TIGHAR
Amelia Earhart Search Forum => General discussion => Topic started by: Gary LaPook on January 26, 2012, 01:19:31 AM
-
I had accepted TIGHAR's explanation of the code used by the Coast Guard for reporting the weather conditions at Howland but now I am not so sure. I was reviewing TIGHAR's copy of the Itasca deck log and and the tables at the beginning of it contains the explanation of the weather codes. It immediately jumped out at me that the wind speed table, the "Beaufort code," had the wrong speed values. I then looked at the other tables and I have questions about them also. According to TIGHAR's table, a code of "9" means visibility greater than 20 miles (presumably nautical miles) but, according to the Navy's code for weather reporting, published in 1930, "9" means visibility greater than 30 NM. So now I wonder what is the source of TIGHAR's version, and what is the correct values to use in interpreting Itasca's weather reports. I have attached an annotated copy TIGHAR's weather tables and copies of the correct Beaufort scale. I have also posted the entire Navy's code for weather reporting here. (https://tighar.org/smf/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=587.0;attach=947)
-
We have a full-sized (each page is 11"x17") copy of the Itasca deck log. At the beginning of the log is a section entitled Instructions For Keeping The Ship's Log. It includes all the codes and scales to be used in keeping the log. TIGHAR's interpretations of the log are based on those instructions. I've attached scans of several of the scales including wind and visibility.
-
Nice Log Instructions.
Did I miss something? Like what is the definition of "Prominent objects"
Is an island 1 mile long by 1/2 mile wide by 10 feet high a "prominent object"?
-
JN
Against a sky full of scattered clouds, and a ship belching smoke, a plane being a prominent object at 20 NM? surely you jest
-
We have a full-sized (each page is 11"x17") copy of the Itasca deck log. At the beginning of the log is a section entitled Instructions For Keeping The Ship's Log. It includes all the codes and scales to be used in keeping the log. TIGHAR's interpretations of the log are based on those instructions. I've attached scans of several of the scales including wind and visibility.
I think that there is still a question concerning the codes used in the Itasca deck log for recording the visibility and the force of the wind. The visibility table in the deck log preamble contained the values for a weather code dated 1921 and the values were changed in the 1930 weather code that was being used by Itasca for reporting the weather. The wind speed ranges for the Beaufort scale were also changed in 1923 to their current form, I posted that table before. We know that Itasca was using the newer weather code because the 1921 code used words instead of numerical groups. Here is a link to the obsolete 1921 weather code (http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?u=1&num=1&seq=38&view=image&size=100&id=nyp.33433019287402).
I have attached excerpts from the deck log, the radio transcripts and from the 1930 weather code. I am also posting the entire 1930 weather code. You can see that the weather report sent out on July 1, 1937 at 1330 Itasca time encoded the weather recorded in the Itasca deck log for 1 p.m. on July 1st. The "9" in the fourth group is the code for the visibility which, according to the 1930 code, means greater than 30 NM and would be read as such by headquarters. But, if the preface to the deck log is correct, that "9" only indicates visibility greater than 20 NM. Which is it, 30 NM or 20 NM, you can't have it both ways. The weather code is for transmitting the weather unambiguously so a "9" can't mean 20 NM sometimes and 30 NM at other times.
Did the Coast Guard just continue to use obsolete deck log forms until the supply was exhausted but actually used the new coding for the information? Aside from the deck log preamble, does TIGHAR have any other source of information to explain this conflict, a statement from somebody in the Coast Guard in 1937 perhaps?
I have decoded the entire 6 group message so you can compare it yourself with the entries in the deck log entry.
-------------------------------------------
The 6001 1330 weather message decoded reads:
First group, 61008
6 = Friday (July 2, Greenwich date)
1 = Octant of earth 1 = (North latitude, 90° to 180° west)
008 =Latitude 00.8° N (Latitude rounded to 6 minute accuracy and reported as one-tenth of degree, the octant code makes it north)
Second group, 76700
767 = Longitude 176.7° W ( the octant code makes it greater than 90° W)
00 =GMT of observation is 0000)
Third group, 05201
05 = Wind direction = NE X E
2 = Beaufort force 2 = light breeze
01 = Current weather = Partly cloudy, 0.1 to 0.5 of sky covered
Fourth group, 10986
10 = Barometer = 29.83 (rounded to whole millibar if necessary)
9 = Visibility = objects visible at more than 30 NM
86 = Temp= 86° F
Fifth group, 62254
6 = group identifier
2 = swell = low swell, long
2 = direction of swell = east
5 = predominant cloud type = alto stratus
4 = total cloud = 0.4 to 0.6
Sixth group, 20010
2 = temp difference = air temp. 3° to 6° warmer than the sea temp.
0 = ship's course = hove to (drifting)
0 = barometer tendency = steady
1 = past weather = variable sky
0 = form of upper cloud = no upper clouds
gl
-
Did the Coast Guard just continue to use obsolete deck log forms until the supply was exhausted but actually used the new coding for the information? Aside from the deck log preamble, does TIGHAR have any other source of information to explain this conflict, a statement from somebody in the Coast Guard in 1937 perhaps?
We only have the deck log as it exists in the National Archive. In either system the "9" indicates the highest level of visibility. If you're at sea and the visibility is unrestricted, how can you possibly determine whether you can see 20 miles or 30 miles? There's nothing out there to see except ocean. In other words, what difference does it make which system Itasca was using?
-
*scratches head* Arguing for the sake of arguing? Finding one nit doesn't necessarily invalidate the entire thing, or so my experience goes as a "professional" in the world of forms and such. I think there might be other documents that are more worthy of efforts at deconstruction?
LTM, who pushes paper for a living,
Monty Fowler
TIGHAR No, 2189 CER
-
I have to say that Ric's response leaves very little room for argument as Monty just posted.
Gary will likely say something though. Sigh. Too bad that Gary's still trying to break the TIGHAR hypothesis. Maybe he should try saying what he thinks happened. You never know Gary. You might be right and TIGHAR wrong. But then again, it's much easier to try breaking someone else's hypothesis rather than stating one of your own.
-
*scratches head* Arguing for the sake of arguing? Finding one nit doesn't necessarily invalidate the entire thing, or so my experience goes as a "professional" in the world of forms and such. I think there might be other documents that are more worthy of efforts at deconstruction?
LTM, who pushes paper for a living,
Monty Fowler
TIGHAR No, 2189 CER
Although the difference between 20 NM and 30 NM visibility does not appear to affect the TIGHAR hypo, it may affect other hypos. I like to get the facts straight since there are so many errors in the Earhart story.
gl
-
What other theory could the difference of 10 nautical miles of visibility affect? For some reason AE and FN missed Howland. That's a fact. We know they didn't land there. Where did they end up? What's your theory Gary? Stop saying why TIGHAR is wrong and say what you think is right. In all seriousness I believe you think the TIGHAR hypothesis is right and you're just trying to come at it from all angles to really make sure the hypothesis doesn't break. Since you started posting in 2002 TIGHAR has found further evidence that points towards TIGHAR being right. Strengthening the hypothesis which makes it harder to break down.
-
What other theory could the difference of 10 nautical miles of visibility affect? For some reason AE and FN missed Howland. That's a fact. We know they didn't land there. Where did they end up? What's your theory Gary? Stop saying why TIGHAR is wrong and say what you think is right. In all seriousness I believe you think the TIGHAR hypothesis is right and you're just trying to come at it from all angles to really make sure the hypothesis doesn't break. Since you started posting in 2002 TIGHAR has found further evidence that points towards TIGHAR being right. Strengthening the hypothesis which makes it harder to break down.
Well it affects the crashed and sank hypo. If the visibility was greater than others have figured then the plane must have been further away to have missed Howland so the underwater searchers may need to look further out than they have already. This may account for the failure to find the plane on the bottom of the sea in the vicinity of Howland.
gl
-
Gary, the ran out of gas and sank guys have a huge amount of underwater ground to cover. This 10 mile difference is one very small factor in looking for the Electra on the ocean bottom. You know this. Are you now trying to help the "crashed and sank" guys by suggesting this ten mile difference actually narrows down where to search? You know how much reserve the electra carried. You know the evidence, yes circumstantial with no smoking gun, that TIGHAR has gathered. The archaeological evidence, post loss signals, native accounts, skeletal remains, etc. that TIGHAR has brought forward would all have to be ignored and outright dismissed by the crashed and sank guys. Is this what YOUR hypothesis is? Marty is right by saying you believe they got close, box searched, then crashed and sank?? Seriously Gary. Just say it in a post once and for all.
-
25 NM sounds like a good compromise then for flight re-construction.
As far as the box search goes since they were reporting being on the 157/337 line an hour after they had arrived they would have had to been flying a modified search pattern as Gary had previously suggested versus an expanding square search pattern. This would imply they would be flying long N/S lines, the length probably being 2 times the maximum DR error after the first leg that would be the maximum DR error. They would then probably performing a 2 times visibility offset on each leg. This is just one theoretical example that does make sense to investigate.
This would describe a huge area. While it it theoretically possible that they could have ran out of fuel on a leg headed back toward Howland they might have also been headed away from Howland.
I do think that this is a worthy exercise and could lead to insight as to what might have happened. I think it can also be used to determine where they were not with a pretty good degree of certainty. Google Earth is a good tool for visualizing things like this. After playing with it a bit I realized that what is needed is a method to automatically lay out search patterns rather than drawing them manually. Although it seems simple enough, it takes quite a while to lay down just a couple of scenarios manually. In the future, I plan on writing an application that will automatically create search patterns based on user input. The output will be a kmz file that is easily imported in to Google Earth.
Attached is one such visualization in Google Earth. The large red circle represents a DR error of 127 miles, assuming that they had not been able to obtain a navigation fix since they saw the Ontario (a different subject). The Yellow would be the theoretical limit of visibility if they were at 1,000ft. The smaller red circles represent 25NM around the Islands.
In this one example, if they were at the extreme DR error to the South and headed South (because they thought they were North), they would have passed within 145 SM miles of Gardner. With this example, they would have had to climb to 8,000ft (I think) to see Gardner during the search. Again, this is just a single example but I believe there is value in playing with this idea.
Also attached in an overlay of the Waitt Institute search area. As you can see their search area is tiny compared to the over all area where they might have ditched using the example search pattern.
So for me at least, there is value it investigating this area and it is interesting to attempt. If anyone is interested in writing software for creating search patterns (and possibly other visualizations) in Google Earth, let me know.
-
Although the difference between 20 NM and 30 NM visibility does not appear to affect the TIGHAR hypo, it may affect other hypos. I like to get the facts straight since there are so many errors in the Earhart story.
gl
Then please, by all means list them, one by one, with your explanations (heck, footnotes if you want to), as TIGHAR has done in the past, and continues to do.
I mean, since you seem to have it all figured out to the Nth degree. Or so you keep hinting.
LTM, who tires of all talk and no action,
and who puts his money where his mouth is,
Monty Fowler
TIGHAR No. 2189 CER
-
As far as the box search goes since they were reporting being on the 157/337 line an hour after they had arrived they would have had to been flying a modified search pattern as Gary had previously suggested versus an expanding square search pattern.
Your logic escapes me. How does the fact that Earhart reported being on the 157/337 line an hour after they seem to have arrived at the advanced LOP mean anything but that they were on the line at that time? Why could they not simply have been doing what Earhart said they were doing - "running on line north and south."? On what basis do you (and Gary) inject an entirely imagined "box search" or "modified search pattern" into the scenario? If you're going to make up stuff for which there is no evidence you can put the plane anywhere you want.
-
As far as the box search goes since they were reporting being on the 157/337 line an hour after they had arrived they would have had to been flying a modified search pattern as Gary had previously suggested versus an expanding square search pattern.
Your logic escapes me. How does the fact that Earhart reported being on the 157/337 line an hour after they seem to have arrived at the advanced LOP mean anything but that they were on the line at that time? Why could they not simply have been doing what Earhart said they were doing - "running on line north and south."? On what basis do you (and Gary) inject an entirely imagined "box search" or "modified search pattern" into the scenario? If you're going to make up stuff for which there is no evidence you can put the plane anywhere you want.
As I recall Gary suggested the search pattern initially and I agreed with the theory and I still do. While Gary and I disagree in many areas, I think that he brings a lot of good ideas to the table and this would be one of them. He seems to have quite a background in the area of navigation so I would be cautious of kicking all of his ideas to the curb and labeling contrary theories as "making stuff up". There are certain areas that are not knowable, despite the claims, so we theorize as to what might have happened using rational deduction. This is one of those areas of discussion.
As to the idea of the origin of the search pattern theory, Gary had suggested that conducting a search pattern upon arrival would be the correct thing to do given the circumstances (lack of communications, etc). That is probably obvious to any modern aviator, I am not sure if FN would have had this knowledge or not, perhaps Gary can chime in on that since he is the expert in the history of navigation.
From 19:12 GMT to 20:13 GMT they must have been up to something other than just circling around an empty spot in the ocean right? What would you be doing? I know what I would be doing, attempting to find the island in a methodical approach keeping track of time and distances traveled, in other words performing an improvised search pattern. In the meantime I would be on the radio trying to get help from my destination. FN would be busy attempting to get a new fix one way or another by any means at his disposal while simultaneously trying to spot the island himself.
The search pattern theory also explains why they reported being on "the line" 157/337 an hour after arriving to where they thought Howland should be. If you do not know where you are, "the line" offset by 40 miles is still "the line" because you have no idea where the real advanced line of position that passes through Howland really is. If they were on a line of position that passed through Howland, they probably would have found Howland. This seems self evident that the projected advanced line of position did not match reality.
Another reason that I believe that this concept has merit is that it is my understanding that FN could also be taking observations of the Sun during this time which would be 90 degrees to your direction of travel if you were on a 157/337 heading. If successful, he would be able to determine where they were longitudinally on the Earth. In the meantime, AE could be traveling long N/S legs in a search, then performing a 2 times the visibility range offset. The could cover quite a large area in a very short amount of time using this method.
Is this suggestion of a search pattern far fetched? I do not think so. I believe to that to go back and forth on the same advanced line of position (a calculated projection, a completely abstract construct without a real physical reference), expecting to find Howland on each pass would be the very definition of insanity, doing the same thing over and over expecting different results. They must have been in the area at 20:13 GMT as their signal strength was 5.
If you strongly disagree with this line of reasoning I would like to hear the alternative. What is the rational for staying on the line going back and forth (North and South as stated by AE)?
I think the only point of contention here is whether they would have used an offset. Is this really a radical departure from your line of reasoning? I think not.
-
When they radioed "we must be on you..." it's because they believed they had arrived "somewhere" very close to Howland. Is it likely they just looked down for a big X marking the spot and not immediately seeing it decided to head south to the Phoenix group? Not likely. Any time spent in the area, before turning south, could be considered searching. What the pattern used, if any, won't be known without a written record being found. All the theories you want to think up can be explored but to what end? As Ric said "If you're going to make up stuff for which there is no evidence then you can put the plane anywhere you want.". I believe they did some form of search. Likely continueing on the line going north until fuel reserves for a trip south to the Phoenix group dictated the turning point. But we don't know for sure.
-
All the theories you want to think up can be explored but to what end?
It was my impression that this is the point of the entire forum. You kick around ideas to see if something makes sense. Is the point to repeat what is known over and over?
Maybe I am in the wrong place.
-
Hi Heath. You're in the right place. But I believe we "kick" around ideas based on facts and known evidence. I have trotted out ideas here in this forum but have been told the same thing as you were by Ric and Marty. Keep it to the known facts and evidence. One OS the things I have noted is when someone posts an idea on this forum it can later be seen to be stated by someone else as fact. Thats not good because someone then posts an idea based on that non fact and off we go spinning a story that has no basis in real fact. Thus hurting the purity if TIGHAR's testing of the hypothesis. TIGHAR has a reputation for strong research practices and not speculating. My choice of words with "to what end" is only in reference to non fact or evidence based ideas. Poor choice of words on my part.
-
IRV
TIGHAR has adopted the Niku hypothesis and is testing it.
If you look up "hypothesis" in your Roget you will find the words conjecture, speculation, and others.
The Niku hypothesis is just that, until proved,and other ideas that might explian the known radio transmissions and logical conjectures should be allowed and explored. That's what a forum is for. Throwing people under the bus because their ideas don't correspond with some element of the Niku hypothesis is unnecessary and disrespectful.
We don't know what AE was doing during that approximately one hour's time period. Logic and common sense tells us that she and FN weredoing their best to find Howland. Sounds like "Searching" to me.
-
IRV
My last post wasn't directed at yours, rather it was in support of what you and I believe is the purpose of a Forum. Maybe Ric, Marty and others will get the idea that "their Hypothesis" has.m't been proved and there are other ideas that can be explored to explain what AE/FN did and why.
Two things we know for sure:
1. They took off from Lae.
2. They didn;t land on Howland.
After that, all else is conjecture (hypothesis if you prefer).
-
Harry, thanks for clearing that up. I have said now several times in this thread alone, I believe there was some form of searching done by AE and FN. You don't fly to your destination which is waiting specifically for you with support staff, supplies and a brand new airfield and, when you don't immediately see it, throw up your arms and fly off to the Phoenix islands. So I believe you and I agree on that.
6 posts back Ric says to Heath and Gary that he (Ric) doesn't see their logic on an imagined box search. Ric makes the point that if you're going to make up stuff then the plane could be anywhere. I believe that's what you're referring to. Several other forum posters have been taken to task for also suggesting none fact based speculation. Including me.
I believe testing the hypothesis means we should speculate on ideas. It was speculation by two navigators that got tighar started in the AE search. But in fairness TIGHAR has had lots of incidents where non fact based statements were later used as facts in other posts. While I believe free speculation is what should be going on here I think it should have some basis in the facts. I could speculate, wildly, that a Japanese spy stowed away at Lae, knocked FN out (head injury he suffered) and forced AE to pretend not to see Howland, fly direct to Gardner, maintaining radio silence (nothing heard after she said "we are on the line..") then the spy got away on a secret sub after landing at Gardner. I don't believe those kinds of ideas really merit any time. Heath and Gary's box search discussion was (is) interesting. And you never know where it will lead. My point about "to what end" was me trying to say that the non fact based speculation, while interesting, is sometimes "just interesting". It doesn't test the hypothesis.
You and I Harry I believe are on the same page. I think Ric's comment wasn't intended to be disrespectful and could have been phrased a little different. But I'm not trying to speak for him.
BTW. Harry I loved your two facts stated as you did. Clean and simple. No BS.
-
I suspect that Heath got Ric's attention with this part of his comment: "... they would have had to been flying a modified search pattern as Gary had previously suggested versus an expanding square search pattern." I might even go so far as to hypothesize that, in general, making a "Amelia would have had to..." statement will always get Ric's attention.
-
I suspect that Heath got Ric's attention with this part of his comment: "... they would have had to been flying a modified search pattern as Gary had previously suggested versus an expanding square search pattern." I might even go so far as to hypothesize that, in general, making a "Amelia would have had to..." statement will always get Ric's attention.
Take a look at the standard search pattern information available here.
(https://sites.google.com/site/fredienoonan/topics/standard-search-pattern)
gl
-
I suspect that Heath got Ric's attention with this part of his comment: "... they would have had to been flying a modified search pattern as Gary had previously suggested versus an expanding square search pattern." I might even go so far as to hypothesize that, in general, making a "Amelia would have had to..." statement will always get Ric's attention.
Take a look at the standard search pattern information available here.
(https://sites.google.com/site/fredienoonan/topics/standard-search-pattern)
gl
Your link points to your site where you list technical manuals for performing a search. That doesn't mean they performed a search pattern. What evidence do you have Gary that says they performed a search? A radio message? A written record? No. That's the problem here Gary. You are guessing at what an aviator might/should do based on technical manuals and procedures. But there is no evidence to say they did. Now in your defense I might say that we accept certain information regarding AE's piloting the aircraft. For instance we accept in the TIGHAR hypothesis that she put her wheels down for landing at Gardner. But no witnesses or pictures to prove it. That FN took sightings with his sextant but no witnesses or photos to prove it. We accept these two premises, without evidence, as normal standard procedures a pilot and navigator would do. So why not also accept, without evidence, that a search was performed? We just won't know.
-
Irvine,
I think we can all agree on that. What I was attempting to do was to run through possible scenarios if it were the case, running through a scenario where DR was used since spotting the Ontario, testing the extremes of the possible DR error. I was not attempting to push the search pattern concept as a fact rather as something interesting to look at if no one had done so previously. I think we can end the entire topic there. In the future I will be sure to label things for what they are although I do not think that it should be necessary to label every statement as I think most people can read between the lines to determine if someone is attempting to establish a fact or kick around a theory.
Thanks.
-
Irvine,
I think we can all agree on that. What I was attempting to do was to run through possible scenarios if it were the case, running through a scenario where DR was used since spotting the Ontario, testing the extremes of the possible DR error. I was not attempting to push the search pattern concept as a fact rather as something interesting to look at if no one had done so previously. I think we can end the entire topic there. In the future I will be sure to label things for what they are although I do not think that it should be necessary to label every statement as I think most people can read between the lines to determine if someone is attempting to establish a fact or kick around a theory.
Thanks.
Heath. I personally think your exercise around the Ontario has been interesting. I don't think you have to label everything either. The forum readers are, IMHO, looking for speculation in this forum. I believe as you do that the readers can read between the lines and will make up their own minds about such speculation. But I think if we wander too far from facts then we get reined in a bit by Ric and sometimes Marty. That's their prerogative as the owners and administrators of this forum. They just want to keep the forum from evolving into a place where we don't use facts at all. And that's not easy. In my opinion they can be a little harsh in how they word things but that's just me.
I look forward to reading more of your ideas Heath. They are interesting for sure.
-
I suspect that Heath got Ric's attention with this part of his comment: "... they would have had to been flying a modified search pattern as Gary had previously suggested versus an expanding square search pattern." I might even go so far as to hypothesize that, in general, making a "Amelia would have had to..." statement will always get Ric's attention.
You're right John. Whenever someone starts"would having" I know they have missed the point of what TIGHAR's Earhart Project and this forum are all about. Amelia Earhart and Fred Noonan have been dead for many years. Although we have a natural curiosity about how they got that way, the circumstances of their demise are not historically important. What IS important is what we can learn from the investigative process we use to discover what is true. The Earhart mystery is merely a convenient and popular vehicle for exploring that process.
Marty and I can, on occasion, be a bit harsh but it has nothing to do with whether someone agrees with TIGHAR's hypotheses or conclusions. We welcome skepticism and dissent. Our harshness is an expression of frustration for those who advance their arguments using invalid methodology. As I've said many times, "would have" is a guess masquerading as a fact. No one knows what Earhart or Noonan "would have" done. There is nothing wrong with speculation. Speculation is essential to the investigative process, but if you want us to take your speculation seriously you must play by the rules - the same rules we play by.
1. Start with a "did" (in other words, a fact). For example, at 07:42 the Itasca radio log DID record Earhart as saying "We must be on you but cannot see you."
2. Having established your "did" you can then suggest a "might have." For example, Earhart and Noonan might have then begun a search pattern. Now you have a hypothesis to test.
3. If you can find another "did" that appears to support your hypothesis, you may be on the right track. For example, an hour later the Itasca radio log DID record Earhart as saying, "We are on the line 157 337. Running on line north and south." This appears to be Earhart's description of what she was doing to try to find Howland. In other words, a search pattern, i.e. flying first one way and then the other on the 157 337 line.
4. Now you can try another "might have." For example, flying the search pattern Earhart described might have led them to Gardner Island. A new hypothesis to test.
5. Are there any "dids" that support the new hypothesis? And so on.
Did - Might have - Did - Might have - Did
There is no room for "would have."
-
Ric
With all due respect, The Radio Log is an inanimate object and as such couldn't "do" anything. A human being, a radio operator. wrote the words "we must be on you but cannot see you" and attributed those words to AE. Whether he actually heard those words or heard them spoken by AE is unknowable to us. For example, he "might have" been distracted and heard something, asked someone nearby what it was that was said, and recorded in the Log what that person, or persons, told him.
Kinda like the statement attributed to AE that she only had a half hour of fuel left . Many variables involved in evaluating Logs when searching to find out what reallt happened.
-
Amelia Earhart and Fred Noonan have been dead for many years.
I am not trying to prolong this conversation as I think the rules have already been set but isn't what you just stated a presumption of fact?
Where is the proof they died that day? They might have been captured by a tribe and lived for decades. They might have floated to some remote island and lived for many years. Is your definitive facts or is it based on common sense and preponderance of evidence? I have seen no factual basis for that statement. Demanding absolute proof is a slippery slope isn't it?
I agree that I should been more clear when presenting a theory but I am also quite sensitive to a pot calling a kettle black.
-
The Radio Log is an inanimate object and as such couldn't "do" anything. A human being, a radio operator. wrote the words "we must be on you but cannot see you" and attributed those words to AE. Whether he actually heard those words or heard them spoken by AE is unknowable to us.
You'll note that I did not write, at 07:42 Earhart DID say "We must be on you but cannot see you." I wrote, at 07:42 the Itasca radio log DID record Earhart as saying "We must be on you but cannot see you."
-
[qoute]Amelia Earhart and Fred Noonan have been dead for many years.
Where is the proof they died that day? They might have been captured by a tribe and lived for decades. They might have floated to some remote island and lived for many years. Is your definitive facts or is it based on common sense and preponderance of evidence? I have seen no factual basis for that statement. Demanding absolute proof is a slippery slope isn't it?
[/quote]
There is no demand for absolute proof. Unless we want to stray into the realm of religion (which we definitely do not), absolute proof is unattainable. The great paradox of all historical research is that we can never know anything with absolute certainty. Were those two people really Amelia Earhart and Fred Noonan or were they impostors participating in a nefarious government plot? If the Electra is found on the ocean bottom northwest of Howand or on the reef slope off Nikumaroro was it dumped there by the Japanese? Were the "travel size" bottles of 1930s, women's, American personal care products we've found at the Seven Site somehow dropped there by a traveling salesman whose visit to the island was never recorded?
The trick is to keep an open mind without letting your brain fall out. Might AE and FN have survived for years, captive of some unknown tribe or living in New Jersey under assumed names? Maybe - but there is no evidence to suggest that they did. Might AE and FN have flown some kind of box search pattern? Maybe - but there is no evidence to suggest that they did.
-
Maybe - but there is no evidence to suggest that they did.
This is very true. There is also no proof or evidence that they did not. I do try to keep an open mind and I am open to any and all ideas no matter how far fetched they may seem (Saipan theory for example).
I agree that I should have been more careful about labeling but I also believe that it was more likely than not that they did perform some type of improvised search. That is what Gary initially suggested when we were kicking around ideas and I think it is a common sense one. I do not think that this is a radical theory or even contrary to the Niku hypothesis. For myself it is an idea that is worth exploring as some other interesting observation could be discovered even if it contradicts the search pattern theory itself.
-
Ric
I repeat
As an inanimate object, the Itasca Radio Log did not DO anything. A radio operator wrote (typed?) the words in the log and, apparently, attributed them to AE. (NB, (note bene, note well) that I didn't say she (AE) said anything, I said the operator attributed the words to AE).
-
I dunno, Harry, as a professional paper pusher, I hesitate to say paper is inanimate ... the piles just keep getting bigger with
no effort on my part and it has to happen somehow. I think some extracurricular activity is going on at night when the lights are out.
LTM, who has to desire to watch the paper do it's "thing"
Monty Fowler
TIGHAR No. 2189 CER
-
And yet Monty, Toilet paper rolls never get bigger. ::)
-
Monty
Yeah, I think it has something to do with the Pauli exclusion principle when applied to loose paper. They (the papers) are inanimate until/unless all the quantum numbers line up and then the papers become animated and do whatever they please and since energy is conserved ya can't get rid of them, ya can only shuffle them off to someone else. LOL