with. But, they have the connections to get a well funded expedition done.
I wish that was true but the Smithsonian scrambles for funding to keep the doors open - just like we do.
-
Wouldn´t it be for TIGHAR a wise step to leave the Gardner hypothesis for what it is , and join other research enterprisies to find what happened to the Earhart-Noonan crew , p.e. those making sonar images of the sea floor about Howland , for the part having not yet been under investigation ? The chance to thereby find NR 16020 parts is by far greater than for Nikumaroro , with all its currency already invested and the real results nill .
-
Wouldn´t it be for TIGHAR a wise step to leave the Gardner hypothesis for what it is , and join other research enterprisies to find what happened to the Earhart-Noonan crew , p.e. those making sonar images of the sea floor about Howland , for the part having not yet been under investigation ? The chance to thereby find NR 16020 parts is by far greater than for Nikumaroro , with all its currency already invested and the real results nill .
Depends on what assumptions you use to calculate the probabilities. But just for the sake of argument, let's say that today someone finds NR16020 on the ocean bottom off Howland. That would still leave unanswered the question of what happened on Nikumaroro. TIGHAR has accumulated lots of evidence that something strange involving a castaway and an airplane occurred there. I think it would be worthwhile for TIGHAR to continue its archaeological research even if "crashed and sank" were proven. Curious minds would like to know who died on Niku and why.
-
Wouldn´t it be for TIGHAR a wise step to leave the Gardner hypothesis for what it is , and join other research enterprisies to find what happened to the Earhart-Noonan crew , p.e. those making sonar images of the sea floor about Howland , for the part having not yet been under investigation ?
Enlighten me. What research enterprises are currently making sonar images of the sea floor near Howland or have announced any plans to do so? I'm aware of four deep-water search expeditions that have invested orders of magnitude more currency than TIGHAR in testing the Crashed & Sank hypothesis and have found absolutely nothing.
The chance to thereby find NR 16020 parts is by far greater than for Nikumaroro , with all its currency already invested and the real results nill .
Exercising all the diplomatic restraint I can muster ... let me ask you whether there is anything we could find, short of the conclusively identifiable wreckage of NR16020, that you would consider to be "real results." Why would we undertake testing a hypothesis for which, despite repeated attempts, there the results are truly nil and abandon one for which there are abundant clues? If the Electra did land on the reef at Gardner Island, and if it was subsequently washed over the edge into deep water, and if AE and FN did ultimately die as castaways on Gardner Island what, in your opinion, should we have found that we have not found?
-
Ric
Your diplomatic restraint is admirable and well beyond any that I could muster.
When faced with "my mind is made up don't confuse me with the facts" types, we can only turn the page and labor on.
-
Wouldn´t it be for TIGHAR a wise step to leave the Gardner hypothesis for what it is , and join other research enterprisies to find what happened to the Earhart-Noonan crew , p.e. those making sonar images of the sea floor about Howland , for the part having not yet been under investigation ? The chance to thereby find NR 16020 parts is by far greater than for Nikumaroro , with all its currency already invested and the real results nill .
One of the things that I like about the Nuku hypothesis is that it testable. The more that Tighar has tested the theory, the larger the body of supporting information has become. Usually invalid theories work the other way around and just a little poking around will quickly deflate the theory.
To say that the real results are nil, completely dismisses the fine work that Tighar has done at uncovering the large amount of supporting data that has been found so far (bones research, post loss radio messages, etc.).
If the Electra did land on the reef at Gardner Island, and if it was subsequently washed over the edge into deep water, and if AE and FN did ultimately die as castaways on Gardner Island what, in your opinion, should we have found that we have not found?
I think that Tighar should be applauded for what they have found so far. Such an ephemeral event would not leave much of a footprint, but I do believe that the smoking gun is still out there. Finding it may end up requiring a large amount of blind luck and serendipity in addition to all of the hard work that Tighar has invested (research, planning, fund raising, expeditions, etc.). Who knows, on the next expedition to Niku, validating the theory may just be a simple case of someone stumbling onto the Wheel of Fortune...
-
Yes , that is a remainder of the old hunting instinct : behind which tree will the food be ? . Btw , do you (probably) know that "romantic" and "mystic" literature is for 95% plus bought & read by women ? .
-
Agreed , the theoretical chance for the outcome of two occurrences is for this case 50% for each : yes or no . For practice the outcome of the theory containing the most (in number) reasonable inputs gains probability against the theory with the smaller amount of input . This rule depends on the s.c. Rule of Bays , who introduced "likeliness" between prior and posterior results . The "alighted at sea" theory has several : although fuel was low between 1912 & 2015 GMT , the crew did not announce to undertake evasive action ; several potential emergency landing grounds were closer than Gardner : Winslow 210 mls , McKean 350 , Baker nearby , (Kanton 410) , for a same chance to having been set course for . Declaring "fuel low" if at least 11% (120 galls) of the initial quantity of 1,100 remains , would be too much cabaret for a pilot in distress . Usually in practice , the computed chance by Baysian statistics is greater than by flat addition of partial possibilities . The criterion for having landed @ Gardner is in itself not of navigational nature , it is of physical character : was the fuel supply sufficient ? All available information answers negatively at this point , therefore the quantified chance to ever find anything having belonged to the Earhart crew on Gardner or any other island is of a so extremely small figure that continued research is hardly or not worth the trouble. The Musem btw , has changed 180 degrees course : they once invited F.Goerner for a lecture on his well known book , wherein he finds "the" electric generator , "certainly of NR 16020" . Only , it later showed to be of Japanese manufacture , Goerner exit .
-
Agreed ,
Agreed? Agreed to what? You didn't answer my questions. I'll ask them again.
- Is anything we could find, short of the conclusively identifiable wreckage of NR16020, that you would consider to be "real results?"
- Why would we undertake testing a hypothesis for which, despite repeated attempts, there the results are truly nil and abandon one for which there are abundant clues?
- If the Electra did land on the reef at Gardner Island, and if it was subsequently washed over the edge into deep water, and if AE and FN did ultimately die as castaways on Gardner Island what, in your opinion, should we have found that we have not found?
...the theoretical chance for the outcome of two occurrences is for this case 50% for each : yes or no .
No, it's not. There is evidence to support the Gardner hypothesis. The Crashed & Sank hypothesis is negated by the post-loss radio signals.
For practice the outcome of the theory containing the most (in number) reasonable inputs gains probability against the theory with the smaller amount of input .
That's just a convoluted way of saying that the theory with the most supporting is evidence is most likely to be correct. DUH.
This rule depends on the s.c. Rule of Bays , who introduced "likeliness" between prior and posterior results .
You seem to be referring to Bayes' Theorem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayes'_theorem) . If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with BS.
The "alighted at sea" theory has several : although fuel was low between 1912 & 2015 GMT , the crew did not announce to undertake evasive action ;
Evasive action??? What are you talking about??
several potential emergency landing grounds were closer than Gardner : Winslow 210 mls , McKean 350 , Baker nearby , (Kanton 410) , for a same chance to having been set course for .
How many times do I need to say that we don't think AE and FN ever "set course" for anywhere but Howland?
Declaring "fuel low" if at least 11% (120 galls) of the initial quantity of 1,100 remains , would be too much cabaret for a pilot in distress .
According to USAC Lt. Daniel Cooper's report "20% fuel reserve is usually required" on such long distance flights. The flight from Lae to Howland was expected to take 18 hours. Using Kelly Johnson's recommendations for the Oakland-Honolulu flight, 1,100 gallons should have given her about 24 hours of fuel - a 6 hour (33%) reserve. In fact, it was a little over 19 hours before she got to where she thought Howland should be. She's in the middle of the Pacific with five hours of gas left. Her destination has not appeared where it was supposed to be and she has been unable to establish radio contact with the only people who can help her. Gas is, most certainly, "running low."
Usually in practice , the computed chance by Baysian statistics is greater than by flat addition of partial possibilities . The criterion for having landed @ Gardner is in itself not of navigational nature , it is of physical character : was the fuel supply sufficient ? All available information answers negatively at this point
No it does not. Your calculations have repeatedly been shown to be based on inaccurate data and unwarranted assumptions.
, therefore the quantified chance to ever find anything having belonged to the Earhart crew on Gardner or any other island is of a so extremely small figure that continued research is hardly or not worth the trouble.
So all you're able to say is that it doesn't matter how much evidence we find that she was on Gardner because you've convinced yourself that she didn't have enough gas to get there. I don't think there's anything we can do to help you.
-
I am a very open minded person. I do not care what the answer to the mystery ends up to be, but that there is an undisputable answer. The evidence gathered by Tighar is overwhelming and seems very much on target. It is just a case of "case not closed".....yet. These artifacts didn't just fall out of the sky and happen to land on a location that just happened to be on the LOP. They don't float either so they weren't washed ashore from a ditching. No other hypothesis has anywhere close to the number of positive elements as the Niku. And the radio signals. Even if Betty is completely wrong....there were enough signal picked up pointing to Niku.
Yes, Ric, your diplomacy is as overwhelming as your evidence...thusfar. It's only going to take one or two more pieces of strong evidence to push this investigation over the top. I can't wait!
-
Btw , do you (probably) know that "romantic" and "mystic" literature is for 95% plus bought & read by women ? .
And your point is . . . .?
Mona
-
several potential emergency landing grounds were closer than Gardner : Winslow 210 mls , McKean 350 , Baker nearby , (Kanton 410)
Yes, but it's impossible to set a course to any of those islands if a person doesn't know where on the line that they are. Traveling down the LOP once it's been reached on the other hand raises the possibility of raising land at either Gardner or McKean, with Gardner being the closer and more likely option...
-
Agreed ,
Agreed? Agreed to what?
I think Mr. van Asten was responding to my Sept. 1 reply to him, which begins:
Depends on what assumptions you use to calculate the probabilities.
-
A real result would be an identifiable part of the aircraft , a sign on paper or wood "FN & AE were here" , inventory of A/c , etc. There are possibly clues considered abundant , but one good artifact would be sufficient and form evidence from itself , independent of journalistic description . It is true that deep sea investigations acquired no results so far , but the probability that they will once be succesful is by far greater than finding anything , entire aircraft or other hard evidence , on Nikumaroro . Mr. Noonan , from 950 galls gas for 2,750 mls , accounted for 10 1/2 % reserve ex the weather forecast given , arriving @ 1,050 galls for the journey ; add 50 galls special avgas and with 1,100 galls the tanks except one were full , no further storage volume was available . The 10.5% depends on the s.c. wind regression factor which averaged 0.905 for the actual flight , its reciprocal giving 1.105 . In report 487 no remark is found about continuous headwinds asking for 13% more propeller thrust , factor 1.13 , giving (1.13)^3 x 100% = 144% more chemical energy demand , this probably is the flaw of report 487 concerning the ferry range , there given 4,000 mls plus , but for actual flight circumstances about 2,750 mls . These figures are from serious recomputations by professional methods , so : don´t kill the messenger .
-
The point is that finding truth is different from writing or reading novels
-
The point is that finding truth is different from writing or reading novels
Setting aside for the moment your insupportable equation of TIGHAR's empirical research with romantic fiction, what does gender have to do with it? Quote: Btw, do you (probably) know that "romantic" and "mystic" literature is for 95% plus bought and read by women.
Mona
-
The point is that finding truth is different from writing or reading novels
If you feel that way then you should really like the research that Tighar has been doing... The only other thing that one could classify as research is the deep water search that the Waitt Institute and I assume others have done. But as Ric has pointed out the deep water searches have all come up empty and don't reconcile with the post-loss radio messages. With that in mind, the only ongoing research into "truth" is what Tighar is doing. Everyone else seems to be writing books, articles, etc. about bogus theories such as "captured by the Japanese".
-
There are possibly clues considered abundant , but one good artifact would be sufficient and form evidence from itself , independent of journalistic description .
The crux of the matter, it seems to me, are the post-loss radio messages. If you accept that these messages originated with AE/FN
then you have your proof. If you do not believe the messages came from NR16202, and you have an acceptable alternative source,
then I guess you are free to believe what you will. I have not seen any credible source for these messages, and until someone can account for them it seems to me you have to accept them at face value. Against all odds 'stuff' happens.
William Torgerson
-
The crux of the matter, it seems to me, are the post-loss radio messages.
Yes and, to be fair, people have not yet had a chance to evaluate the entire body of data. We have the catalog of reported post-loss messages nearly ready to be put up on the TIGHAR website. I still need to go through it one last time and Bob Brandenburg needs to review any changes I make. This is the 32nd version we've complied and we think we finally have it right.
-
Not a direct question of gender I suppose , but a question of other fields of interest . The 95% is from publisher´s statistics .
-
´Post loss´ messages have been extensively investigated after Juli 1937 ; they came from amateurs , cross-over signals from Itasca with USCG and other authorities , hoaxes , etc. No post loss signals attributed to AE/FN contain information of their coordinates which could be easily reduced from observation by Noonan , the very first he would have done .
-
Hence : a "deep water" investigation would deliver the "final solution" , the complication being that Nikumaroro is surrounded by shallow waters only . @ the northwestern shores the depth reaches 26 m only @ 0.4 nm , 740 m off the shoreline @ zero m . From this frontier the inclination increases , to reach the - 400 m level @ 1 nm , 1,800 m off coast . From the depth of 26 m the - 100 m level is first reached . This situation is similar for the entire island´s perimeter . If the AE/FN aircraft landed here on firm ground or on the beaches , it would be there until today´s day like the remnants of Norwich City , or , if drifted seawards , it can be easily located by plain diving from a small vessel , no intricacies needed .
-
Low cost fund needed : Nikumaroro has no deep waters in the perimeter , there are no cliffs or reefs by which A/c could be toppled over , waters shallow until 0.5 nm from coast line , only civilian divers from small vessel needed .
-
Low cost fund needed : Nikumaroro has no deep waters in the perimeter , there are no cliffs or reefs by which A/c could be toppled over , waters shallow until 0.5 nm from coast line , only civilian divers from small vessel needed .
They've been and done that Harry! The problem is that the reef face slopes quite steeply Reef Profile (http://tighar.org/wiki/File:Reefprofile.jpg) thats why they need a bigger boat :)
(http://tighar.org/aw/mediawiki/images/5/5c/Reefprofile.jpg)
-
´Post loss´ messages have been extensively investigated after Juli 1937 ; they came from amateurs , cross-over signals from Itasca with USCG and other authorities , hoaxes , etc.
Really? Cite your sources. Name one comprehensive study. Just one.
-
A real result would be an identifiable part of the aircraft , a sign on paper or wood "FN & AE were here" , inventory of A/c , etc.
So what you're saying is that the only "real result" in an investigation is a single unequivocally conclusive piece of evidence. By your own standards, therefore, your convoluted calculations and statements about what did and did not happen are meaningless.
There are possibly clues considered abundant , but one good artifact would be sufficient and form evidence from itself , independent of journalistic description .
Agreed. Such an artifact would not be a "clue," it would be "proof." What we have so far are clues. We think they're rather good clues.
It is true that deep sea investigations acquired no results so far , but the probability that they will once be succesful is by far greater than finding anything , entire aircraft or other hard evidence , on Nikumaroro .
Something is lost. You look for it in one place and find nothing. You look for it in another place and find many clues that it might be there. So you go back and look some more in the place where you found nothing???
Mr. Noonan , from 950 galls gas for 2,750 mls , accounted for 10 1/2 % reserve ex the weather forecast given , arriving @ 1,050 galls for the journey ; add 50 galls special avgas and with 1,100 galls the tanks except one were full , no further storage volume was available . The 10.5% depends on the s.c. wind regression factor which averaged 0.905 for the actual flight , its reciprocal giving 1.105 . In report 487 no remark is found about continuous headwinds asking for 13% more propeller thrust , factor 1.13 , giving (1.13)^3 x 100% = 144% more chemical energy demand , this probably is the flaw of report 487 concerning the ferry range , there given 4,000 mls plus , but for actual flight circumstances about 2,750 mls . These figures are from serious recomputations by professional methods , so : don´t kill the messenger .
We've been over this ad nauseum. Your numbers are based upon numerous unwarranted assumptions and, by your standards for "real results," they are of no value.
-
Hence : a "deep water" investigation would deliver the "final solution" , the complication being that Nikumaroro is surrounded by shallow waters only . @ the northwestern shores the depth reaches 26 m only @ 0.4 nm , 740 m off the shoreline @ zero m . From this frontier the inclination increases , to reach the - 400 m level @ 1 nm , 1,800 m off coast . From the depth of 26 m the - 100 m level is first reached . This situation is similar for the entire island´s perimeter . If the AE/FN aircraft landed here on firm ground or on the beaches , it would be there until today´s day like the remnants of Norwich City , or , if drifted seawards , it can be easily located by plain diving from a small vessel , no intricacies needed .
Mr. Van Asten, we have been to the island. We have surveyed the underwater environment with divers, with remote operated vehicles, and with sonar. We have published the results (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Expeditions/NikuVI/PIPAreport/Niku6PIPAreportpage3.html). Your characterization of the underwater environment, presented not as speculation but as fact (but without citing any source), is false.
Your repeated willingness to promulgate your demonstrably flawed opinions as fact is unethical, at odds with sound scientific practice, and violates the standards for participation in this forum. Henceforth, I will monitor your submissions to this forum and ask Marty to do the same. Opinions and observations that are supported by facts will be posted as always whether or not they agree with TIGHAR's hypothesis. Those that do not will be removed.
-
My information is from Google - Ocean which gives all depths etc. w.r.t sea level .
-
My information is from Google - Ocean giving all depths etc. in figures w.r.t. sea level , distances given by the difference of coordinates .
-
Not a direct question of gender I suppose , but a question of other fields of interest . The 95% is from publisher´s statistics .
"Other fields of interest"? Since you're mathematically conversant, I'm confident you can spot the fallacy in the following logic:
(a) 95% of the readers of romantic literature are women.
(b) Therefore, 95% of women read romantic literature.
From the World English Dictionary:
Stereotype: A set of inaccurate, simplistic generalizations about a group that allows others to categorize them and treat them accordingly.
Mona
-
My information is from Google - Ocean which gives all depths etc. w.r.t sea level .
And if you position your cursor anywhere inside Nikumaroro's lagoon, you'll see that Google Earth shows that the lagoon is zero meters deep!
The overlay for Nikumaroro that's on Google Earth was created from imagery dated in 2007, considerably before Google was updated with data about ocean depths. That overlay lacks any ocean-depth information. That's why out to 600-800 meters west of the shoreline, Google Earth reports an ocean depth of zero meters, too.
To use Google Earth and its recent addition of ocean-depth data as "proof" of the actual ocean depth for points within 1,000 meters of that island's shoreline is as fatuous as:
- using a webpage found on the Internet as a reliable source of the reason why Peyton Manning will probably not be the starting quarterback (http://www.onionsportsnetwork.com/articles/peyton-mannings-head-falls-off,21273/) in the upcoming regular-season game between Indianapolis and Houston;
- proving that I must only be 50 years old since Wikipedia has an article about Bruce Thomas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Thomas_(actor)) showing me (him) as being born in 1961;
- using Google Earth to prove the presence of the Lost City of Atlantis in Nikumaroro's lagoon (http://tighar.org/wiki/Google_Earth).
-
Several biographies , books & articles I have read mention the non relevancy of post loss messages , or such messages are not quoted at all.
-
Google Ocean gives the reefs width as +/- 0.8 nm , not 250 m for the -400 m level . Another forum submission however , says that the Google images presently shown are not updated to the actual situation .
-
My information is from Google - Ocean giving all depths etc. in figures w.r.t. sea level , distances given by the difference of coordinates .
Yes...well...I'm sure we can all pack up and make turns for home then. After all, the Internet is indeed the last word on all knowledge ...technical or otherwise.
Low cost fund needed : Nikumaroro has no deep waters in the perimeter , there are no cliffs or reefs by which A/c could be toppled over , waters shallow until 0.5 nm from coast line , only civilian divers from small vessel needed .
As the cost would be low, and presumably therefore inconsequential, I'm sure you will not mind if we sign you up for a donation in favour of the next expedition. After all, you DO once and for all want to help to prove this wacky notion of ours wrong, don't you?
LTM,
....TB
( postscript - Google also states that Trolls come from Norway. )
-
Yes , a sparrow is a bird , so all birds are sparrows : called women´s logic , sry you will certainly be not amused .
I trust that my point about stereotyping has been made, even though you may not be in a position to acknowledge it right now.
In fairness to Mr. van Asten, it's possible that he might not have become so defensive if his initial posts about navigation had been answered without any recourse to insult.
Mona
-
Several biographies , books & articles I have read mention the non relevancy of post loss messages , or such messages are not quoted at all.
That's right, the post-loss messages have been the elephant in the room that has either been dismissed off-hand or not mentioned at all.
-
Yes , a sparrow is a bird , so all birds are sparrows : called women´s logic , sry you will certainly be not amused .
I trust that my point about stereotyping has been made, even though you may not be in a position to acknowledge it right now.
In fairness to Mr. van Asten, it's possible that he might not have become so defensive if his initial posts about navigation had been answered without any recourse to insult.
Mona
I was actually impressed with how polite everyone tried to be, even though Mr. van Asten has tried to portray himself as an expert and then shown himself to be anything but. Perhaps now everyone can get back to intelligent (and polite!) discussion.
-
Perhaps now everyone can get back to intelligent (and polite!) discussion.
Let's hope so.
-
mr.van Asten (me) has not portrayed anything , an independent point of view possibly giving new vistas on the subject excepted . Opponents got the more and more angry when seeing that their attempts to grind down were inherently unsuccesful .
-
No . I don´t want to prove anything being wrong , things that are good go over the world by themselves , why would I interfere ?
-
No , you made your point , no problem . I do not remember to have been "defensive" as you suggest , either no problem btw .
-
Google Updates says the figures have been overviewed by oceanographers since 2007 , and updated 2009 .
-
Google Earth notes "depth zero" if the surface level of inland lakes follows the tides of the surrounding sea , which is the case for open lagoons . For verification try google ijsselmeer (Netherlands).
-
H.E.Maude , Resident Commissioner Gilbert/Ellice Islands 1929-1948 visited Gardner in 1937 for fauna research . Is it known when exactly he was there and if or not he saw something uncommon ?
-
Harry Maude's report at http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/maude.html
-
Perhaps now everyone can get back to intelligent (and polite!) discussion.
Let's hope so.
Evidently not.
-
Google Updates says the figures have been overviewed by oceanographers since 2007 , and updated 2009 .
Are you making excuses for getting it wrong or are you saying that Google is right?
-
Harry Maude's report at http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/maude.html
And Eric Bevington's journal (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Bevington_Diary.html)
We also corresponded with Maude and I interviewed Bevington at his home in the south of England.
-
2009 is after 2007 , so google should now be right , I am only the messenger .
-
2009 is after 2007 , so google should now be right , I am only the messenger .
I suggest that you be more careful about what messages you choose to deliver. To insist that Google is right in the face of contrary direct on-site physical measurement and photography can only be described as delusional.
-
I do not insist . I assume , or suppose .
-
I do not insist . I assume , or suppose .
You assume or suppose that remote electronic measurement is more reliable than on-site observation and physical measurement. Delusional.