TIGHAR
Amelia Earhart Search Forum => Alternatives to the Niku Hypothesis => Topic started by: Chris Johnson on April 11, 2012, 08:05:47 AM
-
Malcolm,
at what point in the flight to Howland would they need to turn around to get to New Britain? I ask as that i further west than the Gilberts and the thought is that they were a place to far?
4. They instead opted to fly a reciprocal course which eventually led them to crash on New Britain which is the hypothesis based on the testimony of the Australian patrol that claimed to have found an unidentified aircraft wreck in 1945. This has merit also because we do not know precisely where Earhart and Noonan were when they decided they couldn't find Howland. The strength of radio signals is not a precise method of estimating a position by the receiver and Earhart did not, it appears, understand how to operate the DF device they had, or, it appears, knew how long she had to transmit for to enable the receiving station to get a
-
They can't find the New Britain wreck site and, hypothesise that it has been swallowed up by the ground/jungle
http://www.electranewbritain.com/ (http://www.electranewbritain.com/)
-
Malcolm,
at what point in the flight to Howland would they need to turn around to get to New Britain? I ask as that i further west than the Gilberts and the thought is that they were a place to far?
4. They instead opted to fly a reciprocal course which eventually led them to crash on New Britain which is the hypothesis based on the testimony of the Australian patrol that claimed to have found an unidentified aircraft wreck in 1945. This has merit also because we do not know precisely where Earhart and Noonan were when they decided they couldn't find Howland. The strength of radio signals is not a precise method of estimating a position by the receiver and Earhart did not, it appears, understand how to operate the DF device they had, or, it appears, knew how long she had to transmit for to enable the receiving station to get a
Try here
(https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,533.msg7060.html#msg7060)
and here (https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,452.msg5586.html#msg5586)
gl
-
OK BUT if Itasca received a strong signal saying 'we must be on/near you' - sorry not exact quote so don't shot me, would if they were close to Howland/Itasca they have had enough fuel to make it back to New Britain?
Chris, I think Gary was pointing out that they could have made it back to the Gilbert islands but not New Britain.
Intersting to note though instead of Lae being used as a point of departure Raboul has been mentioned as a better alternative departure point, being closer to Howland.
However, as Woody pointed out in a previous thread there was a double volcanic eruption near raboul on the 29th May 1937 with accompanying tsunamis consequently shutting it down until further notice.
1937 Eruption
Vulcan erupted on 29th May 1937. Within a few minutes the eruption column reached a considerable height. Peleean-type pyroclastic flows moved laterally across the sea. Lightning was observed, and pumice fell from the sky like hail. Within 30 minutes ash started falling on Rabaul town. Boats were left stranded on Rabaul foreshore after tsunamis struck.
Telegram to Australian prime ministers office on 29th May 1937 (Rabaul was administered by Australian government).
"After continuous earth tremors since 4am this day vulcan island erupted about 4 pm emitting dense volumes of smoke and covering Rabaul with volcanic dust making day into night."
http://www.volcanolive.com/rabaul1.html (http://www.volcanolive.com/rabaul1.html)
http://www.janesoceania.com/png_rabaul_volcano/index.htm (http://www.janesoceania.com/png_rabaul_volcano/index.htm)
-
I need a little help here, the way I understand it, you have to know where you are before you can get anywhere isn't that correct? I mean, in order to get to Point B, I have to be at Point A and know where that's at correct? So if I don't know where Point A is, how do I find Point B?
Heres my thought, here they are, they have flown along a reasonably steady course for the correct amount of time at the reasonably correct airspeed. Point A becomes the 337/157 LOP. Only they don't know WHERE along that line they are. Now they cant find Howland along that line and they make the decision to go back to New Britain. If they don't know WHERE Point A is, how do you find Point B?
Brad
-
I think that's very safe - Gary's put up very clear rationale. It's been spoken to before by Gary and others I believe.
Add to that the radio traffic we do know of - 'must be on you' is not likely to have been many hundreds of miles off to west, etc.
LTM -
Thanls Jeff,
been a tad lazy in not re visiting GLP and others posts but was the gist I got.
MALCOLM balls in your court to prove this one?
Not my duty to prove or disprove the New Britain hypothesis and I have never claimed that I accept it over the other three I suggested, in fact elsewhere I have had a very long discussion with the main promoter of the New Britain hypothesis regarding the evidence, or lack thereof in the physical sense, as I have here regarding the evidence or lack thereof in the physical sense, to support the Nikumaroro hypothesis.
The most interesting thing I find in the evidence quoted on the New Britain crash web site is the reference to the C/N tag found attached to the engine bearer of the wreck by the members of the Australian army patrol in 1945. Also interesting is that according to their lieutenant the USAAF said at the time that the aircraft was not a US military wreck. Now is the C/N tag a coincidence, is the wreck Japanese, a pre-war US civil aircraft or did the patrol make up the whole thing and quite by accident come up with that C/N tag number.
My view is that there are four reasonably valid hypotheses and that we are yet to see any of them discounted by finding unequivocal evidence to support just one. Simple as that, and I am in no way criticising TIGHAR whose reporting of what they have found to date is always open and above board. It is just that despite that, or unfortunately, TIGHAR is yet to provide the final piece that will seal the Nikumaroro solution. I hope they do - so much work deserves a successful outcome.
-
Malcolm,
at what point in the flight to Howland would they need to turn around to get to New Britain? I ask as that i further west than the Gilberts and the thought is that they were a place to far?
See POINT OF NO RETURN thread (https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,651.msg12321.html#msg12321).
gl
-
I'm not sure what to make of the soldier's report of seeing a tag on an engine bearing "C/N 1055" - sounds a lot like NR16020's 'c/n' (Constructor's Number, i.e. Serial Number). Problem is, as Ric Gillespie pointed out in his contribution to the above article, engine numbers would not happen to match airplane numbers as a norm, and did not in AE's airplane's case so far as I can tell. I don't like to think that outfit made that up - but if they found such a thing I beleive the 'matching' number is a fluke.
LTM -
Thanks Jeff
The C/N number is that of the aircraft not the engine - that is why it is attached to the engine mount which is a part of the airframe not the engine. It also was the airframe part that suffered damage in the ground loop. That is why it is so interesting, that C/N matches that of Lockheed's for Earhart's Electra. A coincidence? possibly, but something that is a worthy of a properly financed expedition to find. What saddens me about searches of this kind is that instead of pooling resources each group operates in competition with each other.
-
Chris, I think Gary was pointing out that they could have made it back to the Gilbert islands but not New Britain.
Intersting to note though instead of Lae being used as a point of departure Raboul has been mentioned as a better alternative departure point, being closer to Howland.
However, as Woody pointed out in a previous thread there was a double volcanic eruption near raboul on the 29th May 1937 with accompanying tsunamis consequently shutting it down until further notice.
EXCEPT that flying was NOT shut down into the airports around Rabaul because of the volcanic eruption. See prior post. (https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,452.msg5621.html#msg5621)
Here is a photo from a contemporary newspaper a (http://www.montevideomaru.info/Montevideo/images/1937/Plane_L_G.jpg)ccount showing that a plane from Lae had landed in Rabaul with the Administrator to inspect the damage. (http://www.montevideomaru.info/Montevideo/images/1937/McNicoll_L_g.jpg)
Here is a contemporary picture showing the eruption (http://www.montevideomaru.info/Montevideo/images/1937/News_L_G.jpg)from Kokopo, the site of the second Rabaul airport and far enough away to not be affected by the volcano. The caption says that these photos were flown from Rabaul so it is obvious that flight operations continued during the eruption. The third airport, Tokua, was even further away, it had a paved runway and had been built in 1928.
gl
-
What saddens me about searches of this kind is that instead of pooling resources each group operates in competition with each other.
TIGHAR helped develop a search for a gravesite on Tinian (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Tinian/tigharstinian.htm).
If you are offering funds from another organization to help TIGHAR with its work this year, I'm sure that the board will accept it gratefully as a precedent for "pooling resources."
If you have a particular expedition in mind, you may apply to TIGHAR's board for support. The name of the group is "The International Group for Historic Aircraft Recovery." The Earhart Project is only one of TIGHAR's investigations. If you have a well-defined project, you may be able to persuade TIGHAR to help you.
TIGHAR has pooled resources with others in the Devastator project (http://tighar.org/wiki/To_Save_a_Devastator) and the Maid of Harlech (http://tighar.org/wiki/Maid_of_Harlech).
Vol. 3 #2, 8/15/87 (http://tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/1987Vol_3/0302.pdf) of TIGHAR Tracks discusses TIGHAR's efforts to recover a B-17E from Papua New Guinea.
I don't understand the connections, but TIGHAR has also worked very closely with Aviation Archeological Investigation and Research (http://www.aviationarchaeology.com/) on various and sundry projects.
-
TIGHAR helped develop a search for a gravesite on Tinian (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Tinian/tigharstinian.htm) etc.....
If you are offering funds from another organization to help TIGHAR with its work this year, I'm sure that the board will accept it gratefully as a precedent for "pooling resources."
No not offering funds and way past the age to be clambering around in jungles. Thanks for the reply - I was just making a general observation about the proprietary nature of these endeavours. In any case the C/N tag is a strange coincidence is it not.
-
I need a little help here, the way I understand it, you have to know where you are before you can get anywhere isn't that correct? I mean, in order to get to Point B, I have to be at Point A and know where that's at correct? So if I don't know where Point A is, how do I find Point B?
Heres my thought, here they are, they have flown along a reasonably steady course for the correct amount of time at the reasonably correct airspeed. Point A becomes the 337/157 LOP. Only they don't know WHERE along that line they are. Now they cant find Howland along that line and they make the decision to go back to New Britain. If they don't know WHERE Point A is, how do you find Point B?
Brad
You've got it, you can't and that is also the problem with the Gardner island theory.
gl
-
The most interesting thing I find in the evidence quoted on the New Britain crash web site is the reference to the C/N tag found attached to the engine bearer of the wreck by the members of the Australian army patrol in 1945. Also interesting is that according to their lieutenant the USAAF said at the time that the aircraft was not a US military wreck. Now is the C/N tag a coincidence, is the wreck Japanese, a pre-war US civil aircraft or did the patrol make up the whole thing and quite by accident come up with that C/N tag number.
It seems to me that before we can link a tag saying "C/N" to Earhart's plane someone must come up with evidence that it was the custom and practice at Lockheed in 1937 to use the term "constructor's number" or "C/N." I have never heard that expression before and I have kicked a lot of aluminum around. To me it sound like a British expression, not American, we use "serial number," "S/N." After they show that this terminology was in use at Lockheed then they also must show that it was the custom and practice to leave such tags on the engine or engine mounts of the planes they constructed or repaired.
gl
-
It seems to me that before we can link a tag saying "C/N" to Earhart's plane someone must come up with evidence that it was the custom and practice at Lockheed in 1937 to use the term "constructor's number" or "C/N." I have never heard that expression before and I have kicked a lot of aluminum around. To me it sound like a British expression, not American, we use "serial number," "S/N." After they show that this terminology was in use at Lockheed then they also must show that it was the custom and practice to leave such tags on the engine or engine mounts of the planes they constructed or repaired.
gl
Good point Gary - like many of the various hypotheses there is always room for questions. But equally and as you say we don't know what Lockheed practice was at the time and it is a remarkable coincidence - unless it is a later hoax using an original map. That query can raise hackles but it needs to be addressed. And, and as with all of these, it is up to the proposers of the hypotheses to answer those questions. That is a good point you make about the starting position for the 157/377 line. If you don't know where you are how can you navigate to a known point. I have always found that radio message "we are on the line of position 157/337, we will repeat this message on 6210 kHz, wait …" hauntingly poignant.
-
Now I am confused (happens all the time).. Doesn't the LOP of 157/337 become Point A? North and South it's an invisible highway, East and West it just marks a starting point doesn't it? I don't know how to ask what I'm thinking, so bear with me. If they knew they were on the line 157/337 and they are flying north and south and they suddenly turn West to back track, WHERE along that line would they have to turn to the West in order to reach New Britain? If they identified a landmark and fixed position, then they could have concievably reached Howland just as easily couldn't they?
Brad
-
EXCEPT that flying was NOT shut down into the airports around Rabaul because of the volcanic eruption
That's all I needed to know Gary, thanks. So how much extra time aloft around Howland would they have gained by using one of the three operational airports at Raboul instead of Lae as their starting point, a couple of hours?
-
... I was just making a general observation about the proprietary nature of these endeavours.
And I offered specific facts which showed that TIGHAR does pool resources with other organizations, under the right circumstances.
TIGHAR does have a responsibility to decide what is a proper investment of its resources. It must also take good care of the property that is entrusted to it. These are duties imposed on it as a 501 c (3) corporation operating under the laws of the nation. Squandering its wealth so that it cannot meet its goals would be highly improper.
-
Squandering its wealth so that it cannot meet its goals would be highly improper.
And that is a most commendable attitude :)
-
The C/N tag is a strong point in that hypothesis. An aircraft while under construction would be allotted a number by the factory to distinguish it because its issued registration number was not a permanent number. If the aircraft was sold overseas it would receive a civil registration for that country rather than keep its US number, or it could have its CoA withdrawn for a period and later be restored to airworthiness with a new registration number.
But as aircraft in that period were largely handmade despite series production runs there would be slight dimensional changes or special features that could be unique to that aircraft. So if a large complex component was being repaired and had to be taken from the aircraft for that purpose and you had a hangar or repair facility with a couple of them in it, or it went back to the factory for the work then you would need to distinguish that component from others that were similar but not made to fit the aircraft with the problem. Now I am aware that that is explained on the East Britain hypothesis site, however anyone familiar with complex machinery which has a deal of hand fitting in it will be already familiar with that, I certainly was well before I read the New Britain argument. In fact it was that familiarity that made me think more about the idea.
So that is why I find that C/N tag on the engine bearer very interesting because it indicates a need to identify that component to a particular unique airframe. Why? perhaps because it had been removed for repair at some stage, and we know that the Electra was damaged in that ground loop. Now I know enough about aircraft to be aware that engines are not considered part of the airframe, they are designed to be replaceable or interchangeable - they would not have a C/N instead they would probably have a data plate with a model and serial number somewhere on the crankcase or the reduction gear housing in plain view which was allotted by the company that made the engine. Now is the C/N tag number a coincidence and somewhere on a hill in New Britain is another pre-war non-military radial engined wreck or is it the Earhart Electra?
After a great deal of consideration of it I think that the East Britain hypothesis certainly has some validity, and contrary to my inherent scepticism expressed in the Nikumaroro discussions about some of the claims for the material evidence, I admit that had felt that despite those weak points the Nikumaroro hypothesis was the best of the bunch. But after careful thought about the New Britain hypothesis I am now not so certain. If on this next trip TIGHAR turn up clear undeniable evidence of the Electra at Nikumaroro then excellent, but it will leave a tantalising question about what aircraft is on that hill in New Britain. If they don't then we still have the mystery.
-
A quick search using key words "constructor number" returned many examples of use of the term. The first part of the number is the model (10), the second part is the sequential example (55th model 10, or "C/N 1055" for Amelia's aircraft). For example, Linda Finch's Lockheed 10A was rebuilt to resemble Amelia's 10E special, but the C/N (1015) did not change.
I did not find a link that mentioned where the Constructor Number might be found on an aircraft, but I didn't read every article.
Interesting. I'd not heard the term before.
-
Apparently not on the engines as these were and, still are interchangable...
Michael Claringbould of Aerothentic Publications and author of Leave Amelia Alone:
"If the data plate DID exist with the data: '600 H/P S3H1 C/N1055' then that is the serial number of the engine NOT the aircraft. NO engine carried an aircraft's serial as they were often interchanged."
The engine discovered by the aussie patrol used to belong to B17, blown up, mid air due to enemy fire...
http://pacificwrecks.com/aircraft/b-17/41-2429.html (http://pacificwrecks.com/aircraft/b-17/41-2429.html)
USAAF did not identify it as 'military' at the time as they had no idea where missing plane was/went down
41-2429 (7th BG, 88th RS) arrived over Pearl Harbor on Dec 7, 1941.
Used to evacuate MacArthur's staff from Del Monte, Philippines Mar 25, 1942
Shot down Rabaul, New Britain Aug 7, 1942...
Brian Bennett adds:
"Our CILHI camp back in 1986. I remember that the wreckage was well scattered and was consistent with the aircraft having blown up in the air. From the lat/long position if you run a radius of about 500 metres then this will safely enclose the wreckage scatter of the B-17. This includes the area of interest of David Billings and his "Earhart Project". I was of the opinion years ago and still am that it is highly unlikely that the engine that David speaks of that is from Model 10 Electra that Amelia Earhart was flying - is in fact one of the engines from B-17E 41-2429. We were on site for two weeks and did not find all the wreckage let alone all the engines. The river is the Powell River or Henry Reid River."
-
Apparently not on the engines as these were and, still are interchangable...
Michael Claringbould of Aerothentic Publications and author of Leave Amelia Alone:
"If the data plate DID exist with the data: '600 H/P S3H1 C/N1055' then that is the serial number of the engine NOT the aircraft. NO engine carried an aircraft's serial as they were often interchanged."
The engine discovered by the aussie patrol used to belong to B17, blown up, mid air due to enemy fire...
http://pacificwrecks.com/aircraft/b-17/41-2429.html (http://pacificwrecks.com/aircraft/b-17/41-2429.html)
USAAF did not identify it as 'military' at the time as they had no idea where missing plane was/went down
41-2429 (7th BG, 88th RS) arrived over Pearl Harbor on Dec 7, 1941.
Used to evacuate MacArthur's staff from Del Monte, Philippines Mar 25, 1942
Shot down Rabaul, New Britain Aug 7, 1942...
Brian Bennett adds:
"Our CILHI camp back in 1986. I remember that the wreckage was well scattered and was consistent with the aircraft having blown up in the air. From the lat/long position if you run a radius of about 500 metres then this will safely enclose the wreckage scatter of the B-17. This includes the area of interest of David Billings and his "Earhart Project". I was of the opinion years ago and still am that it is highly unlikely that the engine that David speaks of that is from Model 10 Electra that Amelia Earhart was flying - is in fact one of the engines from B-17E 41-2429. We were on site for two weeks and did not find all the wreckage let alone all the engines. The river is the Powell River or Henry Reid River."
:)
-
Apparently not on the engines as these were and, still are interchangable...
Michael Claringbould of Aerothentic Publications and author of Leave Amelia Alone:
"If the data plate DID exist with the data: '600 H/P S3H1 C/N1055' then that is the serial number of the engine NOT the aircraft. NO engine carried an aircraft's serial as they were often interchanged."
The engine discovered by the aussie patrol used to belong to B17, blown up, mid air due to enemy fire...
http://pacificwrecks.com/aircraft/b-17/41-2429.html (http://pacificwrecks.com/aircraft/b-17/41-2429.html)
USAAF did not identify it as 'military' at the time as they had no idea where missing plane was/went down
41-2429 (7th BG, 88th RS) arrived over Pearl Harbor on Dec 7, 1941.
Used to evacuate MacArthur's staff from Del Monte, Philippines Mar 25, 1942
Shot down Rabaul, New Britain Aug 7, 1942...
Brian Bennett adds:
"Our CILHI camp back in 1986. I remember that the wreckage was well scattered and was consistent with the aircraft having blown up in the air. From the lat/long position if you run a radius of about 500 metres then this will safely enclose the wreckage scatter of the B-17. This includes the area of interest of David Billings and his "Earhart Project". I was of the opinion years ago and still am that it is highly unlikely that the engine that David speaks of that is from Model 10 Electra that Amelia Earhart was flying - is in fact one of the engines from B-17E 41-2429. We were on site for two weeks and did not find all the wreckage let alone all the engines. The river is the Powell River or Henry Reid River."
Thank you Jeff - one thing (forgive me if I have misread that comment) but B17s were not powered by 600HP P&W engines, they were powered by the Wright R1820 Cyclone engine which by the time they were in operational use was developing 1200 HP.
-
Nearly correct malcolm. The early B17s were indeed powered by pratt and Whitney engines. These were discovered to be hopelessly underpowered and later models were fitted with the early versions of the Wright cyclone engines which gradually developed into impressive power plants (600hp - 1800hp) of the later E's up to G's
B-17E "Why Don't We Do This More Often" Serial Number 41-2432 was an early version Model-E. This particular plane had a chequered and short career in the Pacific theatre. Infact she was declared 'unservicable' but, that didn't stop them using it on the day it went down.
I'll post some more info on Serial Number 41-2432 when I get time, it was a very interesting career and, I'll see if I can find which version/versions of the Wright Cyclone they cobbled together to keep it flying. It is officially recorded as having 'weak engines' which points to the early Wright cyclones amongst the list of faults making it unservicable.
-
Nearly correct malcolm. The early B17s were indeed powered by pratt and Whitney engines.
Only the prototype, the Model 299. After it crashed on 30 October 1935 Boeing were asked to re-engine the YB17 with the Cyclone. We both know that if a B17 crashed in New Britain during WW2 it was not the Model 299 which had crashed and burned way back in 1935. So the C/N reference on that metal tag still remains likely to apply to an aircraft fitted with a P&W engine of a type that was fitted to the Electra which disappeared in 1937.
-
Malcolm, so you think possibly this New Britain wreckage may be the Electra? Good Theory. Ok AE flew on course to '200miles out' of Howland, and turned banck and flew 1700+- miles to New Britain? Okk. Maybe she turned back before '200 miles out'. She was spotted overflying the Gilberts, outbound to Howland, so we know she made it that far. So, if she missed Howland, why go all the way back to New Britain, instead of the Gilberts? And what about the post-loss radio signals from the Phoenix group? Not from the Gilberts area, or New Britain, but the Phoenix group.
I guess I can better talk about your theory after seeing the evidence in DC. I'm assuming there are no pics of the New Britain wreckage that is identifible. As a highly modified Electra 10E, I assure you there was not another equipped like her in the world. Lets find the new Britain wreckage and look in the fuselege for the extra fuel tank plumbing. Thats a start.
Tom
-
Some photos showing the rivets around the engine cowling may be seen at http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/54_HistoryDetectives/%20%2054_HDreport.html
which also discusses an artifact reputed to be a souvenir of the Luke field crash.
I'd like to know what efforts have been made to track down the tag, or even supporting documentation of the tag.
-
Malcolm, so you think possibly this New Britain wreckage may be the Electra? Good Theory. Ok AE flew on course to '200miles out' of Howland, and turned banck and flew 1700+- miles to New Britain? Okk. Maybe she turned back before '200 miles out'. She was spotted overflying the Gilberts, outbound to Howland, so we know she made it that far. So, if she missed Howland, why go all the way back to New Britain, instead of the Gilberts? And what about the post-loss radio signals from the Phoenix group? Not from the Gilberts area, or New Britain, but the Phoenix group.
I guess I can better talk about your theory after seeing the evidence in DC. I'm assuming there are no pics of the New Britain wreckage that is identifible. As a highly modified Electra 10E, I assure you there was not another equipped like her in the world. Lets find the new Britain wreckage and look in the fuselege for the extra fuel tank plumbing. Thats a start.
Tom
Hello Tom
Well actually the East New Britain hypothesis is not mine, but I think it does deserve to be taken seriously as I do the Nikumaroro hypothesis. It would be very useful if there were pics available of the purported wreck but like the possible wreck at Nikumaroro the wreckage has yet to be found let alone photographed. I also think that both the Gilbert hypothesis (based on the Vidal testimony) and the ditched somewhere near Howland Island hypothesis are equally attractive (given the last confirmed data). As I see it none of the four can at the moment be ruled out - that will only occur if and when someone comes up with some identifiable wreckage or remains that tie them to the Electra and Earhart or Noonan. So all we can do at the moment unless something conclusive comes up is discuss the available evidence or lack thereof.
-
Malcolm, so you think possibly this New Britain wreckage may be the Electra? Good Theory. Ok AE flew on course to '200miles out' of Howland, and turned banck and flew 1700+- miles to New Britain? Okk. Maybe she turned back before '200 miles out'. She was spotted overflying the Gilberts, outbound to Howland, so we know she made it that far. So, if she missed Howland, why go all the way back to New Britain, instead of the Gilberts? And what about the post-loss radio signals from the Phoenix group? Not from the Gilberts area, or New Britain, but the Phoenix group.
I guess I can better talk about your theory after seeing the evidence in DC. I'm assuming there are no pics of the New Britain wreckage that is identifible. As a highly modified Electra 10E, I assure you there was not another equipped like her in the world. Lets find the new Britain wreckage and look in the fuselege for the extra fuel tank plumbing. Thats a start.
Tom
Hello Tom
Well actually the East New Britain hypothesis is not mine, but I think it does deserve to be taken seriously as I do the Nikumaroro hypothesis. It would be very useful if there were pics available of the purported wreck but like the possible wreck at Nikumaroro the wreckage has yet to be found let alone photographed. I also think that both the Gilbert hypothesis (based on the Vidal testimony) and the ditched somewhere near Howland Island hypothesis are equally attractive (given the last confirmed data). As I see it none of the four can at the moment be ruled out - that will only occur if and when someone comes up with some identifiable wreckage or remains that tie them to the Electra and Earhart or Noonan. So all we can do at the moment unless something conclusive comes up is discuss the available evidence or lack thereof.
I agree, but I think, also the Marshall Islands (Mili) Theory (Captured by the Japanese) cannot be ruled out. OK, all the spy-theories should be nonsense, but Amelia and Fred could have been completely "lost" and made it to the Marshalls instead of the Gilberts - without being aware of that.
-
Oskar---that is true. I occured to me that ALL possibilites cannot be discounted until we find some positive evidence of the Electra-somewhere. Whether at Nikumaroro, the Gilberts, New Britian, Mili, on the bottom off Howland, or someplace we havent considered, this is still and investigation. So far, IMHO, this is the more promising of the bunch. And----right now its the ONLY one moving forward.
We will all know something positive at the Symposium, and after the expedition gets to Niku. Not to bash anyone else's theories, but I'd personally like tosee the Electra parts found at Niku. Why? Theories make alittle more sense to me. Potential evidence, like the radio tranmissions, and aluminum add to it. The witness evidence of Emily Sukuli is ok, but it sure would have been nice to have her actually SEE nessie, or a wing with a number on it. But, again it narrows the search box.
On a personal comment note if I can: This exercise has been fastinating! I learned about AE and Freds adventure as a YOUNG man after Fred Goerners book and escapades were broadcast. For those of you unaware, that was in the mid 1960's. Fascinated by the 'unsolvable', I completely be accident stumbled on the TIGHAR website while looking for something else. I must say, Ric and CO, have given me a new perspective on things. Also, by and large, the forum members have been able to project comments, theories, rebuttals, unbelievable knowledge, and get along.
Its amazing to me that people from diverse backgrounds, in different countries, that can think for themselves, can become part of this project, and get along. Yeah, I think we all have had our disagreements from time to time. I know I have. But I think you all can agree that we have behaved pretty well. That, my friends, is a credit to each one of us--and I congratualate you. It is truely a pleasure to be a menber of TIGHAR.
Maybe the best part of all of this is that we are a part of history. Members of a group that may potentially solve one of the biggest mysteries of the 20th century. It has gottenr the attention of alot of people, including young people, like my grand kids. We are showing them how to get along, to theorize and investigate, and even conduct some diplomacy. One big lesson learned here is that NOTHING is out of reach, if you stay with it. Even my 85 year old mother asks how things are going. Imagine for a minute being able to sit down with a group of youngsters, and tell them the story, of 2 adventurers that became lost, and how a group of people from different backgrounds, formed a team, searched, and found the necessary evidence to solve the mystery. And YOU were a part of that. To be able to tell them that you know Ric and other members personally, and that you made a contribution is something to take pride in.
I'm proud of every one on this forum.
Tom
-
Oskar---that is true. I occured to me that ALL possibilites cannot be discounted until we find some positive evidence of the Electra-somewhere. Whether at Nikumaroro, the Gilberts, New Britian, Mili, on the bottom off Howland, or someplace we havent considered, this is still and investigation. So far, IMHO, this is the more promising of the bunch. And----right now its the ONLY one moving forward.
Tom
Once again I agree with you Tom - I read Goerner's book when it was first published in fact I still have sitting on the shelf. I never quite agreed with his hypothesis but it certainly was plausible given the evidence he quoted.
-
I found it interesting that no one has posted anything about New Britain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_britain)so I thought I would correct that oversight. As far as some military patrol finding a wrecked aircraft on the island... New Britain was the target of a protracted campaign (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Britain_Campaign)that spanned vitually the entire war in the Pacific. HUNDREDS of aircraft were destroyed all over the place. And the whole thing boils down to what somebody said they remembered? With no evidence; No government documents? No scraps of Alclad? No pieces of plexi-glass? No Pictures of the aircraft in question? No hard materials at all? (insert snide laugh here) Ugly rivets? (another laugh) Yellow paint? Green paint? (insert long laugh here)
I'll take the same stand everyone else here have taken. Hearsay evidence is not evidence. Even memories like these (http://tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/1999Vol_15/carpenters.pdf) have to be taken with a grain of salt. However, taken in context with all the other "hold in your hand" items recovered as well as documented radio intercepts etc. etc.... No thanks! I'll spend my money here. At the very least TIGHAR has found something, if it turns out to be airframe 1055, Great! thats what we're here for! If not, then they have found another mystery that needs to be solved... who WAS the castaway?
Brad
-
One thing I would want to know before pitching into a long march to go find that cowling (and associated stuff) would be 'how many of those birds (Lockheed Electras) were in that area and could have left identical parts there?'
I'm not sure about "identical parts," but Guinea Airways had an Electra in Lae: "For Earhart and Noonan, Wednesday, June 30, was a day of recuperation and preparation. Fred Noonan helped the Guinea Airways maintenance staff service the Electra and address a number of minor problems. The mechanics were familiar with the aircraft type because the airline operated a Lockheed Electra of its own" (Finding Amelia (http://tighar.org/wiki/Finding_Amelia), p.71).
Art Rypinski reported to EPACT that (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,312.msg2976.html#msg2976) during the war, "the RAAF repeatedly bombed Gasmata using Lockheed Hudsons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Hudson) (Lockheed Model 14 Super Electras) flying out of Port Moresby."
I am not aware that anyone has done an exhaustive study of all aircraft reported missing withing flying distance of New Britain.
-
One thing I would want to know before pitching into a long march to go find that cowling (and associated stuff) would be 'how many of those birds (Lockheed Electras) were in that area and could have left identical parts there?'
I'm not sure about "identical parts," but Guinea Airways had an Electra in Lae: "For Earhart and Noonan, Wednesday, June 30, was a day of recuperation and preparation. Fred Noonan helped the Guinea Airways maintenance staff service the Electra and address a number of minor problems. The mechanics were familiar with the aircraft type because the airline operated a Lockheed Electra of its own" (Finding Amelia (http://tighar.org/wiki/Finding_Amelia), p.71).
Art Rypinski reported to EPACT that (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,312.msg2976.html#msg2976) during the war, "the RAAF repeatedly bombed Gasmata using Lockheed Hudsons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Hudson) (Lockheed Model 14 Super Electras) flying out of Port Moresby."
I am not aware that anyone has done an exhaustive study of all aircraft reported missing withing flying distance of New Britain.
Interesting but in regard to the Lockheed Hudson these, despite their development from the Model 14 Super Electra, have very little to nothing in common with the Earhart Model 10 Electra. The engines were either (depending on model) Wright Cyclones, a large 9 cylinder radial or the Pratt & Whitney Twin Row Wasp. Earhart' s Electra had a single row Wasp. I grant you that their basic construction is similar which may confuse someone who was unfamiliar with the technical differences. The telling point in the discussion still remains that enigmatic metal tag with the C/N1055 attached to the structural members of the engine mounts (not to the engine). For what it is worth the proponent of the East New Britain hypothesis claims research to show that no Lockheed 10s were missing in this area.
-
As a comparison, the New Britain wreckage has yet to be found, and that was on land. I assume they know which area to search as the Assie patrol knew where they were patrolling.
Now Imagine how difficult it is for under the sea theories like Tighar and the Waitt institute to find aircraft wreckage. IMHO
-
"...Now Imagine how difficult it is for under the sea theories like Tighar and the Waitt institute to find aircraft wreckage..."
Especially if the wreckage is sitting on New Britain ;)
(sorry, couldn't resist)
-
Especially if the wreckage is sitting on New Britain
Should be easier to find John. :D
Don't need $500,000 of kit plus, your nuts won't get crushed from the pressure of 300 or 6000 metres of water.
Which then begs the question, why haven't they...
-
For what it is worth the proponent of the East New Britain hypothesis claims research to show that no Lockheed 10s were missing in this area.
Has he shared that research?
As far as I am aware the main detail is on his site, on other forums he has discussed a little of it but that's about all I can see.
-
J.Nevill
Malcolm
has said in other post's that the new Britain hypothesis deserves some credibility, which is based on some army guys recollections of 60 years ago
yet he as also said that Betty's notebook has no credibility
whats that about ?
-
J.Nevill
Malcolm
has said in other post's that the new Britain hypothesis deserves some credibility, which is based on some army guys recollections of 60 years ago
yet he as also said that Betty's notebook has no credibility
whats that about ?
I think I have said that the East New Britain hypothesis has as much credibility as the other contenders - certainly the purported metal tag with the Electra construction number on it is worthy of further investigation.
As for Betty's notebook - you must ask yourself how credible is it if the people who propose that it is a valid document have to resort to an argument based on supposition as to what Betty actually heard rather than what she recorded she heard to make it work. If a person comes across that sort of argument then their first task is to examine the primary data, not to simply accept the secondary interpretation. Now if you find fault with that approach then I suggest you tell us why.
-
Please note that the last three replies have been removed from another thread and dragged over here, closer to where they belong.
If anyone has a photograph of the interesting metal tag discussed above, this is the thread in which to share it.
-
J.Nevill
sorry to involve you :)
my point was is that Betty didn't say Amelia was on Gardner etc... she just jotted down what she heard, yet Malcolm said the note's she doted down were not usable evidence
yet he said, East New Britain hypothesis has as much credibility as the other contenders..... an that's based on some fella saying he found a tag which had similar numbers to Earhart's Electra,
in which previous searches have failed to find
so my point is how can u ?
A) Discredit Betty's notebook as insufficient on Tighar Website...
and then
B) Saying east new Britain has just as much credibility based on one persons Evidence
Do you see were am going with this :)
-
on one persons Evidence
Do you see were am going with this :)
Frankly no - I think you have misunderstood what I posted. Let's leave it at that - it is as simply put as I can.
-
Wasn't it you, however, that saw an expedition to the jungles of East New Britain as warranted by the report of a tag with a tantalizing number on it? From one of your replies in the 'New Britain Hypothesis' -
The C/N number is that of the aircraft not the engine - that is why it is attached to the engine mount which is a part of the airframe not the engine. It also was the airframe part that suffered damage in the ground loop. That is why it is so interesting, that C/N matches that of Lockheed's for Earhart's Electra. A coincidence? possibly, but something that is a worthy of a properly financed expedition to find.
What's fine for you to undertake may look like a flying leap of faith to me.
Looks that way to me, too.
How many archaeological artifacts do the New Britain folks have to offer? None.
How many photographs of the crash site? None.
How many other witnesses confirming the anecdote about the "constructor number"? None.
How many examples of constructor numbers appearing on tags in other airframes? None.
How much evidence offered that the Electra could close within 100 miles of Howland, then fly back to New Britain? None.
How much archaeology ("digging and dating") has been done at the New Britain crash site? None.
How many pieces of circumstantial evidence tend to point in the direction of New Britain as the crash site? None.
Malcolm's conviction that the anecdote deserves the expenditure of time and money seems to be amazing fact- (and artifact-) free speculation. But, of course, his assertion that the New Britain project deserves TIGHAR support is, in his view, merely a question, not a declaration of belief. The following is to be read in the interrogative mood, not the declarative: "something that is a worthy of a properly financed expedition to find."
-
Malcolm's conviction that the anecdote deserves the expenditure of time and money seems to be amazing fact- (and artifact-) free speculation. But, of course, his assertion that the New Britain project deserves TIGHAR support is, in his view, merely a question, not a declaration of belief. The following is to be read in the interrogative mood, not the declarative: "something that is a worthy of a properly financed expedition to find."
Martin is conveniently ignoring that much of the Nikumaroro hypothesis is both anecdotal (islander claims of aircraft wreckage and male and female skeletons) and artifacts yet to be conclusively linked to Earhart. He is also ignoring that the East New Britain wreck site is, like the wreck of the Electra on Nikumaroro, also yet to be found. So at present and until there is proof either way each hypothesis is equally valid. That is just my humble scientific take on it.
-
So at present and until there is proof either way each hypothesis is equally valid. That is just my humble scientific take on it.
You are advocating spending time and money. It is a fact-free advocacy. There isn't an ounce of science in the anecdote about the C/N numbers. It's human testimony. Your "take" is a purely human opinion, even though you dress it up in a white coat and call it "science."
I judge that the New Britain hypothesis is not worth pursuing. NR16020 didn't have the fuel reserve to get within 100 miles of Howland, then return to New Britain. If you map a course within the limits of the aircraft's capacity, you can't generate the steadily strengthening radio signals at the time that they were heard on the Itasca.
The two sciences involved in this analysis are aerodynamics and the physics of radio transmissions. They provide very precious data--that stuff that contributes to objectivity, you know--that exclude the New Britain wreck from consideration.
-
So at present and until there is proof either way each hypothesis is equally valid. That is just my humble scientific take on it.
You are advocating spending time and money. It is a fact-free advocacy. There isn't an ounce of science in the anecdote about the C/N numbers. It's human testimony. Your "take" is a purely human opinion, even though you dress it up in a white coat and call it "science."
Martin, no amount of prevarication on your part affects the accuracy of my statement "So at present and until there is proof either way each hypothesis is equally valid." That is something you simply have to get used to. I said once before that to question something is not necessarily to oppose it - instead it is simply a means to seek clarification. That is all any of us can do.
-
I agree with Martin. One hypothesis is plausible the other impossible. By definition that makes that makes them equal only in the sense that they share the English word hypothesis.
-
Martin, no amount of prevarication on your part affects the accuracy of my statement "So at present and until there is proof either way each hypothesis is equally valid."
It is your personal judgment--belief, if you will--that there is no proof against the New Britain hypothesis.
It is my personal judgment--belief, if you will--that the aerodynamics of NR16020 and the physics of radio transmissions logged by the Itasca prove that the New Britain hypothesis is not valid.
I believe I have data on my side.
I haven't seen you introduce any data on your side of the question, other than to express your conviction (belief) that the claim of finding a tag on the engine mount of the New Britain wreck is believable. If you would be so kind as to produce a similar tag from any Lockheed aircraft, it would go a long way to establish the plausibility of the anecdote; in the absence of that kind of data, I do not find the claim persuasive.
That is something you simply have to get used to.
Why?
May I not challenge authority?
May I not question assertions?
Your field is digging and dating, but I don't see any archaeology involved in this anecdote about the numbered tag.
I said once before that to question something is not necessarily to oppose it - instead it is simply a means to seek clarification.
I did ask seven questions (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,648.msg13697.html#msg13697). What I got back from you was the reply, "So's your old man": (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,648.msg13721.html#msg13721) "Martin is conveniently ignoring that much of the Nikumaroro hypothesis is both anecdotal (islander claims of aircraft wreckage and male and female skeletons) and artifacts yet to be conclusively linked to Earhart." The status of the evidence for the Niku hypothesis does not answer any of the questions about the New Britain hypothesis.
You seem to be having some trouble distinguishing between questions, assertions, and data. Let's take this sample from an earlier post of yours in this thread (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,648.msg12370.html#msg12370):
"The C/N number is that of the aircraft not the engine - that is why it is attached to the engine mount which is a part of the airframe not the engine. It also was the airframe part that suffered damage in the ground loop. That is why it is so interesting, that C/N matches that of Lockheed's for Earhart's Electra. A coincidence? possibly, but something that is a worthy of a properly financed expedition to find."
1. "The C/N number is that of the aircraft not the engine ..."
Assertion, not a question.
Data: definition of terms. "Constructor numbers" are assigned to airframes, not to components of same.
2. "That is why it is attached to the engine mount which is a part of the airframe not the engine."
Speculative assertion, not a question. This is the claim that is in doubt and which stands in need of evidence.
Data: anecdote from an interested party. This claim is not an object of science or archaeology. It can't be examined by laboratory techniques or dated by stratigraphy or nuclear decay. It cannot be falsified or verified by scientific methods. It may not be false, but whatever value it has must be determined by non-scientific methods.
3. "It also was the airframe part that suffered damage in the ground loop."
Assertion, not a question.
Data: none provided. I'll grant that the wreck photo (http://tighar.org/wiki/Luke_Field) suggests damage to an engine mount on the right-hand side.
4. "That is why it is so interesting, that C/N matches that of Lockheed's for Earhart's Electra."
Two assertions, neither one of which is a question.
The first, that the match is "interesting," depends upon the second: "That C/N matches that of Lockheed's for Earhart's Electra."
Data: anecdote accepted on faith that the witness 1) saw such a tag; 2) correctly copied the number; 3) reported accurately what he saw.
I'm a believer in many things. I believe that faith in reason and faith in the intelligibility of the universe is warranted. But I don't believe that I am obliged by science to take the word of the witness. There seem to me to be ample grounds for reasonable doubt about the report.
I admit that these judgments are my own. I take responsibility for what I believe. I don't mind you believing differently from me. What I object to is the claim that science requires me to neglect aerodynamics and physics on the grounds that a human witness could not have been mistaken about a number on an engine mount in a wrecked aircraft. That assertion does not seem to be warranted by the data we have available in this case.
-
Thats why you go and search--to validate the hypothesis if possible. Not all searches end up hitting the jackpot the first time. Even though there are alot of great assets going on this trip, that doesnt mean that they will find what they are looking for.
-
The C/N number is that of the aircraft not the engine - that is why it is attached to the engine mount which is a part of the airframe not the engine.
This is pure assertion--a fact-free belief.
Until you provide evidence that this was Lockheed's custom, I'll take this as "not proven."
That is why it is so interesting, that C/N matches that of Lockheed's for Earhart's Electra.
The reliability of this match depends on the evidence that such a number was really seen and recorded on site in 1945. I'm waiting for you to show the reliability of that claim. Until then, it is a huge "not proved."
A coincidence? possibly, but something that is a worthy of a properly financed expedition to find.
That sentence represents a judgment. I do agree that since you believe in the anecdote, you should help fund a New Britain expedition. You can utterly falsify the Niku hypothesis by finding the Electra there. Go for it!
What saddens me about searches of this kind is that instead of pooling resources each group operates in competition with each other.
I think TIGHAR has excellent reasons for thinking that the New Britain hypothesis is absurd and that, therefore, money raised to research the Niku hypothesis would be wasted on a New Britain expedition. I'm delighted that my donations are not being shared with the New Britain folks.
-
Mr. McKay -
Talk, as they say, is cheap. In here, it's free. What are you, personally, willing to put your own money down on to go out and try to prove as far as what happened to Amelia and Fred?
Or does that become to much of a commitment, when it ceases to be just a cheap intellectual exercise? I'm just wondering.
LTM, who puts his money where his mouth is,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 CER
-
Mr. McKay -
Talk, as they say, is cheap. In here, it's free. What are you, personally, willing to put your own money down on to go out and try to prove as far as what happened to Amelia and Fred?
Or does that become to much of a commitment, when it ceases to be just a cheap intellectual exercise? I'm just wondering.
LTM, who puts his money where his mouth is,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 CER
Dear me - cheap intellectual exercise? Gosh, I am glad you have contributed money but are you certain of the yield of your investment?
-
This is pure assertion--a fact-free belief.
Until you provide evidence that this was Lockheed's custom, I'll take this as "not proven."
...etc.
Yes possibly, but one might ask with justification the same thing of your post.
-
Until you provide evidence that this was Lockheed's custom, I'll take this as "not proven."
...etc.
Yes possibly, but one might ask with justification the same thing of your post.
My post is merely an observation that you have provided no objective evidence for the assertion you made.
And, just as you ask TIGHAR questions, I question you.
Rather than replying, "So's your old man," it would be helpful if you actually provided some evidence for your assertions. So far as I can tell from your replies so far, your research has yet to go beyond examining some ideas that you have found in your head about C/N numbers being attached to parts used in repair. I'm a believer, but I don't believe everything everybody says. And even though I am filled with awe every time you humbly remind us that you hold a Ph.D. in archaeology, it strikes me that you show no signs of having done any archaeological research on this particular case--not in the field, not in the history of aircraft repair, not in the Australian army archives. So far as I can discern from what you've posted, you take the C/N anecdote on faith alone.
-
And even though I am filled with awe every time you humbly remind us that you hold a Ph.D. in archaeology, it strikes me that you show no signs of having done any archaeological research on this particular case--not in the field, not in the history of aircraft repair, not in the Australian army archives. So far as I can discern from what you've posted, you take the C/N anecdote on faith alone.
I am humbled that you are filled with awe Marty, however as to what that awe is based on I have no idea - and I speak with some knowledge of my meager skills. If you do a check you might find that I have actually never claimed to have done any research whatsoever beyond comparing the claims as posted on the internet of those promoting the New Britain hypothesis and those like yourself promoting the Nikumaroro hypothesis. Although I do admit to some prior knowledge on the use of construction numbers or their like in manufacturing - their origins are an interesting historical study.
Now as these sites make claims for the ascendancy of their claims over those of others, and that much of that is based in archaeological considerations I as a now retired and elderly archaeologist like to see just what the levels of proof required by the opposing factions are and what they offer to meet those requirements. So far I am not impressed, lots of faith and tenuous links on both sides.
Now as to faith, I have no faith in either hypothesis, only an understanding of their weaknesses. You on the other hand have on numerous occasions professed your belief in the Nikumaroro hypothesis and thereby I would argue that therein is where your faith lies. Nice thing faith, explains all sorts of tricky metaphysical puzzles that mere mortals like myself see answered only when the hard data is in. And unless I am very much mistaken the simple fact that TIGHAR is going back again to Nikumaroro suggests to me that they have yet to find that hard data (they tried with the revised analysis of the skeleton and with the shoe sole but the world in general was less than convinced), so why don't you and I wait and see what is revealed on this trip. These metaphysical arm wrestling exercises are rather pointless and on principle I never indulge in them (something that irritated a professor I had as an undergrad who was a Jesuit - poor chap always retreated to faith when pressed). Far more logical to admit that one doesn't know than to gamble all one's intellectual reputation on a leap of faith. And I admit I don't know - instead just simply asking the questions. But if TIGHAR does turn up the wreck or solid data on this trip I will happily offer my congratulations because that is what the hypothesis needs to get it over the line - solid data.
-
...you might find that I have actually never claimed to have done any research whatsoever ...
Thanks for conceding that.
Now as these sites make claims for the ascendancy of their claims over those of others, and that much of that is based in archaeological considerations I as a now retired and elderly archaeologist like to see just what the levels of proof required by the opposing factions are and what they offer to meet those requirements. So far I am not impressed, lots of faith and tenuous links on both sides.
You've gone beyond that. You've said that money should be spent by TIGHAR to help test the New Britain hypothesis. Since you know your own thought so well, I don't have to dig out the posts in which you express sadness that Amelia researchers do not pool their resources to help solve the problem.
That is not detached observation from a neutral standpoint. That is advocacy.
Now as to faith, I have no faith in either hypothesis, only an understanding of their weaknesses.
In that case, there are no grounds for you to advocate spending money on one project rather than another. Your sorrow about TIGHAR not sharing the wealth with the New Britain people becomes utterly irrational--on your own definition of rationality.
You on the other hand have on numerous occasions professed your belief in the Nikumaroro hypothesis and thereby I would argue that therein is where your faith lies.
Oooooh. Do you mean that when I say I believe that the Niku hypothesis is the most likely to be true that I mean what I say?
Do you mean that when I say we need faith in unproven propositions in order to reason about anything that I am making an act of faith?
Do you mean to say that my expression of my beliefs is consistent with my epistemology?
Whoa. I'll have to think about this. I had no idea that my beliefs had been spelled out so clearly that people could actually detect what I think.
Nice thing faith, explains all sorts of tricky metaphysical puzzles that mere mortals like myself see answered only when the hard data is in.
Now you're indulging in equivocation, and that is not fair in rational discourse.
The act of faith that I have made in TIGHAR's hypothesis is not the same as the act of faith that I make in God. The same word is used, but it has two quite different meanings in the two different contexts. In the first context, it means "taking some things as true that have not been proven to be true." Faith in the power of the mind to make contact with reality and then to draw sound inferences from the observations is necessary to think about any reality in this universe.
In the second case, my faith in the existence, beauty, goodness, and truth of God is related to "tricky metaphysical puzzles."
And unless I am very much mistaken the simple fact that TIGHAR is going back again to Nikumaroro suggests to me that they have yet to find that hard data (they tried with the revised analysis of the skeleton and with the shoe sole but the world in general was less than convinced), so why don't you and I wait and see what is revealed on this trip.
I think we have agreed on this idea many times already. We don't disagree about the status of the Niku hypothesis. Where we disagree is on the scale of value to be used to judge the infinite universe of unproven hypotheses about AE.
These metaphysical arm wrestling exercises are rather pointless and on principle I never indulge in them ...
You just have. You have made a metaphysical judgment: "These metaphysical arm wrestling exercises are rather pointless." Either you have good reasons for that judgment or you don't.
(something that irritated a professor I had as an undergrad who was a Jesuit - poor chap always retreated to faith when pressed).
Now you're asking me to accept your testimony against this poor chap. Perhaps your account of your discussions is accurate; perhaps not.
Far more logical to admit that one doesn't know than to gamble all one's intellectual reputation on a leap of faith.
Do you have a proof for this proposition? Is it a theorem in logic? Have you published your proof of this theorem and let other logicians test the validity of your argument? Or are you merely making another unresearched, unproven, subjective leap of faith?
And I admit I don't know - instead just simply asking the questions.
The texts you posted here have assertions in them that go beyond questions. I question the value of those assertions.
-
These metaphysical arm wrestling exercises are rather pointless and on principle I never indulge in them.
Yet for months now you have spend a considerable amount of time on this website on a daily basis. Malcolm, old chap, you are a part of Tighar now, admit it. Face your demons and give in. You are now ready to join your audience. :D
Also, archaeologists never retire. Its not a job, its a way of life. Its never too late to become productive again. Seize the day me lad!
-
This entire dialogue between Marty and Malcolm which emerges in several threads has been a wonderful refresher course in the operation of logic, the principles of rational discourse, and the boundaries of scientific investigation. 8)
Thank you, Marty, for having the patience to allow yourself to be drawn out into this engagement and for providing such clear and useful responses. It's been a real education and so far, the greatest benefit of my TIGHAR membership. :)
-
Gosh, I am glad you have contributed money but are you certain of the yield of your investment?
Yes, Mr. McKay, as a matter of fact, I am. Certain enough that I tend to put a lot more weight on the opinions and actions of people who have actually gone out and done things and looked and gathered and sifted and looked some more, over the decades, than the armchair Monday-morning quarterback types who sit on their hands, contribute nothing, but are very very free with their opinions of where TIGHAR ought to go, where it ought to look, how it ought to do it, etc., etc.
LTM, who puts his money where his mouth it,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 CER
-
Oooooh. Do you mean that when I say I believe that the Niku hypothesis is the most likely to be true that I mean what I say?
Do you mean that when I say we need faith in unproven propositions in order to reason about anything that I am making an act of faith?
Do you mean to say that my expression of my beliefs is consistent with my epistemology?
Whoa. I'll have to think about this. I had no idea that my beliefs had been spelled out so clearly that people could actually detect what I think.
Nice thing faith, explains all sorts of tricky metaphysical puzzles that mere mortals like myself see answered only when the hard data is in.
Now you're indulging in equivocation, and that is not fair in rational discourse.
The act of faith that I have made in TIGHAR's hypothesis is not the same as the act of faith that I make in God. The same word is used, but it has two quite different meanings in the two different contexts. In the first context, it means "taking some things as true that have not been proven to be true." Faith in the power of the mind to make contact with reality and then to draw sound inferences from the observations is necessary to think about any reality in this universe.
In the second case, my faith in the existence, beauty, goodness, and truth of God is related to "tricky metaphysical puzzles."
Hmmm.... it all comes back to the rather circular assertion that if one has faith in one's belief then one must believe in one's faith. If you are content to apply that circular reasoning to the subject under discussion then you are hedging your bets. A wise practice in financial matters but one that allows little room for manoeuvre if by chance data comes to light that refutes the original hypothesis.
-
Yes, Mr. McKay, as a matter of fact, I am. Certain enough that I tend to put a lot more weight on the opinions and actions of people who have actually gone out and done things and looked and gathered and sifted and looked some more, over the decades, than the armchair Monday-morning quarterback types who sit on their hands, contribute nothing, but are very very free with their opinions of where TIGHAR ought to go, where it ought to look, how it ought to do it, etc., etc.
LTM, who puts his money where his mouth it,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 CER
Interesting take on the reason why people discuss evidence that is offered to support a hypothesis. In effect you are saying that I must pay a donation to disagree but if I agree than it will cost me nothing.
-
Hmmm.... it all comes back to the rather circular assertion that if one has faith in one's belief then one must believe in one's faith.
If you have a perfect proof that reason is reliable (complete and consistent), that our senses can give us empirical information, and that we can reason reliably from sense information, then please provide the publication in which you have made this argument. You will have satisfied the desire of Hilbert to show that there is nothing unknown in mathematics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert%27s_problems#Ignorabimus) and overcome Gödel's Theorem. Logicians, mathematicians, and philosophers of science will be greatly indebted to you for clearing up these little doubts about what we can and cannot prove.
If you have no such perfect proof, then you, like the rest of us, operate on faith in reason.
If you are content to apply that circular reasoning to the subject under discussion then you are hedging your bets.
Nope. Just being clear about is and is not proven and about what is and is not provable.
A wise practice in financial matters but one that allows little room for manoeuvre if by chance data comes to light that refutes the original hypothesis.
If you have the data that refutes Gödel, your name will live as long as our culture lives. If you don't have the data, then you're just another believer in the value of using our minds as best we can, even when we can't prove everything.
-
It's probably just another coincidence but, looking at 'the wreck' photograph, which turned out to be a photo of a Japanese plane and, the descriptions given by the surviving members of the Aussie patrol of the wreckage they saw there does seem to be quite a lot of similarities.
Not saying that 'the wreck' photo is what the Aussie patrol saw, it isn't. But the similarities are there...
The missing/concealed tail assembly
One engine attached, the other not
The thin 2 bladed prop
Have a look at 'wreck photo' and the description of the wreckage given by the Aussies
I can't post anything from this contraption I am using at the moment so will show the 'wreck photo'and description later.
-
"The Wreck" photo and discussion can be found here (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/10_Wreckphoto/10_Wreckphoto.html)
-
It's probably just another coincidence but, looking at 'the wreck' photograph, which turned out to be a photo of a Japanese plane and, the descriptions given by the surviving members of the Aussie patrol of the wreckage they saw there does seem to be quite a lot of similarities.
Not saying that 'the wreck' photo is what the Aussie patrol saw, it isn't. But the similarities are there...
The missing/concealed tail assembly
One engine attached, the other not
The thin 2 bladed prop
Have a look at 'wreck photo' and the description of the wreckage given by the Aussies
I can't post anything from this contraption I am using at the moment so will show the 'wreck photo'and description later.
"The Wreck" photo and discussion can be found here (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/10_Wreckphoto/10_Wreckphoto.html)
Research Bulletin #10 ("The Wreck" photo and discussion to which John Ousterhout links, above) was published by TIGHAR at the end of 1998. Be sure to read the final word about "the Wreck", in Research Bulletin #55 (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/55_WreckPhotoResolved/55_WreckPhotoResolved.htm) that came out in 2009. That makes it very unlikely that "the Wreck" is related to the New Britain Hypothesis.
-
Thanks Bruce. That helps.
-
Post removed pending editing by original author to trim quoted material (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,392.0.html). MXM, SJ
-
Monty doesn't strike me as saying that at all.
He rather calls your commentary for what it is - and has clearly illustrated the contrast between the smart risk taker who rationally comes to his own level of confidence and goes forth, and the risk-risk-tsk-tsk armchair observer who constantly questions the judgment of others - somehow viewing it as always inferior to his own.
And, as we've seen through a plethora of exchanges, you have no more qualification to place your quality of judgment above that of other worthy people - many of whom have shown themselves far more qualified in many respects, note:
- You view the possibility of NR16020 as having arrived at New Britain to be a real possibility worthy of a well-funded expedition to that place, as you've posted earlier.
- In making that recommendation you reveal an interest in the matter - but also that you are not well qualified, apparently, to make critical judgments about things like radio propagation, how NR16020 could have been heard near Howland, and how NR16020 could have made it all the way back down to East New Britain on a then-remaining 2 or 3 hours of fuel remaining.
- You also reveal a startling 'faith' in an anecdotal report, something you've criticized elsewhere, in the veracity and accuracy of the tale of the tag; that in itself is peculiar in that it also reveals that you have you own stubborn biases - something you enjoy identifying in others, in that with the tag we depend not only on the anecdotal report, but on the meaning of the reported 'number' born on it. Again, just as a partially water-filled Benedictine bottle found with a partial skeleton can have many sources and meanings, so can such a tag.
But in all this, you simply reveal that you too are a man of bias and less-than superior judgment in all matters. I think at some point it does fairly beg the question Monty put so well, in a manner of speaking: put your money where you mouth is.
That is not meant literally - you are not obligated to 'pay-up to speak-up' here. It has much more to do with your general lack of confidence in most things, other than a point or two here or there that happens to appeal to you.
So I don't think Monty said what you have suggested, not at all.
LTM -
Well are you glad you got that off your chest. Seems to me you should go back and read exactly what I have said rather than put your spin on it. True I find the New Britain hypothesis interesting and I do not deny it, but I feel that because it conflicts with the Nikumaroro hypothesis is the real cause for your attack on me.
"It has much more to do with your general lack of confidence in most things, other than a point or two here or there that happens to appeal to you.". Well you can't have it both ways you know. I freely admit to not being informed enough on the question of aircraft navigation to become involved in that discussion, so if I did you would then only criticize me for making errors that showed my lack of knowledge I suspect - pointless exercise as far as I can see.
I was an archaeologist, archaeologists follow artifact and historical chains of evidence to arrive at an understanding of what they are studying. Much of the evidence for the Nikumaroro hypothesis is material and historical so I feel that I do have the professional training to both comprehend it and to discuss the assessments of it. Do you have similar experience of the use of material and historical data? or is it that you are offended because you find my reluctance to accept some of the pie in the sky reconstructions of what that meager data bank offers contradicts what you would like the evidence to prove but which it fails to do. If that is the case then I offer no apology.
Oh and I think I understood exactly what Monty meant - but let me just say that my charity dollar for this financial year has already been committed to the UNHCR and the Red Cross.
-
There is no conflict: you can love the East New Britain hypothesis all you wish, no problem here and I sense no threat whatever to other interests in that.
I am not, however, obliged to ignore unfounded questioning of the judgment of others for their interest in a different hypothesis. I don't see what makes you expert enough to question the judgment of others when they may have understandings or capabilities of reason that you do not possess. When you do that, your stated preferences for the East New Britain hypothesis become fair game - the basis of your own judgments included.
.....
Perhaps one should simply realize that if one would poke his head into the kitchen to criticize the cook's own omelet, then one might expect to cope with a bit of heat, that's all. That's how 'discussions' work I believe.
LTM -
If you find no threat in the Nikumaroro hypothesis why are you continuing to attack me for mentioning it as one of the current four explanatory hypotheses and pointing out that the C/N tag is an interesting item - do you feel threatened by that? The more I look at the reasoning behind the East New Britain hypothesis the less I am drawn to it - but then that is because I am willing to adjust my understanding as new evidence is produced - and if the current trip to Nikumaroro does find the wreck then I will accept it. But until that evidence is found the matter is still undecided despite your attempts to increase the heat in the kitchen - ironically of course all this heat is producing very little light so I can understand your obvious frustration that after all this time you still are waiting for someone, somewhere, to produce the evidence to validate your preferred hypothesis.
As for silly remarks about me inferring that other people's judgement is "inferior to my own" then I presume that you see all reservations expressed by anyone about someone's thoughts or suggestions to be inferring that. I have never claimed any authority based on some imaginary superiority. The only reason I ever had for introducing my own academic qualifications in archaeology was to indicate that when I commented on an archaeological matter I had the proper training to do so. I note that you support your view with a statement "... my understandings of navigation and range." - can I infer from that your skills are exempt from your own standards of polite discourse while mine aren't?
And "Archaeology is your area of professional knowledge - so how can you rationally claim a superior sense as to why we'd be risking too much by looking at Niku when your own field does not qualify you to accurately judge how and where such a flight might have ended, i.e. via the means and limits of navigation and physical range?" - I note that Gary LaPook also questions the assumption that the flight might have ended on Nikumaroro precisely on navigational grounds. Now he appears to know considerably more about such matters than you so given your stated standards I'll accept his view rather than your own, and now having read and understood what he is saying then I feel quite certain that is the wiser path which, until evidence to the contrary is produced, makes my assessment of the value of the recovered artifacts quite valid.
"The conundrum of the limits of charity is of your own making and smells of red herring." - nope, no red herring, just a lack of money which as I failed to make myself a multi-Billionaire probably does make that of my own making or lack of making, so I will concede that my uncharitable attitude is indeed of my own making. I do profoundly wish that I was a multi-billionaire but alas this seems unlikely to occur so TIGHAR is just going to have to get a grip and accept my poverty - I know that I have. :'(
-
Another consideration to be taken into account of course is the fact that if they did make it back to somewhere near Raboul, New Britain then, they would have passed quite a few landfalls where they could have put it down prior to reaching New Britain. I am taking into account the range and fuel consumption for the trip back to New Britain which of course relies heavily on a strong (understatement) tail wind to achieve the distance required.
Why not put it down before the gas runs out completely? Or were they trying for one of Rabouls airfields?
If it is/was the Electra of course.
-
I suggest run the navigation for that by Gary, Jeff Victor.
There are lots of possibilities. As I believe Malcolm has pointed out, perhaps 4 chief ones - Splashed, Japanese Capture, Gardner and I guess these other 'return' ideas.
Odd, but Gardner loosely fits into the latter category, although it represents more of a 'right turn' than a 'return'. For me it's a case of math - return doesn't buy you anything because of the required range, but a right turn might, IF you had a turn for the better in your luck after missing Howland, etc. I freely admit it would have taken a fair degree of luck to blunder into one of those scattered Phoenix islands if you didn't know rather well where you were starting from. Of course I could go on about the LOP, etc. but this string is about New Britain.
As to New Britain, as Malcolm has just said, as he understands more about the challenges, the less taken he tends to be. That's a tough reality in this thing for us all, no matter which theory we think makes the most sense: we encounter new information that causes constant analysis - not an unhealthy thing, I agree.
All that said, I wish we had the time, money and legs to chase down every story of a lost airplane in all these places - each may have a great story to tell.
LTM -
-
Yes Jeff, I am prepared to give most scenarios a reasonable shout so, given the repair tag was attached to AE's Electra I was trying to work out the rationale for turning back AND then over-flying landfall to crash in the vicinity of Raboul. Of course that assumes they were able to make the distance, however unlikely that was as well.
-
... given the repair tag was attached to AE's Electra ...
I personally wouldn't call that a given.
The N.B. folks don't have the repair tag.
They don't have an account of the finding of the tag that includes copying its contents.
That have a marginal note on the side of a map whose provenance is alleged to be unimpeachable.
To get the note to become the contents of the tag, one has to make several leaps of faith.
Then, and only then, do the N.B. crew get to start using that allegation as a grounds for TIGHAR to spend some money on the N.B. search. So far as I can tell, Malcolm is proposing that the money run in that direction, because TIGHAR has money to fund expeditions and the N.B. people don't. His sorrow that Amelia researchers don't "pool resources" runs in one direction only.
-
... given the repair tag was attached to AE's Electra ...
I personally wouldn't call that a given.
The N.B. folks don't have the repair tag.
They don't have an account of the finding of the tag that includes copying its contents.
That have a marginal note on the side of a map whose provenance is alleged to be unimpeachable.
To get the note to become the contents of the tag, one has to make several leaps of faith.
Then, and only then, do the N.B. crew get to start using that allegation as a grounds for TIGHAR to spend some money on the N.B. search. So far as I can tell, Malcolm is proposing that the money run in that direction, because TIGHAR has money to fund expeditions and the N.B. people don't. His sorrow that Amelia researchers don't "pool resources" runs in one direction only.
So you keep saying Marty but as you are emotionally and intellectually committed to the Nikumaroro hypothesis so I think that Mandy Rice Davies' immortal words apply here.
-
... given the repair tag was attached to AE's Electra ...
I personally wouldn't call that a given.
The N.B. folks don't have the repair tag.
They don't have an account of the finding of the tag that includes copying its contents.
That have a marginal note on the side of a map whose provenance is alleged to be unimpeachable.
To get the note to become the contents of the tag, one has to make several leaps of faith.
Then, and only then, do the N.B. crew get to start using that allegation as a grounds for TIGHAR to spend some money on the N.B. search. So far as I can tell, Malcolm is proposing that the money run in that direction, because TIGHAR has money to fund expeditions and the N.B. people don't. His sorrow that Amelia researchers don't "pool resources" runs in one direction only.
Just giving the New Britain scenario the benefit of the doubt, something not given to the Gardner Island scenario by some. That said, it is a real stretch of the imagination to even get the Electra to New Britain (450 mph tailwind?) never mind finding (missing)repair tags on (missing)wreckage and scribbles on edges of (missing)maps. Still, we must persevere, all avenues need exploring before one can confirm they are dead ends ;)
-
So you keep saying Marty but as you are emotionally and intellectually committed to the Nikumaroro hypothesis so I think that Mandy Rice Davies' immortal words apply here.
In other words, you have no answers to the questions so you impugn the motives of the person asking the questions.
"My opponent disagrees with me. Therefore, I am not obliged to give a coherent account of why I believe that the tag existed and contained the C/N for NR16020 on it. I get a pass. I may simply assume the truth of what I believe. Everyone else has to meet the standards that I set for them, but I don't."
-
Just giving the New Britain scenario the benefit of the doubt, something not given to the Gardner Island scenario by some.
Ah, sorry. I should have included a question about what you meant by "given." You didn't mean, "I concede the existence of a tag with the Electra's C/N on it" but "let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the tag existed as described."
That said, it is a real stretch of the imagination to even get the Electra to New Britain (450 mph tailwind?) never mind finding (missing)repair tags on (missing)wreckage and scribbles on edges of (missing)maps. Still, we must persevere, all avenues need exploring before one can confirm they are dead ends ;)
If we had infinite resources (money, time, energy), we might do that. The quickest way to destroy the N.B. hypothesis would be to do a comprehensive search of the jungle and find out what aircraft, if any, is to be found there.
Given that we do not have infinite resources (here, by "given," I mean, "assuming something that I think you will agree is a matter of fact"), taking our bucket to a dry well doesn't seem all that reasonable to me. ::)
-
In other words, you have no answers to the questions so you impugn the motives of the person asking the questions.
No Marty, I was in fact having a joke. Perhaps philosophers need emoticons, but I thought that the reference to Mandy Rice Davies might have been a hint.
-
The note on the map contains information obtained from the US Military. Why do we assume the number was not provided by them, rather than to them? The note can be interpreted as the answer to a question for information regarding AE's aircraft, rather than proof that AE's tag number was found.
-
The note on the map contains information obtained from the US Military. Why do we assume the number was not provided by them, rather than to them? The note can be interpreted as the answer to a question for information regarding AE's aircraft, rather than proof that AE's tag number was found.
To me, that is the natural reading of the writing in the margin.
Why would someone write down information returned to them that they already had already sent in their question? The reason to write something down on the map was so that it would be available to the next group that took the map out while searching for the downed aircraft.
I find it hard to imagine that their thinking went like this: "Oh, I think I'll transcribe the whole message we've received on this telegraph form onto the margin of the map, so that if the tag gets stolen by the evil U.S. government conspirators, later ages will know what was on the tag."
I concede that I am using my imagination in constructing this interpretation of the handwriting on the margin (http://www.electranewbritain.com/Mapedge.jpg). In doing so, I am exercising exactly the same power of the mind used by those who imagine a different scenario and who bestow a different interpretation on the text as a consequence.
GI/1009 SERET REF: 600H/P S3HI C/N1055 [24/5/45]
SITREP D COY PATROL Al
SEE SPECIL SITREPS 58, 59, 61, 63, [63A] ATT: CAPT. MOTT.
"See Specil Sitreps 58.59.61.63 (63A) att. Capt. Mott." makes it sound as though there was some place to see these "sitreps." In other words, that line counts against the theory that the first line is a transcription of the full message sent on 24.5.45--and that counts against the theory that the writing represents what was sent to the General Intelligence section.
Ah. It's so sweet. They are honest people. They write (http://www.electranewbritain.com/Interestbegins2.htm), "We believe that this writing is part of the reply that came back from the U.S. Army but we do not know who jotted down this writing on the map. The date is five weeks after the Patrol A1 was completed. The writer would have been someone from 'D' Company as the map was always in the possession of 'D' Company personnel during the war and after the war."
Malcolm's faith in the faith of this group is very touching.
-
I find it intriguing that the patrol likely did stumble upon an aircraft, possibly a Lockheed (the Japanese had a few, as has been pointed out elsewhere), and quite possibly recovered a tag. Unfortunately, the number on that tag is not known with certainty. Too bad its number wasn't explicitly noted somewhere in the patrol report or a receipt. The situation reminds me of the sextant box found on Gardner Island - the difference being that its identifying numbers were recorded in a report, even though the box, like the tag, has been lost.
I hope the search for the aircraft wreck eventually succeeds. It may answer yet another mystery.
-
The note on the map contains information obtained from the US Military. Why do we assume the number was not provided by them, rather than to them? The note can be interpreted as the answer to a question for information regarding AE's aircraft, rather than proof that AE's tag number was found.
That's what I thought when I first read it John. I simply assumed I had mis-interperated or mis-read the story.
-
I would like to add some aviator thoughts to this thread not to debunk any other theory but perhaps to help others understand why I think an island SSE of Howland was the most likely end point. Pick one...doesn't have to be Gardner. But it is important to know how aviators think about navigation and their decision processes. It is an adjustment of my own experience with some added historical perspective of reading about how pioneers like FN developed the early modes of over-water navigation that made it possible for WW2 aviators, even single seat pilots, to successfully navigate over vast open water. George Bush would know these techniques.
First, point of no return. You always know it and you always compute it. FN would have known his PONR for New Britain and there is no reason for them to think they would not find Howland until they got to the extended LOP and didn't find it. They would not have turned around early as they had no reason to believe they wouldn't find it. Hence turning around for NB would have been out of the question for him. Perhaps the Bonins Gilberts but, interesting enough this is an island chain roughly on a 337/157 hence turning around to go there would mean one chance as you are flying perpendicular to the chain. If you missed an island you missed them all (better to fly along a chain than perpendicular to one). Next nearest past Bonins Gilberts is Nauru and easy to miss. Again, you know you are on an extended LOP of 157/337 but you do not know where N/S so you could miss things you turn around to go to either N or S. Past that you are landing in water. He probably also knew his PONR to Nauru and had exceeded it.
The other point is what do I do when I get to extended LOP and do not find Howland? I assume I missed N or S. So I fly NNW (337) a little ways to see if I find it (or Baker) but not too far as there is nothing else beyond in that direction. Then You turn SSE (157) assuming you missed to the N. This is a good direction because you chance finding, in sequence, Howland, Baker, Mackean, Kanton or Gradner, Tokelau, and eventually American Somoa although I think even FN knew he didn't have the fuel to make it there. So you expend a little fuel looking for Howland on 337 but not long, as you are on reserve, and you give the greatest time to 157. If you turn around 180 you have one slight chance at Bonins Gilberts and a infinitesimal chance at Nauru. FN had been doing this for a while. As I said in an earlier post, a good aviator doesn't get that way without learning to have contingency plans. In 1937 they didn't live very long if they didn't. FN would have already figured this out before takeoff. So when he got to extended LOP he told AE "turn left to 337". He would have allowed her just enough time to make sure they did not find Baker or Howland N of them and then said "turn to 157". That is the only heading that it makes sense to fly on till you run out of gas...not E, not W.
My two cents for what its worth and I will not abandon that as a preferred answer even if nothing is fund on this expedition. Because they could have missed all those island too and landed in the water...but on a 157 heading.
Interesting about underwater topography in S Pacific. All the islands/atolls are essential Mt peaks. Where there is extensive gradual rise to an island the change in water color from deep blue to light blue is the first thing you see, not the island itself. In S Pacific there isn't that distinct change. It goes from Deep Blue to reef in a few hundred feet. I flew into Midway Island one night on a C-141 going to pickup a broke F-16 there. W/O the rotating beacon you never would have sen it. Later I flew that single engine airplane all the way back to Oahu unrefueled. I thanked the Lord for GPS as I tried to locate each one of Tom Hank's tiny little islands along the way to castaway on in case my one motor quit. It was very challenging from ~30K feet much less at 1000-8000 feet. And I knew exactly where I was all the time. My hat's off to FN for even getting in that airplane that day to try to find an island smaller than Midway.
JB
PS, sorry brain freeze, was thinking Tarawa, which for me means Betio, and somehow Bonins jumped out as i was rapidly typing. Obviously meant Gilberts...sorry. :'( If they could have made Bonins they could have flown on to Hawaii. ;D
-
John---that was excellent! I personally think it lends some creadence to the Niku hypothesis, because of the PONR scenario. Like you, I think FN knew his points, even if he didnt know his location N&S. I think its highly unlikely that AE flew most of the way to Howland, and then tried to make it back to New Brittan. The Gilberts ---maybe. I think fuel range was borderline, but possible. And who knows.
Congrats on picking up the F16 and getting it back to Hawaii. ( If it was a USMC F18, it probably would NOT have broken down to begin with ;D. ). ANY long overwater flight is amazing to me, even on a 767 from Atlanta to Honolulu.
Thank you for your service!!!!
Tom
-
John---that was excellent! I personally think it lends some creadence to the Niku hypothesis, because of the PONR scenario. Like you, I think FN knew his points, even if he didnt know his location N&S. I think its highly unlikely that AE flew most of the way to Howland, and then tried to make it back to New Brittan. The Gilberts ---maybe. I think fuel range was borderline, but possible. And who knows.
Tom
Well, I'm not so certain about strengthening Niku, Tom. There's two things lacking in this thread..........
First a brain fart - I can't remember the correct term - I used this "Lindbergh Concept" many times in combat flying. Anyway, flying on the deck, I mean - on the deck, provides a whole lot of additional lift. You can fly forever with little effort and fuel expended. Over water a pilot lacks the air movement that she would experience over hill/valley terrain. Thus extending the aircraft range. A pilot calculates PONR not based on this effect.
Second - Weather has not been mentioned. And the only reference to weather that I remember reading is storms over the Howland area. The possibility may exist that they were aware of violent weather conditions before the PONR and made the turn.
These conditions may have existed so that she made it to New Britain? Am I suggesting that, after flying on the deck to conserve fuel, she flew right into down drafts created by mountain sides on New Britain cooling down? She remained on the deck over land due to low fuel? Smacked a hillside? I dunno -
-
... The possibility may exist that they were aware of violent weather conditions before the PONR and made the turn.
We have no evidence of anyone broadcasting such weather predictions to the aircraft.
If they turned toward New Britain before the point of no return, their transmissions would not have steadily strengthened through the night, nor would they have broadcast that they were 200 miles out, 100 miles out, or that they "must be upon you" (http://tighar.org/wiki/Transmission_timeline) on the morning of July 2nd.
-
... The possibility may exist that they were aware of violent weather conditions before the PONR and made the turn.
We have no evidence of anyone broadcasting such weather predictions to the aircraft.
Not suggesting that. Well, maybe it could have happened. Not having experience during 1937, I question the amount of "chatter" they could have picked up. When I Ifirst started flying during 1957 - lotsa radio traffic. Lotsa chatter. I wonder what it was like during 1937 over that geographical area?
-
We have no evidence of anyone broadcasting such weather predictions to the aircraft.
Not suggesting that. Well, maybe it could have happened. Not having experience during 1937, I question the amount of "chatter" they could have picked up. When I Ifirst started flying during 1957 - lotsa radio traffic. Lotsa chatter. I wonder what it was like during 1937 over that geographical area?
There wasn't much chatter over the Pacific in 1937 because there weren't a lot of aircraft flying in the vicinity of the point of no return as AE and FN approached it.
-
... The possibility may exist that they were aware of violent weather conditions before the PONR and made the turn.
We have no evidence of anyone broadcasting such weather predictions to the aircraft.
If they turned toward New Britain before the point of no return, their transmissions would not have steadily strengthened through the night, nor would they have broadcast that they were 200 miles out, 100 miles out, or that they "must be upon you" (http://tighar.org/wiki/Transmission_timeline) on the morning of July 2nd.
Read the posts on the "Point of No Return" thread, (https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,651.msg12321.html#msg12321) I have posted the computations and a chart showing where the PNR was based on several different sets of assumptions.
gl
-
Read the posts on the "Point of No Return" thread, (https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,651.msg12321.html#msg12321) I have posted the computations and a chart showing where the PNR was based on several different sets of assumptions.
I have read the posts.
We agree. You wrote (https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,651.msg12321.html#msg12321): "We know that they did not turn around prior to the PNR because they continued on to the vicinity of Howland which is well past the PNR."
-
... The possibility may exist that they were aware of violent weather conditions before the PONR and made the turn.
We have no evidence of anyone broadcasting such weather predictions to the aircraft.
If they turned toward New Britain before the point of no return, their transmissions would not have steadily strengthened through the night, nor would they have broadcast that they were 200 miles out, 100 miles out, or that they "must be upon you" (http://tighar.org/wiki/Transmission_timeline) on the morning of July 2nd.
Read the posts on the "Point of No Return" thread, (https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,651.msg12321.html#msg12321) I have posted the computations and a chart showing where the PNR was based on several different sets of assumptions.
gl
Respectfully Gary - {and after reading many, many of your posts - that's a huge respect, BTW}
You can compute until next year but a good pilot can make his airplane do things that don't fit into computations at all. But, frankly, I don't believe that Amelia was a "good" pilot.
And, after 75 years of searching, commerce, new technology, etc., etc., etc. without coming up with definitive proof of her location - I believe she flat out got lost and went in deep. It's sooooooo easy not to believe your instruments. She could have been flying upside down and not realized it.
-
You can compute until next year but a good pilot can make his airplane do things that don't fit into computations at all. But, frankly, I don't believe that Amelia was a "good" pilot.
Even Bob Hoover can't make a plane fly two thousand miles with only one hundred miles worth of fuel in the tanks. Once you go past the point of no return you're not returning.
And, after 75 years of searching, commerce, new technology, etc., etc., etc. without coming up with definitive proof of her location - I believe she flat out got lost and went in deep. It's sooooooo easy not to believe your instruments. She could have been flying upside down and not realized it.
She last reported being at 1,000 feet which was below the clouds so she was not in IMC (instrument meteorologic conditions) so she didn't need to fly by use of the instruments, easy to keep the shiny side up with tthe ocean below you and clouds above you.
gl
-
Malcolm, I was looking at some new information, new to me anyway, about Lockheed L10s in your area of the world. I discovered that there is one in the Museum of Technology and Transport in Auckland, New Zealand. I don't know where it has been, and maybe you know how to check, but its cn was 1095, reg. ZK-AFD.
I don't know for sure, but I think that the P&W R1340 and the R985 both used the same engine mount. I can see where someone could look at the number 1095 on a tag and mistake it for 1055 especially if the tag were in bad shape and a little hard to read. Could it be that this ship might have been in for maintenance somewhere and its engine mount was exchanged with one from another ship?
Just a thought, a longshot I'm sure, but it might explain the tag from New Britain.
-
Malcolm, I was looking at some new information, new to me anyway, about Lockheed L10s in your area of the world. I discovered that there is one in the Museum of Technology and Transport in Auckland, New Zealand. I don't know where it has been, and maybe you know how to check, but its cn was 1095, reg. ZK-AFD.
I don't know for sure, but I think that the P&W R1340 and the R985 both used the same engine mount. I can see where someone could look at the number 1095 on a tag and mistake it for 1055 especially if the tag were in bad shape and a little hard to read. Could it be that this ship might have been in for maintenance somewhere and its engine mount was exchanged with one from another ship?
Just a thought, a longshot I'm sure, but it might explain the tag from New Britain.
No idea. Although it is a bit of a leap I rather think. I am waiting to see if the team going there turns up wreckage.
-
Any updates from them?
-
There's an excellent chance of turning up aircraft wreckage in New Britain simply because so many aircraft were lost their during WW2, both allied and axis forces, plus the odd civilian plane or two ;)
-
I'm a little surprised that they have not yet been able to find the wreckage since they have the "wartime map used by the patrol". I would have thought that the location would have been marked on the map.
-
I'm a little sruprised that they have not yet been able to find the wreckage since they have the "wartime map used by the patrol". I would have thought that the location would have been marked on the map.
Good point Woody. I would be surprised if the jungle and terrain had remained benign in all these years that have gone by. It probably looks a lot different now.
Maps of jungle are notoriously inaccurate as you probably have had experience of Woody.
Placing your estimated location onto an inaccurate map simply increases the inaccuraciies.
I do hope they have a bit more equipment with them this time, the 4 machetes and backpacks are not a lot of use on their own. A helicopter and associated detection equipment might be useful.
IMHO
-
Maps of jungle are notoriously inaccurate ...
Having used maps of remote regions on archaeological survey work and been badly deceived by inaccuracies I found in my work that recent aerial photos were better. But that was in relatively open savannah country - wooded or jungle terrain is a very different kettle of fish, even with aerial pics.
-
Dave Billings said a while ago that he would conduct a new search in New Britain to find the aircraft wreckage reportedly seen by Corporal Angwin. As Billings has stated before, the consensus that AE and FN were 200 miles away from Howland Island "is based on the radio reception on that morning being “Strength 5″ and Bellart’s, the radioman on the USCG ITASCA, considered that because of this “S5″ value, the Electra was just about “right on top” of the ship. This is nonsense. “S5″ could be the reception from a transmitting station a thousand miles away. Even TIGHAR’s own radio gurus tell TIGHAR members that “S5″ does not mean she was close but even they are ignored." However, I would just reject Billings' criticism of the belief that AE really got close to Howland and stick to the assessment that AE didn't have enough fuel to make it to New Britain.
In one forgotten aspect of the New Britain hypothesis, Dave cites a radio message to support his belief that AE crashed in New Britain: "There is one radio call, which seemingly to other researchers, has no bearing on the matter. This is a radio call made public by the author, Fred Goerner, who found the item tucked away in a US Navy file. The call was made at 0030GMT and dated as 2nd July 1937. The call was, “Land in sight ahead….” and was only heard by the Nauru Radio operator who said that the voice sounded the same as the voice he had heard the night previous. The call time and date in the Eastern Hemisphere makes no sense as Earhart had departed Lae only one half hour before. The US Navy, however, would date the call in the Western Hemisphere and 2nd July is 3rd July in the Eastern Hemisphere. 0030GMT on the 3rd July is around 11:00am local time on Nauru. On my plot at that time, the Electra is within fifty miles of Banaba (Ocean) Island, on the way back." However, it's possible that this radio transmission was merely fraudulent because it was the only purported message that was picked up by the Nauru Radio Operator and a few people use this to support the belief that AE crashed her plane in the Marshall Islands.
Given the absence of any reports of civil aircraft crashing in New Britain before WW2 and the fact that no confirmed Model 10 Electras were lost in New Britain, it's possible that what Angwin saw in New Britain is merely a previously undiscovered bauxite mine in New Britain because I can find only one record of a plane that crashed in Papua New Guinea before WW2 (see http://aviation-safety.net/database/dblist.php?Country=P2&lang=&page=2 for list), meaning that no civilian monoplane aircraft ever crashed in New Guinea before WW2.
-
In one forgotten aspect of the New Britain hypothesis, Dave cites a radio message to support his belief that AE crashed in New Britain: "There is one radio call, which seemingly to other researchers, has no bearing on the matter. This is a radio call made public by the author, Fred Goerner, who found the item tucked away in a US Navy file. The call was made at 0030GMT and dated as 2nd July 1937. The call was, “Land in sight ahead….” and was only heard by the Nauru Radio operator who said that the voice sounded the same as the voice he had heard the night previous.
I discussed this at some length with Fred Goerner many years ago. Fred said he saw the "Land in sight ahead.." message in Navy archives that were still classified at the time. He was given permission to read the files but not make copies or take notes. Later, after the files were declassified, he went back to make copies but couldn't find the message. Rather than conclude that his memory was faulty, like a good conspiracy theorist, he concluded that the government had removed the message from the file.
Goerner probably simply misremembered the Nauru "Ship in sight ahead..." message.
-
I'm guessing that Vahe had his entire Christmas break to ponder and then post "What about THIS?" questions?
Just an observation.
LTM, who takes the time to read,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 CER
-
On another web site Dave Billings, who is the main proponent of the New Britan hypothesis,argues that a radio message was hear from Earhart saying 'Land in sight ahead'. Billings interprets this as meaning Earhart saw Nauru while returning to New Guinea. I think Billings is wrong, and that he is incorrectly the 'ship in sight ' quote from Earhart while flying towards Howland.
Can anybody tell me if I'm correct about this (and that Billing is incorrect)?.
I actually replied to Billings on the other site suggesting this misinterpretation on his part, but received no response.
-
Can anybody tell me if I'm correct about this (and that Billing is incorrect)?.
Here's the deal on "land in sight ahead." Back in the 1960s, before the Coast Guard and Navy Earhart files were de-classified, Fred Goerner (author of "The Search for Amelia Earhart," Doubleday, 1966) persuaded the government to let him see, but not copy, the various reports. Goerner felt sure that he saw a report of a message from the radio operator at Nauru that quoted Earhart as saying, "Land in sight ahead." This was supposedly heard at, as I recall, 10:30 a.m. local time on July 2. If AE really said that at that time it would be interesting to say the least.
After the files were declassified, Goerner went back to photocopy the quote he remembered seeing but (cue the music) he couldn't find it. Of course Fred immediately assumed the file had been purged and the message redacted before it was declassified.
I went back and forth with Fred about this at length sometime in the early '90s. I would love it if AE really said "land in sight ahead" later that morning but I have to agree with you. I think Fred simply misread or misremembered "ship in sight ahead" which was heard by Nauru the night before.
-
Maybe "light in sight ahead".
-
Maybe "light in sight ahead".
During the flight, on the night of July 2 (his time) the Nauru operator heard her say "Ship in sight ahead." At least, that's what he reported and that's all that he reported. The next night, on three occasions, he heard the same voice but "without hum of plane in background. Those receptions are in the Catalog (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/ResearchPapers/Brandenburg/signalcatalog2.html#ID30843NA) as signals 29, 34, and 36.