TIGHAR
Chatterbox => Theorizing about Theories => Topic started by: Gary LaPook on June 22, 2012, 09:56:27 AM
-
We know that some of the aluminum found on Gardner DID NOT come from the Electra. Using Occam's razor we can cut right to the chase because the source for that other aluminum is the simplest explanation for ALL the aluminum found on the island.
gl
-
In the absence of all other "evidence", I'd agree with you, but with the post loss radio signals, the discovery of the castaway, the anecdotes about "airplane parts here when we arrived" and the lack of zinc chromate on the parts we're talking about, and not even including the 7 site material, I'd say that there is reason to think that at least a few of the parts found on Nikumaroro are from the the aircraft that we know went missing in the area, and that was suspected of having landed on one of the islands down there.
You and Malcolm like to look at each idea in a vacuum as a way to pick it apart, but there is a bigger picture that emerges when you try to put them into a context with other information. Occam's razor has to cut across all the lines of evidence to come up with the simplest explanation that satisfies all of the evidence / known circumstances, not just one.
Not that I expect to sway you, Gary, just keeping you on your toes. :-)
Andrew
-
You and Malcolm like to look at each idea in a vacuum as a way to pick it apart, but there is a bigger picture that emerges when you try to put them into a context with other information. Occam's razor has to cut across all the lines of evidence to come up with the simplest explanation that satisfies all of the evidence / known circumstances, not just one.
I believe Andrew has nailed it.
LTM, who will put away his own hammer now,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 CER
-
I
You and Malcolm like to look at each idea in a vacuum as a way to pick it apart, but there is a bigger picture that emerges when you try to put them into a context with other information. Occam's razor has to cut across all the lines of evidence to come up with the simplest explanation that satisfies all of the evidence / known circumstances, not just one.
Not quite an accurate assessment Andrew. The analysis of each artifact needs to be done individually at first. That enables one to assess whether it is right to consider it as being related to other artifacts one has concluded are part of the major event one is investigating. For example if one was examining the artifacts collected at the Seven Site and one of these was clearly of a material not available in 1937 like 1960s era plastic or had a date stamp of 1952 on it, or some other feature which clearly show them to be dated to a period after 1937, then one would automatically and quite sensibly not include it with artifacts that one was considering as proof of the Earhart/Nikumaroro hypothesis.
Therefore if one is seeking to prove that certain artifacts clearly have a relationship to Earhart or Noonan this can only be established by first examining each artifact in the light of what I outlined in the first paragraph. Now a central issue in the Earhart/Nikumaroro hypothesis is that none of the artifacts so far found which can with some accuracy be shown to have, at least, been available to Earhart or Noonan in 1937, can with any certainty be shown to have been exclusively available to the pair alone, and not to other people who visited the island in the period from the wreck of the Norwich City through to the Loran station and the occupation of the PISS settlers. That is the key problem.
It follows that by creating a hypothesis based on the selected items, each of which cannot stand alone as being solely attributable to the presence of Earhart or Noonan, one is not producing a convincing or in fact particularly honest argument. Accordingly if the Nikumaroro hypothesis is to be proven as correct then it is absolutely necessary that each item must be examined separately rather than have its possible association with the hypothesis tainted by other items simply thrown in as make weight to build up a circumstantial case. After all you only need one artifact to be shown to have incontrovertible associations with Earhart and Noonan and their postulated stay on Nikumaroro and you have demonstrated your case.
Therefore by treating each artifact or argument separately both Gary and myself are in fact doing you a service rather than being divisive. A hypothesis that is shown to be proven correct after rigorous assessment is the goal - not some half-baked idea that cannot stand on its own two legs without the help of unsupported conjecture.
-
"It follows that by creating a hypothesis based on the selected items, each of which cannot stand alone as being solely attributable to the presence of Earhart or Noonan, one is not producing a convincing or in fact particularly honest argument. Accordingly if the Nikumaroro hypothesis is to be proven as correct then it is absolutely necessary that each item must be examined separately rather than have its possible association with the hypothesis tainted by other items simply thrown in as make weight to build up a circumstantial case."
Malcolm, can you explain this in a bit more detail? I'm not sure I follow the "association of items standing alone not being solely attributable" phrase. Should they be taken independently or together?
Leon
All I am saying is that if an individual artifact itself cannot be linked incontrovertibly to Earhart or Noonan then its incorporation in the hypothesis proof is of no value. Simply adding together a number of such items of questionable association may create a superficially satisfying circumstantial case but in the end without any items which have undeniable provenance then the hypothesis remains just a hypothesis not an answer.
Also if one is able to find an item with demonstrated provenance one then should not corrupt its probative value by using it to demonstrate that other items that lack provenance are given provenance unless there are exceptional correlations between them to support that. For example if an item is found with a clear provenance that shows it was either Earhart or Noonan's and was introduced to Nikumaroro in 1937 by them, that then should be sufficient to demonstrate that the hypothesis is demonstrated to be correct. But to then bring in other items that superficially appear to be related to the pair but lack any incontestable associations just to pad the story adds nothing and would serve to taint the proven items in the eyes of people seeking to dispute the case.
So to demonstrate the provenance one needs it is necessary to test each item separately. An item with demonstrated provenance needs no cosmetic embellishments or faux associations to prove its value. It is not an unfriendly or negative process it is simply finding the truth.
-
All I am saying is that if an individual artifact itself cannot be linked incontrovertibly to Earhart or Noonan then its incorporation in the hypothesis proof is of no value.....
......For example if an item is found with a clear provenance that shows it was either Earhart or Noonan's and was introduced to Nikumaroro in 1937 by them, that then should be sufficient to demonstrate that the hypothesis is demonstrated to be correct.......
Malcolm,
Are you changing your position here?? Now you are saying that it has to be proven that an item "was either Earhart's or Noonan's and was introduced to Nikumaroro in 1937 by them".
Previously I was under the impression that to meet your standard of proof an item had to be shown to belong to one of the castaways. It appears that you are now stipulating other criteria must also be met in order to qualify as proof of the hypothesis. You seem to be changing horses in mid-stream, so to speak.
-
Are you changing your position here?? Now you are saying that it has to be proven that an item "was either Earhart's or Noonan's and was introduced to Nikumaroro in 1937 by them".
Previously I was under the impression that to meet your standard of proof an item had to be shown to belong to one of the castaways. It appears that you are now stipulating other criteria must also be met in order to qualify as proof of the hypothesis. You seem to be changing horses in mid-stream, so to speak.
I'm sorry but I don't see the difference in meaning between your first and second takes on what I said. All I have ever said is that an item must be demonstrated to have been introduced to the island by Earhart or Noonan in 1937 to prove that they were there. I think that would be the general consensus on what would constitute proof of the hypothesis. As to belonging to the castaways I could have added that this would exclude salting the island with items sourced from elsewhere to falsify a proof - but as I cannot conceive why anyone would do such a dishonest thing then I felt that it needed to be left unsaid as irrelevant.
-
Not intending to be argumentative . . . but I have a question or two.
Malcolm,
I think I understand your statement: "For example if one was examining the artifacts collected at the Seven Site and one of these was clearly of a material not available in 1937 like 1960s era plastic or had a date stamp of 1952 on it, or some other feature which clearly show them to be dated to a period after 1937, then one would automatically and quite sensibly not include it with artifacts that one was considering as proof of the Earhart/Nikumaroro hypothesis.
That is, if the facts don't support your hypothisis, you discard them? Or are you saying you don't claim they support your hypothisis? They may be true, valid, and evidence, but not useful in the assessment of the hypothisis? This would suggest that proving or disproving an hypothisis is not the same as finding the answer to the problem. I don't think that sounds right, somehow, but I'm not making the connection somewhere.
If the cup had incontrovertible DNA proof from AE, it might suggest a different tack altogether, say she lived with Japanese soldiers in the philipines until the 1950's before leaving only to die on Nika.
We know that some of the aluminum found on Gardner DID NOT come from the Electra. Using Occam's razor we can cut right to the chase because the source for that other aluminum is the simplest explanation for ALL the aluminum found on the island.
If I follow Gary's statement above, then if some of the blood at the murder scene isn't the victim's then none of it is? (Because to introduce additional sources of blood without evidence of their presence is to sort of imagine, based upon no fact, that someone else was there.) But if I assume all the blood was the victims then I don't need to examine the other blood to confirm this? I think I've got this turned around the wrong way. Is the point that when 'theorizing' (and not evidence gathering) you don't include unnecessary components if the initial situation can be explained without them?
Lastly, Newton's 'restatement' of occam reads something like this: "We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances." But are we agreeing that the intention of occam and ptolemy and others was more generalized then just regarding "natural things?" I'm assuming the answer is yes.
So, how does one justify Newton's own work on the laws of motion and gravity. His breakthrough seems to have been that he connected seeminly unrelated but observable behaviours with a single explanation. How would he be able to do that if he didn't consider things that seemed unrelated? I would say that perhaps Mr. Newton was arguing that once you have a provable hypothisis or theory, you don't need more data, although until that time you're free to run around and watch apples, pears and dead parakeets fall until you work it out. I don't think he can have it both ways, but then he was young (under 25) and went on to many years of mathematical analysis of religous texts.
So what is the correct process for gathering data and making a hypothisis? Do you get a little data, make a guess, gather more data, except for that data that doesn't support your hypothisis, until you've proven your hypothisis? Or do you gather all data and try to sort it out to see what it suggests? Or do you gather lots of data with no hypothisis and try to make a hypothisis after you've reviewed all the data? And how does this relate to solving the initial problem as it was defined?
.....
The assumption that AE crashed in 1937 has, literally, NO supporting data of any kind. The belief that she disappeared in 1937 has not been proven, but is a different problem to solve. The assertion that she died in 1937 after crashing, (having a compound set of criteria), while sounding good, is even more complex to establish. She could have crashed or not, she could have died or not. Since 100% of the data to date is heresay, the application of systematic analysis would seem to be an exercise only. BUT - somehow things get proven or disproven and mankind moves forward (if you can call this forward). So, it would really help if you could clear up how this is supposed to work, whether or not anyone bothers to do things that way.
Thanks
Leon
I see where you are coming from - yes good points about what appears to be discarding data that doesn't support a deliberately corrupted hypothesis designed to support a preferred explanation, or discarding data that may later rightly contradict the hypothesis but wasn't seen to pertinent at the time the hypothesis was proposed. Either of which would invalidate your final conclusion.
Nothing that dishonest or silly I am afraid. I grant that there might be a possibility however unlikely that Earhart or Noonan survived long enough as castaways or prisoners somewhere to have left DNA traces on a 1950s era plastic cup which was subsequently transported to Nikumaroro and found there and tested. But this even if remotely possible this would be, by any sensible analysis, unlikely so I would not even suggest it unless prefaced by a reference to the abducted by aliens hypothesis, but if the hypothetical plastic cup was found with the hypothetical DNA then one would have to accept it and explore the explanatory path it offered. In an archaeological situation artifacts that are clearly anachronisms are usually set aside while more logical explanations are pursued (an example from real life, I once saw a 20th century cheap metal plate found in a 1st century BC context, the explanation was of course not a time machine or aliens but a simple modern rubbish pit that had been dug through into the layer).
As to the assumption that Earhart crashed or whatever in 1937, well although it is as you say unproven and therefore is therefore only an assumption, it nevertheless is the best take on what the evidence so far indicates. She disappears from view on a flight in July 1937 and from that time onwards apart from a purported sighting as a prisoner of the Japanese and her purported death as their prisoner there is nothing else. The Japanese prisoner hypothesis is one of the hypotheses put forward as an explanation and is widely debated. Possible? yes; probable? possibly; but like the others not proven.
I suppose it comes down to the general observation that all things are possible but once the evidence is in and proven then there is only one definite answer. As to your point "Is the point that when 'theorizing' (and not evidence gathering) you don't include unnecessary components if the initial situation can be explained without them?", I would say that if you have proven evidence to support your hypothesis then there is no need for the hypothesis to be further embellished with things that are not relevant or proven - that is simply over-egging the pudding.
-
As to belonging to the castaways I could have added that this would exclude salting the island with items sourced from elsewhere to falsify a proof - but as I cannot conceive why anyone would do such a dishonest thing then I felt that it needed to be left unsaid as irrelevant.
It's completely relevant.
All readers of archaeologists have to trust the word of the diggers about what they found where they found it. Once an artifact is moved out of its original context, only the word of the digger remains. There is huge fame and money to be made by counterfeiting discoveries (Piltdown Man, Cardiff Giant, Ninov's falsification of data for element 118), etc.
Of course, this is a two-edged sword. If it is an anxiety about TIGHAR's work, however tastefully, modestly, and humbly stated, it applies to the New Britain hypothesis, too.
Passing over things that don't need to be said in silence is such a beautiful rhetorical ploy. So, for example, I do not question your credentials as a Ph.D. in archaeology, because I cannot conceive why you would puff yourself up as something you are not. I take you at your word, without proof, because that is the polite and respectful thing to do.
In other words, I am operating by faith, not by proof. I believe it is reasonable to do so. If I was the skeptical type, I'd ask for proof of your claims about your status--proof that could not be counterfeited, proof that is purely objective, and proof that does not rely on taking anyone's word about how they know that you are who you say you are and that you possess the credentials you claim to have.
-
Thanks Malcolm, so here's my other question from above:
So what is the correct process for gathering data and making a hypothisis? Do you get a little data, make a guess, gather more data, except for that data that doesn't support your hypothisis, until you've proven your hypothisis? Or do you gather all data and try to sort it out to see what it suggests? Or do you gather lots of data with no hypothisis and try to make a hypothisis after you've reviewed all the data? And how does this relate to solving the initial problem as it was defined?
For me it has always been bits of all those things. One project the final result was just what the accumulated data indicated, as I saw it. That one started out as a side issue in another project I was involved with and in the process of that I found that detailed research was lacking in the particular area which I was allotted.
In another I noticed that in some interpretations of data there were anomalies that, while not germane to those original interpretations, indicated that there was a previously unaddressed issue that might be worth investigating and it was. One other example is where I quite by accident found that a previously published and accepted explanation for some geographic dispersal of artifacts was in fact wrong because the author had taken a far too narrow focus in geographic terms. However in his defence I might add that I had access to a much larger specialist resource advice and to much greater funding and physical resources.
But then archaeology can be a bit like that, sometimes mundane - just typological analysis using established data; and sometimes serendipitous as some feature is noticed in a new light. Overall however it is about 95% hot dusty digging and 5% excitement.
-
Of course, this is a two-edged sword. If it is an anxiety about TIGHAR's work, however tastefully, modestly, and humbly stated, it applies to the New Britain hypothesis, too.
Passing over things that don't need to be said in silence is such a beautiful rhetorical ploy. So, for example, I do not question your credentials as a Ph.D. in archaeology, because I cannot conceive why you would puff yourself up as something you are not. I take you at your word, without proof, because that is the polite and respectful thing to do.
And that is why Marty I passed it over as irrelevant because I knew that if I said it, even as a hypothetical case, you would immediately accuse me of casting a slur on TIGHAR and its archaeological work. I would not and did not - I am a little offended that you would even think that I would make such an unwarranted accusation.
-
And that is why Marty I passed it over as irrelevant ...
Yes, you "passed over it" in explicit terms.
As I said, it's a great rhetorical ploy. A classic.
I am a little offended that you would even think that I would make such an unwarranted accusation.
You're the one who "passed over" the accusation by spelling it out explicitly, though in such a way that you have plausible denial, since you were only mentioning the possibility in the abstract.
It seems to me--and I can't prove this archaeologically, because this is a metaphysical issue--is that the best way to "pass over" things is to say nothing, rather than grandstanding about what you are not planning to say about the integrity of people who do not share your vision of reality.
-
It seems to me--and I can't prove this archaeologically, because this is a metaphysical issue--is that the best way to "pass over" things is to say nothing, rather than grandstanding about what you are not planning to say about the integrity of people who do not share your vision of reality.
And it seems to me that you deliberately impugned me.
Why? I do not know but as you are continuing this silly attack for no reason that is readily apparent to me then perhaps you should reconsider, apologize and I will do the gentlemanly thing and accept your apology. Or else as a forum moderator you might consider that you have strayed into an area where if someone else had posted what you said you would have deleted it. I don't mind rigorous debate but personal slurs like the one you made are way out of order.
-
And it seems to me that you deliberately impugned me.
"Seems, madam? Nay, I know not seems."
I identified the rhetorical device that you were using to introduce an issue. It has a beautiful name: "apophasis." (http://lucretius.livejournal.com/50690.html) Someone who indulges in apophasis says one thing ("I pass over in silence ...") and does another ("the accusation that my adversaries are all messianic idiots who cannot tell the difference between believing and reasoning. Far be it from me to imply that they are gullible fools being bilked of their money by TIGHAR, which could, of course, have salted the site at any time with carefully crafted counterfeits, when the legend of the N.B. tag casts doubt on the whole Niku hypothesis. It would be beneath my dignity to say such things").
Why? I do not know but as you are continuing this silly attack for no reason that is readily apparent to me ...
Perhaps that is because the reasons are not empirical, but metaphysical. You won't find the reasons through your specialty, digging and dating.
... then perhaps you should reconsider, apologize and I will do the gentlemanly thing and accept your apology. Or else as a forum moderator you might consider that you have strayed into an area where if someone else had posted what you said you would have deleted it. I don't mind rigorous debate but personal slurs like the one you made are way out of order.
I'm very grateful that you introduced the observation that the practice of archaeology depends on the trustworthiness of the archaeologists. It is more evidence from your own lips that archaeology is faith-based. The integrity of a researcher is, like my motives for replying to your posts, a metaphysical, not a physical reality. The methods of archaeology cannot be used to determine the trustworthiness of an archaeologist. To accept another person's findings and rely on them in building up an account of a historical period, one must believe in them. No faith, no field of archaeology.
-
The integrity of a researcher is, like my motives for replying to your posts, a metaphysical, not a physical reality. The methods of archaeology cannot be used to determine the trustworthiness of an archaeologist. To accept another person's findings and rely on them in building up an account of a historical period, one must believe in them. No faith, no field of archaeology.
Dr Moleski - I don't think you realise the seriousness of what you casually inferred I had done. I'll say once more - you have abused your position as a forum moderator and if you had any understanding of that role you would withdraw unconditionally that comment to which I have objected.
-
Malcolm,
You said "For me it has always been bits of all those things. One project the final result was just what the accumulated data indicated, as I saw it. That one started out as a side issue in another project I was involved with and in the process of that I found that detailed research was lacking in the particular area which I was allotted."
So which one do you start with? If you're assigned a role in some research, for example, do you support the assignment til it takes you elsewhere, or do you do the assignment with whatever scope controls are in place, and then pursue the anomolies separately? (Assuming you were in control of your assignment, like here where I decide what to examine or review) what would be the most rigorous first step?
Hello Leon
I see what you are driving at. Well the answer is do the allotted task as one is obligated and pursue anything that arises separately. However if for instance something came to light that showed that the comparative material being used in the study for reference purposes had certain unrecognised anomalies that would affect the outcomes of the current work then it would be necessary to make note of that in the report.
Malcolm
-
Got it. So even if you recognized the anomolies then you'd proceed for the moment even it effected the ultimate outcome.
Well, Ok.
No you haven't - I'd only proceed if the noted anomalies were not relevant to the purpose for which the references were being used.
E.g. I am examining a pottery assemblage from a late Neolithic site and combing through published excavation reports for parallels. In passing I note that certain copper artifacts seem to differ according to site location but the pottery does not. Therefore I note the difference in the copper artifacts as a small footnote but also note that the pottery assemblage shows no differences. However if in examining the aforesaid Late Neolithic pottery assemblage I note that the pottery itself shows some stylistic or fabric differences which it appears occurs in parallel with the differences in the copper assemblage then I would naturally attempt to understand, through further comparison, if there is a relation between between the anomalies due to a third unrecognised factor.
-
I have proudly been a Tighar member for several years. I consider it an honor to belong; however, for me, the old Tighar hypothesis badly needs updating. Some members might agree with me, and I’m sure many won’t.
1. Amelia found Gardner island by running a LOP of 157/337 One of the reasons I joined TIGHAR was I was told that Amelia’s last words were something to the effect that they were running the 157/337 LOP and that if you drew a line from Howland to Gardner, that angle would be very close to 337 degrees. To the north of Howland on 157 was open water, to the south, besides Gardner island on 337 was the Phoenix group of islands acting like a ‘catcher’s mitt’ so if you missed Gardner there were other islands. This made a lot of sense to me and I became a believer. I since have found out that you can’t run a LOP of 337 from the Howland vicinity and hit Gardner, at least mot at that time of day they were there.
2. Found Gardner instead by ‘ dead reckoning ‘
This of course made sense to me, because as a pilot, I had done some ‘dead reckoning’, and there also was this catcher’s mitt theory to help if they missed Gardner and so again I believed. You probably realize how I felt when I was reminded that you can’t dead reckon to anywhere, if you first don’t know where you are starting from.
3. Catchers Mitt
Then there is the disappearance of the ‘Catcher’s Mitt’ theory ( many islands close enough together that you should run into one of them ). I guess disappearance is not the correct term as something that never was, can’t disappear.
4. Landing at Gardner Island
But the good news is I still think there is a good chance that Amelia did find Gardner, maybe by the box/search method, or maybe by pure luck. And that she landed, probably close to the Norwich wreck.
5. Post Transmits
If Amelia landed at Gardner I think most, if not all, credible transmits are real, and that would certainly include Betty and Mabel’s injuries transmits.
6. The Lambrecht Flight
If I may let me please skip ahead to the Castaway and then return.
7. The Castaway of the Seven Site
By far, in my opinion, the biggest mistake Tighar has made is the acceptance and propagation of what many would call “just another urban legend”. We have spent much money, time and effort on this seven site and everything we have found is more consistent with many other peoples of this island visiting this site than it is to just one castaway and not a single object has been found that we can trace to Amelia.
‘Old school theorists’ are going to be very reluctant to give up on this castaway of the seven site theory. I admit it is very romantic. The seven site offered many promising clues a few years ago, and after much work on our part, not one of the clues have paid off. It is now time to put the castaway theory on the back burner and move forward in more promising areas, such as her base camp for Fred and her first five days.
For those members not willing to give up on the seven site castaway, theory, then start selling the Tighar membership on another trip back to the seven site, this time to dig a little deeper; maybe to the 30 cm level, or possibly to 50 cm; or maybe we should move our search to the north or south of the seven site, we can call them the six site or the eight site, or how about moving to the east or west of the seven site. Does anyone really believe that we can generate much excitement for a ‘dig’ at the 7 west site ?
6. The Lambrecht Flight
If anyone is rethinking the castaway of the seven site being Amelia then I suggest you rethink the Lambrecht flight also. The only reason that Amelia has to be ALIVE during Lambrechts’ flight is so she can be alive and move down to the seven site and become it’s castaway, and spend the next few weeks, or possibly months, hunting, fishing, and building fires in different locations.
Amelia never set foot on the seven site. She and Fred may very well have found Gardner island and landed by the Norwich wreck, got their radio working and transmitted for five days or so, with most, if not all credible transmits being legit, (including the injury ones). Because of lack of survival training, survival preparations (extra water), 120 degree temps, and possible injuries, by weeks end, both Amelia and Fred were dead. Maybe in Amelia’s last hours, in a do a die effort, Amelia struggled to her feet and staged southward down the beach to find help or water. When the sun got too hot to continue, she spotted the shade from a large ren tree; she crawled up to it, closed her eyes and died.
This is the only hypothesis that is short, simple (occam’s razor anyone ?) and fits the evidence Tighar has found about Amelia, her disappearance, the post transmits, and the Lambrecht flights. For those members not wanting to accept this hypothesis, there is always Gary LaPook’s ‘crashed and sank’, but frankly I think that that one sucks.
-
OK baseballs not a game i'm familier with but I would suggest that a 'catchers mitt' dosn't guarantee a catch every time. The word is a metaphor more than anything but you've got more chance of finding land if there are a number of islands in an area against just one.
-
The Phoenix Islands being a 'catchers mitt' seems plausible at first glance but, as we know from another incident, Eddie Rickenbackers B-17 flight to Canton island, the idea doesn't always seem as simple as it first appears to be. After the over-shoot of canton they spent a further 4 hours searching for canton Island without success. They were in the Phoenix Island group and, ended up ditching into the Pacific.
As this example of a missing aircraft and, the subsequent search for it in the Phoenix group of islands is the only other one apart from the Lambrecht search for AE and FN there might be some worth in using it as a comparison/control as to how they went about it. Any similarities, for example: length of search, area of search, weather, sightings etc..
(http://)
-
Leon, let's be a little more precise here. Lt Lambrecht said in his report there were "signs of recent habitation". Even when he was interviewed by TIGHAR much later, he did not or would not elaborate on what those signs were. See page 3 of Lt. Lambrecht's report linked below.
http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Lambrecht's_Report.html (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Lambrecht's_Report.html)
-
Leon, let's be a little more precise here. Lt Lambrecht said in his report there were "signs of recent habitation". Even when he was interviewed by TIGHAR much later, he did not or would not elaborate on what those signs were. See page 3 of Lt. Lambrecht's report linked below.
http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Lambrecht's_Report.html (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Lambrecht's_Report.html)
Woody, don't you find it strange that despite the report by Lambrecht of 'signs of recent habitation' there was no follow up investigation of Gardner Island for these 'signs of recent habitation'. Have I missed something?
-
Yes Jeff, I find that very strange since Capt Friedell's report, he was the capt of the Colorado, says on page 6, last paragaph, see link below, that "No dwellings appeared on Gardner or any other signs of inhabitation". This totally contradicts Lt Lambrecht's report of this issue.
Capt Friedell seemed to be more concerned about the visit of "Neptunus Rex and his court" than this discrepancy, see last para page 7 and 1st para page 8 of his report.
http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Friedell's_Report.html (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Friedell's_Report.html)
-
Yes Jeff, I find that very strange since Capt Friedell's report, he was the capt of the Colorado, says on page 6, last paragaph, see link below, that "No dwellings appeared on Gardner or any other signs of inhabitation". This totally contradicts Lt Lambrecht's report of this issue.
Capt Friedell seemed to be more concerned about the visit of "Neptunus Rex and his court" than this discrepancy, see last para page 7 and 1st para page 8 of his report.
http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Friedell's_Report.html (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Friedell's_Report.html)
No dwellings appeared on Gardner or any other signs of inhabitation
That's odd
Friedell didn't mention the report from Lambrecht regarding the 'recent signs of habitation' on Garner island, in fact he contradicts it? What's going on here?
-
Good question! I think it was discussed somewhere but I don't remember where right now. I will try to find it as soon as I have a chance.
-
For those who want to delve into the archive of earlier AE Forum postings (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Forum/Forum_Archives/archiveindex.html) (back when it was done via email), the Forum Archives provide for many additional hours of entertainment. It's amusing how much of what gets discussed in the current forum has been hashed over ad nauseum in the past. Pondering about the discrepancy between Lambrecht and Friedell in their separate writings, about "signs of recent habitation" on Gardner Island or not, was much discussed on the Forum back in March 2006 (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Forum/Forum_Archives/200603.txt).
The original of Lambrecht's report, annotated with comments as it was forwarded up the chain of command, was unearthed by Randy Jacobson at the National Archives. I'll quote a Forum entry of Randy's about this (where at the end of the first paragraph he acknowledges that he had earlier reported the incorrect date of the document as July 17; Ron Bright had corrected that, saying that it was actually dated July 16).
Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2006 18:13:41
From: Randy Jacobson
Subject: Re: Friedell and Lambrecht reports
For Ron Bright,
I have a copy of Lambrecht's original report. I was the first person to find the original in the National Archives, and have provided a copy of my copy to TIGHAR. All other copies are carbon copies. It is, in fact, dated July 16, not 17 as you state.
It was sent via the CO of the Colorado to the Chief of the Bureau of Aeronautics via the Commander Battle Force, US Fleet as the first endorsement. The second endorsement was sent from the CO of the Battle Force to the Commander-in-Chief, US Fleet, with a reference to CinCus restricted dispatch 0026-1349 (which I do not have). In this second endorsement, it is stated that the letter of Lambrecht's properly should be under the cognizance of the Navy Dept. instead of the Bureau of Aeronatics, so it is being forwarded to CinCUS. "Certain undesirable features of this correspondence, including the undue informality of expression in certain portions, are being taken up with the Commanding Officer, U.S.S. Colorado, in separate correspondence." The date is 27 July, from the USS California, docked in Tacoma, Washington. It is signed by C.C. Bloch.
I do not have a complete list of personnel in the Naval heirarchy, but I can vouch that CC Bloch, Admiral, was the ComBatForce. Follow-on endorsements basically over-rule the hesitation and dislike of Lambrecht's letter, and eventually it was published by the Bureau of Aeronautics without editing. The follow-on comments are quite interesting, but has nothing to do with "signs of recent habitation"; rather, the style of writing in the letter.
-
Thanks Bruce, let the delving begin!!!
-
From Friedell's report -
"No dwellings appeared on Gardner or any other signs of inhabitation. A long shallow lagoon extends the entire length of the Island and through most of the width. A seaplane could land in the lagoon and it is believed that a land plane could make a forced landing there, and the occupants walk ashore. Coral reefs extended out from the shore line for about 150 yards. At Gardner Island a four thousand ton tramp steamer has piled up head on and remains there with her back broken. Groves of Cocoanut palms grow on the western end and the entire island is covered with tropical vegetation. Myriads of birds cover both islands. "
Now from Lambrecht's report -
"From M’Kean the planes proceeded to Gardner Island (sighting the ship to starboard enroute) and made an aerial search of this island which proved to be one of the biggest of the group. Gardner is a typical example of your south sea atoll … a narrow circular strip of land (about as wide as Coronado’s silver strand) surrounding a large lagoon. Most of this island is covered with tropical vegetation with, here and there, a grove of coconut palms. Here signs of recent habitation were clearly visible but repeated circling and zooming failed to elicit any answering wave from possible inhabitants and it was finally taken for granted that none were there.
At the western end of the island a tramp steamer (of about 4000 tons) bore mute evidence of unlighted and poorly charted “Rocks and Shoals”. She lay high and almost dry head onto the coral beach with her back broken in two places.
The lagoon at Gardner looked sufficiently deep and certainly large enough so that a seaplane or even an airboat could have landed or taken off in any direction with little if any difficulty. Given a chance, it is believed that Miss Earhart could have landed her plane in this lagoon and swam or waded ashore. In fact, on any of these islands it is not hard to believe that a forced landing could have been accomplished with no more damage than a good barrier crash or a good wetting."
My emphasis.
-
From Friedell's report -
No dwellings appeared on Gardner or any other signs of inhabitation.
Now from Lambrecht's report -
Here signs of recent habitation were clearly visible...
Friedell and Lambrecht couldn't agree, fair enough. Perhaps the report Friedell saw differed somewhat to the one Lambrecht filed, it happens in the chain of command.
-
Dr Moleski - I don't think you realise the seriousness of what you casually inferred I had done.
Dr. McKay, there was nothing casual at all in my identification of the rhetorical form you employed.
The evidence for the classification I made is in your original post.
Anyone who wishes to examine the evidence and test the classification may do so.
I'll say once more - you have abused your position as a forum moderator and if you had any understanding of that role you would withdraw unconditionally that comment to which I have objected.
Thanks for repeating yourself. Oddly enough, it doesn't change my view of the situation.
-
Dr Moleski - I don't think you realise the seriousness of what you casually inferred I had done.
Dr. McKay, there was nothing casual at all in my identification of the rhetorical form you employed.
The evidence for the classification I made is in your original post.
Anyone who wishes to examine the evidence and test the classification may do so.
I'll say once more - you have abused your position as a forum moderator and if you had any understanding of that role you would withdraw unconditionally that comment to which I have objected.
Thanks for repeating yourself. Oddly enough, it doesn't change my view of the situation.
I see your retreat has taught you nothing about ethics. But then I didn't expect miracles.
-
I see your retreat has taught you nothing about ethics.
I see that my prayers for you are bearing good fruit.
When you say this, you make several claims.
- You know what ethics are.
- You can judge my ethics.
- You judge that my ethics are deficient.
This is real progress in the spiritual life. You are now dealing with strictly metaphysical realities and claiming competence in them. That's a big step forward from your previous descriptions of yourself as a man who accepts nothing but what is proven by science. "Ethics" can't be apprehended by the senses. They aren't dug out of the ground and dated as artifacts. They can't be studied by any of the methods proper to physics, chemistry, or biology. The standards of ethics are discovered strictly by means of philosophical inquiry.
The fundamental principle of ethics (do good, avoid evil) is not something that can be established by the natural sciences. It is an axiom of thought on the basis of which other logical inferences may be made, but it cannot be established by formal argument. People see it or they don't, and accept or reject it without proof. In other words, the conviction that there are ethics, that they are objective, and that they can be applied to particular cases is an act of faith in our ethical reasoning powers.
Welcome to the world of faith, Dr. McKay!
But then I didn't expect miracles.
If you want to use a theological term, it would be good to understand what it means in the world of theology. A miracle is an observable natural event--something that can be apprehended by the senses--that cannot be explained in terms of natural causality.
My adoption of your understanding of ethics (or your adoption of my understanding) would not technically be classified as a miracle. It would be an astonishing conversion, and the sense of astonishment might resemble that of people pondering a miraculous event, but they are two different kettles of fish.
-
Marty,
You have been an excellent moderator. . . . . don't ruin it.
-
You have been an excellent moderator. . . . . don't ruin it.
Thanks for the kind words, John. :)
-
You have been an excellent moderator. . . . . don't ruin it.
Thanks for the kind words, John. :)
I think that was a past tense.
-
This thread is like hard drugs, only the foolhardy experiment ;D
-
Malcolm,
Don't start.... your STRONG suit is science. It very deffiniely is not insults. You have the ability to greatly help this forum, very much so, you can also distrack, very much so. Your call sir!
-
Can Malcolm
Show us his Evidence, to prove Tighar is wrong about thinking gardner is were flight ended ?
with actual evidence, not just nay say
?
-
Richie,
I think you have the cart in front of the horse. It is your job, and my job to prove Amelia landed at gardner, not the other way around. I don't think Malcolm can prove to you that there isn't men on the other side of the moon either. I think you should try listening to him, you might just learn some things. He does have alot to offer. And so do you richie.
-
John
So we have to prove to Malcolm that Amelia landed at Gardner with smokeing gun evidence
But it's ok for him to dismiss the Gardner hypothesis without evidence, just cos he as done archaeology
if he shows smoking gun evidence, That it was Bert's sextant box an freckle ointment, and not Ernie's on Gardner he has my full Attention :)
-
So we have to prove to Malcolm that Amelia landed at Gardner with smoking gun evidence
But it's ok for him to dismiss the Gardner hypothesis without evidence, just cos he as done archaeology
The burden of proof does not rest equally on those for and against the Niku Hypothesis.
The person who advances an idea has the burden of proof. Those who oppose the idea only have to show that the proponents have not met the burden of proof in order to win the debate.
The Niku Hypothesis has to be backed up by evidence. The declaration that the Niku Hypothesis has not been substantiated only requires inspection of the evidence adduced in its favor by the proponents; it does not require the same kind of proof.
What I find odd about Malcolm is his credulity about the New Britain hypothesis. He seems to have lost his grip on what is and is not evidence when it comes to the legend of the engine tag. In that case, he does bear the burden of proof, and those of us who reject his hypothesis get to sit in the cat bird seat singing, "Not proven, not proven, not anywhere nearly proven." ::)
-
BRAVO Marty. ;)
-
What I find odd about Malcolm is his credulity about the New Britain hypothesis. He seems to have lost his grip on what is and is not evidence when it comes to the legend of the engine tag. In that case, he does bear the burden of proof, and those of us who reject his hypothesis get to sit in the cat bird seat singing, "Not proven, not proven, not anywhere nearly proven." ::)
Credulity Marty? Hmmm...... Let me see.
How about you tell us all exactly what TIGHAR has found and recovered in its existence that is demonstrably part of a historically important aircraft. I know there's the TBD and the P38 they are interested in but have TIGHAR actually recovered them in the sense of removing them, preserving them and actually creating a permanent display for them which shows to the public why they are so historically important, as distinct from the many other private organizations and public museums in the world which have recovered, restored or preserved historically important aircraft.
I know TIGHAR is always talking things up to get funding but have they actually ever completed a project. Let me see besides the two I just mentioned there's L'Oiseau Blanc and of course the headline grabbing Earhart Electra but what else is there?
Now if we are talking credulity here you might care to explain your belief in TIGHAR in comparison with their current track record. Personally I just think that all avenues regarding the recovery of the Electra should be investigated. So far Nikumaroro has been visited and revisited and TIGHAR have produced nothing that constitutes its own vaunted "smoking gun".
Now I know Marty that you will now set about in true philosopher fashion to tell me that black is white and white is black, but you and I both know that in the end all your reply will be is more word games. So now that that approach for you is dismissed before you even start just answer the question - care to explain your belief in TIGHAR in comparison with their current track record. Should be easy for you after all you are not in the least credulous are you?
-
How about you tell us all exactly what TIGHAR has found and recovered in its existence that is demonstrably part of a historically important aircraft. I know there's the TBD and the P38 they are interested in but have TIGHAR actually recovered them in the sense of removing them, preserving them and actually creating a permanent display for them which shows to the public why they are so historically important, as distinct from the many other private organizations and public museums in the world which have recovered, restored or preserved historically important aircraft.
I know TIGHAR is always talking things up to get funding but have they actually ever completed a project. Let me see besides the two I just mentioned there's L'Oiseau Blanc and of course the headline grabbing Earhart Electra but what else is there?
There are many stages in historic aircraft recovery. TIGHAR has participated in many different stages, both as an independent agency and as a sub-contractor for others.
Now if we are talking credulity here you might care to explain your belief in TIGHAR in comparison with their current track record.
I have arrived at my confidence in TIGHAR's integrity in the same way I have come to trust other people in my life. The judgment is a blend of several lines of thought. I like the kind of work they do; I like the way they report their results, including failures and reconsiderations; I like the way that they have promoted standards for research and preservation. I think I've gotten good returns on my investment of time and money in the organization.
Personally I just think that all avenues regarding the recovery of the Electra should be investigated. So far Nikumaroro has been visited and revisited and TIGHAR have produced nothing that constitutes its own vaunted "smoking gun".
Yes, we've noticed that and conceded that more than once, Malcolm. At what point will you accept the fact that we're aware of this circumstance?
Now I know Marty that you will now set about in true philosopher fashion to tell me that black is white and white is black,
Your understanding of my philosophy and your prediction of my future behavior is false. I am a metaphysical realist, not a nominalist.
... but you and I both know that in the end all your reply will be is more word games.
I believe that words have meanings and that learning how to make distinctions between things and terms is well worthwhile. I don't mind you making claims about what you know. When it comes to me, it's my job, not yours, to make my own knowledge claims.
So now that that approach for you is dismissed before you even start just answer the question ...
Dismissed by whom? I don't dismiss my philosophy. The fact that you possess a different set of beliefs about reality is not a cause of angst for me. I've sort of noticed already that your beliefs and mine are not congruent.
- care to explain your belief in TIGHAR in comparison with their current track record. Should be easy for you after all you are not in the least credulous are you?
I am willing to believe things under certain conditions.
As I've indicated before, I believe that it is impossible for us to know things without a prior act of faith in our senses and our powers of reasoning.
I don't believe everything I hear.
I don't believe everything I read.
I think about what I believe.
I strive to understand the conditions of the possibility of thought--in Lonergan's terms, to think about thinking, to understand understanding, to judge judgment, and evaluate values. I'm satisfied that this has given me a standpoint that is not self-referentially inconsistent. It is a stable position from which to evaluate other positions in philosophy.
-
There are many stages in historic aircraft recovery. TIGHAR has participated in many different stages, both as an independent agency and as a sub-contractor for others.
In other words you can't name any - and I'm credulous?
-
As I sit here waiting on Pat's daily report log, I've been reading up on this particular topic and found out like Monty, that some of you seem to have thrown in the towel on this project! Now, granted Malcom you are right in a sense that not all artifacts that have been found are related to Fred/Amelia. We all know that and most rocket scientists will agree with you on this matter. As most of you read this, and most of you who were in DC for the conference will agree that some of the aritifacts shown are not conclusive with Amelia/Fred. Fine example would be the broken plate and other fine component materials. At the same time, with aritfacts found...we have to draw a timeline picture on what is to believe from the Electra and Fred/Amelia. No questions asked. The freckle cream jar in my eyes is a smoking gun. A jar made from western descent, found in the middle of the pacific on a desolate reef, among fish bones, and cosmetics, and etc. A jar that according to the Hazel Atlas Company was made before 1936, because of its clear state. Therefore, if this is the case...then anything after 1936 and is of a milk glass content is not liable. Therefore, the jar that was found has to stand as a conclusive artifact of Amelia/Fred. Therefore, all it takes is "one" artifact to make a case. Another thing to look at based on timeline is the number of women who were actually on Gardner/Niku from the time the Norwich City ran ashore till the Loran Station shut down. If we look at this account, we will notice that there weren't that many women on Niku (if any) that can actually say they had a bottle of Freckle Cream with them. At the same time, we also have to use the theory based upon timeline, that the women islanders would have never come in contact with the freckle cream because of its own culture. Finally, the Loran Station...which is located on one side of the island and away from the Seventh site most likely never housed women of the military. Now help me out on this...I too could be wrong...but in most eyes I'm probably right! Anyway, certain artifacts found have a certain priority than others, because of their timeline value!!! Another thing to look at is the recent discovery of the landing gear on the Bevington photo. Now granted, that the landing gear is based upon a picture...still makes it a liable valuable piece of the puzzle. If the landing gear continues to show readers that indeed it is that of Lockheed Electra 10E, then we have to take evidential facts, without hardcore artifacts at hand,to indicate its credibility. If such is the case, then this particular part of the timeline needs to be flagged as possible evidence. Anyway, not sure if I'm making sense to some of you, but wanted to demonstrate that there are certain little key items that do make a big difference is a search survey of Niku!!! This beings one of them. Anyway, hope that we learn more in the days ahead and we pray that they are able to find anything. Thanks!!!!
-
"...the jar that was found has to stand as a conclusive artifact of Amelia/Fred. .... At the same time, we also have to use the theory based upon timeline, that the women islanders would have never come in contact with the freckle cream because of its own culture."
Randy,
Could you please explain in more detail why you believe women islanders "...would never have come in contact..." with freckle cream- on account of "culture"?
Seems to me the following info provides clear evidence women in the Pacific can also be concerned with their freckles.
“…Women on the islands of South Pacific know papaya juice is also efficient in removing skin blemishes and lightening freckles. You only need to squeeze the juice straight from papaya and then run it onto your skin. An enzyme in juice also has the power to remove dead surface cells. Result is excellently smooth and soft skin...”
http://www.treatment7.com/facial/treatment-for-freckles.html
http://www.philippinesplus.com/2011/08/04/warning-about-skin-whitening-products-in-the-philippines/
-
The freckle cream jar in my eyes is a smoking gun. A jar made from western descent, found in the middle of the pacific on a desolate reef, among fish bones, and cosmetics, and etc. A jar that according to the Hazel Atlas Company was made before 1936, because of its clear state. Therefore, if this is the case...then anything after 1936 and is of a milk glass content is not liable. Therefore, the jar that was found has to stand as a conclusive artifact of Amelia/Fred. Therefore, all it takes is "one" artifact to make a case.
Randy,
Congratulations on solving the Earhart mystery. Have you thought about notifying Ric and friends out on the KOK that they are wasting their time, and our money as you have determined this ‘jar’ belongs to Amelia. Have you notified any scientific organizations of your findings? Also what landing gear are you referring too?
-
In other words you can't name any - and I'm credulous?
There's room for two believers in the world.
It's not either/or.
I respect TIGHAR's work on its projects.
I trust the people who run the organization.
I enjoy working with them.
I like what they're doing.
I've spent a lot of time and money on their projects.
I know that this is an act of faith, i.e., an acceptance of propositions that have not and possibly cannot be demonstrated from self-evident principles or facts introduced as evidence. You may have noticed in various posts I've made that I think this is how our minds work. We have to believe in order to make progress in understanding.
Even though I am a believer, I don't believe everything I read or hear. I do not have any sympathy for the legend of the engine tag, which you seem to think is an established fact. I believe that the accounts of the signal strength of AE's transmissions increasing on the morning of July 2, 1937, put her in the vicinity of Howland Island, too far away from New Britain for her to get there. You seem to have a contrary belief.
-
... The freckle cream jar in my eyes is a smoking gun. A jar made from western descent, found in the middle of the pacific on a desolate reef, among fish bones, and cosmetics, and etc. A jar that according to the Hazel Atlas Company was made before 1936, because of its clear state. Therefore, if this is the case...then anything after 1936 and is of a milk glass content is not liable. Therefore, the jar that was found has to stand as a conclusive artifact of Amelia/Fred.
I do not think the jar has been conclusively shown to be a freckle-cream jar.
Even if that could be done, I don't think that the sole source imaginable is AE or FN.
I agree that the date is consistent with it being from the Electra. That is very attractive. It probably rules out the Coasties, though there is no reason why one of them couldn't have had a ten-year-old jar left over from some project or other.
It's an interesting find, but, for me, definitely not the kind of thing that I would call a smoking gun.
-
For me the smoking gun was the sextant box
But for others there is no smoking gun, like Malcolm has said some were else, Even if they find plane wreckage on reef face of niku, Unless they can clarify it with serial numbers it's just another lost ww1/ww2 aircraft unaccounted for, Which if that's how he view's it so be it.
I believe Tighar has provided for free, In favor / and against, Enough evidence to suggest Amelia and Fred were at Niku
not concrete proof but compared to all the other hypothesis out there, Then each to there own init :)
-
....I agree that the date is consistent with it being from the Electra. That is very attractive. It probably rules out the Coasties, though there is no reason why one of them couldn't have had a ten-year-old jar left over from some project or other......
Marty, Im not arguing the point. (Rather agree with it, actually.)
Clearly not a smoking gun....howver I am curious as to what other purposes your standard run-of-the-mill freckle cream might have?
tb
-
Richie,
I think you have the cart in front of the horse. It is your job, and my job to prove Amelia landed at gardner, not the other way around. I don't think Malcolm can prove to you that there isn't men on the other side of the moon either. I think you should try listening to him, you might just learn some things. He does have alot to offer. And so do you richie.
I think you will find it's Tighar's job to i.e us all, to prove that they landed at Gardner, And i think Tighar has give a very good account of themselves in proving it.
If Malcolm hadn't waffled on about the new Britain hypothesis deserves more credit, Based on a Tag that was an engine number, Which they don't even have to back the story,
Then i find it unfair that he disqualify's every think Tighar has put forward, When he believe's the say so of some army fella
New Britain V Gardner Island
We'll see who is right or wrong in due time init ;)
-
Boy...it's a good thing Niku is made of Coral...if not you'd all have me buried up to my neck in the sand!!! Anyway, not implying that this particular jar is the "real" jar of Amelia's But, what I'm trying to say is that all other possibilites don't even touch this theory. Basing this on TIMELINE only!!! As for the islanders...now here me out on this...going off on a picture that I believe Tom King had posted in one of his blogs or on the website at one time. but, it showed a bunch of islanders gathered. Now, if someone is reading this I need some guidance on this matter...cause first of all I'm not a lady, and second of all I dont do cosmetics. However, I do recall speaking with my parents about a black family that once lived near my folks. My dad asked him one time why they never sunburned. The man's reply was because of their pigmentation of skin color. If this is true, then if the islanders were of dark skin, mixed race descent, or kibrati, or whatever origin, and they never left the island to come to America...then how would they have come in contact with it and second why would they use it anyway. Need some help in this area!!! I've never heard in my lifetime of someone of mixed race descent using freckle cream to cover up freckles. So that is where I'm coming up with this theory. That is why I made the comments I did. Also, for the person wanting to know bout the landing gear, you need to see the photo on the website in regards to this matter. The landing gear appears to be that of Amelia's Lockheed Electra. You'll have to see pictures from the Earhart 75 Search Symposium to draw your own conclusion!!!
-
Boy...it's a good thing Niku is made of Coral...if not you'd all have me buried up to my neck in the sand!!! Anyway, not implying that this particular jar is the "real" jar of Amelia's But, what I'm trying to say is that all other possibilites don't even touch this theory. Basing this on TIMELINE only!!!
Well for what it's worth, I do not think the freckle cream jar is a "smoking gun" either, simply because in the 30s and 40s, as I remember from my childhood, container designs of all types had relatively long production spans.
None of the items found are "smoking guns", what needs to be found as I have continually pointed out is some part of the Electra as that or, if the miraculous happened, and some more of that skeleton turned up or another one was located, would then enable people to have some solid ground for any arguments that one or two of the stray finds may have possible relations with Earhart. So far that wreckage and that skeletal material has eluded the search. I leave the ramifications of that last sentence to others.
In any case David Billings is off to East New Britain again soon and we wait and see what he will turn up. Nice chap David - no where near as sensitive about honest doubt expressed towards his hypothesis.
-
If Malcolm hadn't waffled on about the new Britain hypothesis deserves more credit, Based on a Tag that was an engine number, Which they don't even have to back the story,
Then i find it unfair that he disqualify's every think Tighar has put forward, When he believe's the say so of some army fella
New Britain V Gardner Island
We'll see who is right or wrong in due time init ;)
Indeed we will Richie and as far as I can see both hypotheses plus "ditched and sank" have equal odds of being correct. However I wouldn't write off a landing in the Gilberts somewhere which, the later Japanese occupation in WW2 and Gilbertese being forced labor transferred to other islands, may explain the rumours coming out of Saipan. The Pacific was a very complicated place in WW2.
-
Clearly not a smoking gun....howver I am curious as to what other purposes your standard run-of-the-mill freckle cream might have?
We don't know for certain that it is a freckle-cream jar. The great problem is that all freckle-cream jars found so far are milk glass, not transparent.
If it was a freckle-cream jar, some Coastie might have taken it along to deal with a skin condition (freckles or otherwise).
If it was a freckle-cream jar, it may have been repurposed to store some other skin-care ointment or lotion. We have become a throwaway society, but I suspect that some people in the 1930s may have had the habit of hanging on to useful containers rather than discarding them immediately (I have about two shelves of "useful containers" in my workshop--the fact that there are so many, and that they are all empty, may be evidence that they are not as "useful" as I think they are).
The jar can't tell us who owned it, how it traveled to the island, or how it ended up in fragments at the Seven Site, some of which fragments may or may not have been used as cutting tools.
I just don't think we can put too much weight on it at present. If someone comes up with a photo of AE holding the jar and explaining why it traveled around the world with her, that would help. :)
-
Clearly not a smoking gun....however I am curious as to what other purposes your standard run-of-the-mill freckle cream might have?
We don't know for certain that it is a freckle-cream jar.
If it was a freckle-cream jar, some Coastie might have taken it along to deal with a skin condition (freckles or otherwise).
Marty, we are definitely on the same page here. Ordinary sunburn is the best, most logical, choice for another skin condition Coasties and other visitors to the island had to deal with while based there. A bit of poking around on the web shows freckle cream was often marketed to both men and women as a sort of stand-in for sun tan lotion way back when. This ‘notion’ that freckle cream is a “gender specific” item just doesn’t hold up.
Same logic applies in the case of the bottle believed to be a Campana Italian Balm container. The company did not market or pitch it exclusively to women as claimed here-
http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/62_LotionBottle/62_LotionBottle.htm
“…Perhaps the most interesting finding of all is that Campana Italian Balm, and hand lotions in general at the time, were marketed solely to women.”
That’s just not the case. Campana Italian Balm was also marketed - to both men and women- as a hand lotion and as a remedy for sunburn. The Wiki article on C.I.Balm includes this line- [a bit of an exaggeration I know… but we see that from time to time. :)
"…Campana Balm was carried by every U.S. soldier and serviceman to prevent or heal burns.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Campana_Company
-
As I sit here waiting on Pat's daily report log, I've been reading up on this particular topic and found out like Monty, that some of you seem to have thrown in the towel on this project! Now, granted Malcom you are right in a sense that not all artifacts that have been found are related to Fred/Amelia. We all know that and most rocket scientists will agree with you on this matter. As most of you read this, and most of you who were in DC for the conference will agree that some of the aritifacts shown are not conclusive with Amelia/Fred. Fine example would be the broken plate and other fine component materials. At the same time, with aritfacts found...we have to draw a timeline picture on what is to believe from the Electra and Fred/Amelia. No questions asked. The freckle cream jar in my eyes is a smoking gun. A jar made from western descent, found in the middle of the pacific on a desolate reef, among fish bones, and cosmetics, and etc. A jar that according to the Hazel Atlas Company was made before 1936, because of its clear state. Therefore, if this is the case...then anything after 1936 and is of a milk glass content is not liable. Therefore, the jar that was found has to stand as a conclusive artifact of Amelia/Fred. Therefore, all it takes is "one" artifact to make a case. Another thing to look at based on timeline is the number of women who were actually on Gardner/Niku from the time the Norwich City ran ashore till the Loran Station shut down. If we look at this account, we will notice that there weren't that many women on Niku (if any) that can actually say they had a bottle of Freckle Cream with them. At the same time, we also have to use the theory based upon timeline, that the women islanders would have never come in contact with the freckle cream because of its own culture. Finally, the Loran Station...which is located on one side of the island and away from the Seventh site most likely never housed women of the military. Now help me out on this...I too could be wrong...but in most eyes I'm probably right! Anyway, certain artifacts found have a certain priority than others, because of their timeline value!!! Another thing to look at is the recent discovery of the landing gear on the Bevington photo. Now granted, that the landing gear is based upon a picture...still makes it a liable valuable piece of the puzzle. If the landing gear continues to show readers that indeed it is that of Lockheed Electra 10E, then we have to take evidential facts, without hardcore artifacts at hand,to indicate its credibility. If such is the case, then this particular part of the timeline needs to be flagged as possible evidence. Anyway, not sure if I'm making sense to some of you, but wanted to demonstrate that there are certain little key items that do make a big difference is a search survey of Niku!!! This beings one of them. Anyway, hope that we learn more in the days ahead and we pray that they are able to find anything. Thanks!!!!
Randy,
You may want to think that is a picture of a landing gear, others may think it is a picture of some driftwood, and still others guess it is something else. I have not heard any respected member of TIGHAR declare it to be amelias landing gear.....
-
Another thing to look at is the recent discovery of the landing gear on the Bevington photo. Now granted, that the landing gear is based upon a picture...still makes it a liable valuable piece of the puzzle. If the landing gear continues to show readers that indeed it is that of Lockheed Electra 10E, then we have to take evidential facts, without hardcore artifacts at hand,to indicate its credibility. If such is the case, then this particular part of the timeline needs to be flagged as possible evidence. Anyway, not sure if I'm making sense to some of you, but wanted to demonstrate that there are certain little key items that do make a big difference is a search survey of Niku!!! This beings one of them. Anyway, hope that we learn more in the days ahead and we pray that they are able to find anything. Thanks!!!!
Randy,
You may want to think that is a picture of a landing gear, others may think it is a picture of some driftwood, and still others guess it is something else. I have not heard any respected member of TIGHAR declare it to be amelias landing gear.....
John you are correct in that establishing a terminus post quem and a terminus ante quem for artifacts found at sites is important to establish their relevance. Obviously if the skeleton was found clutching a 1938 dime then clearly it couldn't be one of the pair but if it was found clutching a 1935 dime it could be. So it is with manufactured articles like the freckle cream jar - but we must also take into account that an article can be still in use many years after its date of manufacture so unless you have compelling and incontrovertible associations like e.g. an object buried in a sealed situation with the skeleton then associations remain at best only plausible. As for the "undercarriage" (the Bevington object) that is at best only one reconstruction of what that tiny blur on the photograph might be - enhancements etc. are all very well but they must be taken with a healthy dose of salt, especially that one.
-
Clearly not a smoking gun....howver I am curious as to what other purposes your standard run-of-the-mill freckle cream might have?
We don't know for certain that it is a freckle-cream jar. The great problem is that all freckle-cream jars found so far are milk glass, not transparent.
Quite aware that we are not sure, didn't intend to imply otherwise.
Perhaps I misunderstood your earlier comment. I thought you had proposed a Coastie possibly had a jar of freckle cream for use in some other unspecified application. I was merely curious as to what other purpose freckle cream might have. It just seems to be quite a specific item.
Couldn't think of anything else it might be used for....perhaps some type of cleaner maybe, but that was all I could come up with. (However, I should think the CG would already have on-hand at a Loran installation several types of cleaners much better suited to that task.)
tb
-
I thought you had proposed a Coastie possibly had a jar of freckle cream for use in some other unspecified application. I was merely curious as to what other purpose freckle cream might have. It just seems to be quite a specific item.
I'm trying to cope with both sides of the ID question.
Even if it is a freckle-cream jar, that doesn't rule out a Coastie having it to deal with freckles or some other skin condition, nor does it rule out having a jar from home that was re-purposed after the freckle-cream was all used up.
If it is not a freckle-cream jar, that might expand the range of possible Coastie uses of the original product. And, as in the first case, the original contents may be irrelevant if someone saved the jar to use it for some other purpose after the contents were all used up.
We should probably call it the Hazel-Atlas jar rather than the freckle-cream jar.
-
Yes, well...at least we're sure of that much.
The base of it has all the same indications of melting from campfire though? Can't imagine what a Coastie would be boiling in an ointment pot in a picnic fire. Not big enough for a coffee pot or to be part of a still.
Hmmmm...
tb
-
Yes, well...at least we're sure of that much.
The base of it has all the same indications of melting from campfire though? Can't imagine what a Coastie would be boiling in an ointment pot in a picnic fire. Not big enough for a coffee pot or to be part of a still.
Hmmmm...
tb
Maybe the jar said highly flammable on it ;)
-
The Hazel-Atlas "ointment pot" does not have signs of melting, if memory serves. It is pretty small, I don't see anyone trying to boil water in it.
there are other larger bottles that were in the fire, but not this one.
Andrew
-
Ahhhh!!! I thought all of our found glass vessels had shown these indications.
tb
-
The Freckle cream jar would be good for collecting water from leaves and root recesses because it is small and has an opening good for scooping. (Not found in fire features)
The Medium botttles good for boiling (Found in fire features)
The Benedictine bottle good for storing the boiled water for drinking (Found with bones)
Possibly a water collecting kit carried in the sextant box with the inverting eye piece to start the fires for the castaway whoever it was. The sextant box may have had a shoulder strap, to make the operation easier, based on the little clips (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,17.75.html).
Would the medium bottles and freckle cream jar fit in the sextant box?
-
Interested to follow that, Malcolm. Can you keep us updated or post a link to where we can follow that maybe in the 'New Britain Hypothesis'?
Jeff you could try this site http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/117588?a=379054
My more recent contacts have been by phone.
-
Interested to follow that, Malcolm. Can you keep us updated or post a link to where we can follow that maybe in the 'New Britain Hypothesis'?
Jeff you could try this site http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/117588?a=379054
My more recent contacts have been by phone.
Glad we cleared up your preferred hypothesis ;)
-
Glad we cleared up your preferred hypothesis ;)
I'm still staying with the following -
1. Ditched and sank,
2. Ditched and sank off an island.
3. Landed on an island.
4. Abducted by aliens. ;D
I await with interest what those who are looking have to reveal from their efforts. I haven't had any word from my Martian contact who is combing (and I mean combing - the Martians have very odd shaped fingers) the Central Martian Ministry of Earthly Mysteries Archives. When he, she, they or it (can you believe a people that has four sexes - no wonder they don't have over population), reports back I'll let you all know.
-
The one thing that strikes me is this.
All the objects found on Niku that Tighar has found, Artifact wise there is only one item of each, Like all the lotion bottles ointment pot's.
If a person who used them item's, knew they had a long stay on the island and used them products, shouldn't there be a cache of dr berry ointment pots or hand cream lotion bottles.
as one of each item is not going to last month's is it on the island.
-
Richie,
maybe, maybe not. It could have been a one off gift or the only one of a few that got dropped. Sure Malcolm will tell you that in a dig they sometimes only come up with one item but that dosn't mean that there wern't more.
You do have a point though :)
-
Malcolm
I was referring to your comment, My more recent contacts have been by phone.
i take that meaning with someone in east new Britain camp ?
-
RICHIE,
I KNOW HOW YOU CAN SHUT MALCOLM UP !
AFTER 23 YEARS OF TRYING AND MANY EXPEDATIONS TO GARNER AND 1,000’S OF HOURS OF RESEARCH, SHOW MALCOLM JUST ONE ITEM OF PROOF THAT AMELIA WAS THERE. NOT A LOT OF ‘COULD HAVES, OR MIGHT HAVES’, JUST ONE ITEM OF PROOF. AFTER 23 YEARS I WOULD THINK THAT MAYBE SOME PEOPLE ARE RETHINKING PREVIOUS IDEAS. STILL, OTHERS WILL CONINUE ON FOR ANOTHER 23 YEARS BELIEVING SUCCESS IS JUST AROUND THE CORNER BECAUSE THEY JUST KNOW IN THEIR HEART THAT SHE HAD TO BE THERE. I DON’T THINK IN MALCOLM’S WORLD THEY CAN JUST ACCEPT THE “KNOWING“ WITHOUT A LIITTLE BIT OF PROOF.
THE CLAMS, THE SEXTEANT BOX, THE BONES, AND MANY, MANY OTHER THINGS ARE INTERESTING, VERY INTERESTING, BUT NOT REMOTELY CLOSE TO PROOF, AT LEAST NOT IN THE SCIENTIFIC WORLD. IF AND WHEN TIGHAR CAN SAY: “SHE WAS HERE”, THE WHOLE WORLD WILL BELIEVE US BECAUSE WE WILL HAVE PROOF, NOT A WHOLE BUNCH OF HUNCHES.
-
Malcolm
I was referring to your comment, My more recent contacts have been by phone.
i take that meaning with someone in east new Britain camp ?
Yep - with David Billings.
-
I DON’T THINK IN MALCOLM’S WORLD THEY CAN JUST ACCEPT THE “KNOWING“ WITHOUT A LIITTLE BIT OF PROOF.
Yep - there is no substitute for clear irrefutable proof :) Otherwise all we are writing is fiction.
-
Richie,
maybe, maybe not. It could have been a one off gift or the only one of a few that got dropped. Sure Malcolm will tell you that in a dig they sometimes only come up with one item but that dosn't mean that there wern't more.
You do have a point though :)
It happens, but there are usually clear indications if one is to go so far as to assign it provenance to a person or event. So far these have been noticeably lacking at Nikumaroro in regard to Earhart or Noonan.
-
IF AND WHEN TIGHAR CAN SAY: “SHE WAS HERE”, THE WHOLE WORLD WILL BELIEVE US BECAUSE WE WILL HAVE PROOF, NOT A WHOLE BUNCH OF HUNCHES.
It's not up to TIGHAR to say "She was here." All we can do is present what we have found. Everyone has his or her own threshold of belief. Many are already there. Some will never be there no matter what we find.
-
Hey Ric----
Give us a smiley if NIKU VII found something of interest.
Tom
Come on----that doesnt violate anything, its a smiley
-
RICHIE,
I KNOW HOW YOU CAN SHUT MALCOLM UP !
AFTER 23 YEARS OF TRYING AND MANY EXPEDATIONS TO GARNER AND 1,000’S OF HOURS OF RESEARCH, SHOW MALCOLM JUST ONE ITEM OF PROOF THAT AMELIA WAS THERE. NOT A LOT OF ‘COULD HAVES, OR MIGHT HAVES’, JUST ONE ITEM OF PROOF. AFTER 23 YEARS I WOULD THINK THAT MAYBE SOME PEOPLE ARE RETHINKING PREVIOUS IDEAS. STILL, OTHERS WILL CONINUE ON FOR ANOTHER 23 YEARS BELIEVING SUCCESS IS JUST AROUND THE CORNER BECAUSE THEY JUST KNOW IN THEIR HEART THAT SHE HAD TO BE THERE. I DON’T THINK IN MALCOLM’S WORLD THEY CAN JUST ACCEPT THE “KNOWING“ WITHOUT A LIITTLE BIT OF PROOF.
THE CLAMS, THE SEXTEANT BOX, THE BONES, AND MANY, MANY OTHER THINGS ARE INTERESTING, VERY INTERESTING, BUT NOT REMOTELY CLOSE TO PROOF, AT LEAST NOT IN THE SCIENTIFIC WORLD. IF AND WHEN TIGHAR CAN SAY: “SHE WAS HERE”, THE WHOLE WORLD WILL BELIEVE US BECAUSE WE WILL HAVE PROOF, NOT A WHOLE BUNCH OF HUNCHES.
John
What makes you think i want to SHUT Malcolm up ?
Ain't that what the ignore button is for ?
I just like to do what we Brits call PASSING THE TIME AWAY ;)
-
It's not up to TIGHAR to say "She was here." All we can do is present what we have found. Everyone has his or her own threshold of belief. Many are already there. Some will never be there no matter what we find.
Well Ric, a little undeniable provenance is preferable to me.
-
Well Ric, a little undeniable provenance is preferable to me.
As it is to all of us. If we had undeniable provenance we'd be popping the champagne corks - but we don't and we aren't. We're on the trail, puzzling out the paw prints, trying to track the beast to its lair. You're welcome to sit at home and call us fools. Perhaps we are. Time will tell.
-
Well Ric, a little undeniable provenance is preferable to me.
As it is to all of us. If we had undeniable provenance we'd be popping the champagne corks - but we don't and we aren't. We're on the trail, puzzling out the paw prints, trying to track the beast to its lair. You're welcome to sit at home and call us fools. Perhaps we are. Time will tell.
I didn't call anyone a fool.
-
I didn't call anyone a fool.
Thanks for clearing that up.
-
All we can do is enjoy playing the odds - Odds are some of the items are of a Western woman and of a pre-WWII plane, and if found near each other, could be from the same event whatever that was ......... Whoever has the time, desire, and money to investigate - go for it! Wish I did! I think the odds are Niku's the place Amelia and Fred landed for the last time, or the landing-site of some other pre-WWII unknown aviatrix (and what are the odds of that?)
--Lauren
-
you are speaking of the 'stuff' that drives us to seek - that's the gas in the tank for many of us.
"But now that researchers understand dopamine and the SEEKING system better, the way we think abut rewards is changing. What's rewarding about rewards isn't so much the reward item itself, but the time you spend looking forward to it. In some ways, chasing after things is more fun than actually getting them."
Animals Make Us Human
Temple Grandin
page 104
-
Even if it is a freckle-cream jar, that doesn't rule out a Coastie having it to deal with freckles or some other skin condition
I'll try to find it, but I read somewhere that db freckle cream also was good for other skin blemishes, like pimples.
Just sayin'.
Gloria
-
Quote from: john a delsing on June 27, 2012
I since have found out that you can’t run a LOP of 337 from the Howland vicinity and hit Gardner, at least mot at that time of day they were there.
Can someone explain this to me please?
Gloria
-
Quote from: john a delsing on June 27, 2012
I since have found out that you can’t run a LOP of 337 from the Howland vicinity and hit Gardner, at least mot at that time of day they were there.
Can someone explain this to me please?
Gloria
You probably need to read some of the threads about the "line of position" (LOP) (http://tighar.org/wiki/LOP) in the Celestial Navigation board (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/board,4.0.html).
-
Quote from: john a delsing on June 27, 2012
I since have found out that you can’t run a LOP of 337 from the Howland vicinity and hit Gardner, at least mot at that time of day they were there.
Can someone explain this to me please?
Gloria
Gloria, if you go to the Celestial choir Topic (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/board,4.0.html), you will get the answer to your question and a lot more.
-
Can someone explain this to me please?
John Delsing says, "I since have found out that you can’t run a LOP of 337 from the Howland vicinity and hit Gardner, at least mot at that time of day they were there." That may be true but it is also immaterial to TIGHAR's hypothesis. Noonan clearly did get a 157 337 LOP and Earhart was clearly running on that line when last heard from by Itasca. If you are south of Howland on a 157 337 LOP and you dead-reckon down the line, you will come within sight of Gardner. That's the most plausible explanation but no one will ever know for sure how they got to Gardner. All that matters is that they do seem to have gotten there.
-
Can someone explain this to me please?
John Delsing says, "I since have found out that you can’t run a LOP of 337 from the Howland vicinity and hit Gardner, at least mot at that time of day they were there." That may be true but it is also immaterial to TIGHAR's hypothesis. Noonan clearly did get a 157 337 LOP and Earhart was clearly running on that line when last heard from by Itasca. If you are south of Howland on a 157 337 LOP and you dead-reckon down the line, you will come within sight of Gardner. That's the most plausible explanation but no one will ever know for sure how they got to Gardner. All that matters is that they do seem to have gotten there.
I understand the concept but John Delsing's statement seems to be a contradition to me -
I surely agree that a 'sun line' shifts with time, yes - but a 'LOP' taken from a sun line taken at a given time of day and laid down across the earth / a chart remains defined and fixed: 157 / 337 through Howland remains that once drawn on a chart; a pilot may follow it by dead reckoning and well come very close to Gardner / Niku if far enough south / southeast 'on the line' from Howland.
-
you are speaking of the 'stuff' that drives us to seek - that's the gas in the tank for many of us.
"But now that researchers understand dopamine and the SEEKING system better, the way we think abut rewards is changing. What's rewarding about rewards isn't so much the reward item itself, but the time you spend looking forward to it. In some ways, chasing after things is more fun than actually getting them."
Animals Make Us Human
Temple Grandin
page 104
Which may explain a great deal of why we do this. I recall being utterly fascinated with the Titanic as a youngster, and ecstatic as a young man when it was found - and my interest is still there, but it is much lower level, a calm, occasional glimpse into 'what goes' now that she's found and many secrets of her passing are known.
Thinking of that I nearly dread the idea of Earhart's disappearance being solved for certain... well, almost... there's always another or so - like White Bird... and whatever happened to Paul Redfern? I would love to pursue that one.
Paul Redfern (http://kidnappingmurderandmayhem.blogspot.co.uk/2011/02/last-flight-of-port-of-brunswick.html)
How many of these people are there? AE, The White Bird, then what? So so many :)
-
you are speaking of the 'stuff' that drives us to seek - that's the gas in the tank for many of us.
"But now that researchers understand dopamine and the SEEKING system better, the way we think abut rewards is changing. What's rewarding about rewards isn't so much the reward item itself, but the time you spend looking forward to it. In some ways, chasing after things is more fun than actually getting them."
Animals Make Us Human
Temple Grandin
page 104
Which may explain a great deal of why we do this. I recall being utterly fascinated with the Titanic as a youngster, and ecstatic as a young man when it was found - and my interest is still there, but it is much lower level, a calm, occasional glimpse into 'what goes' now that she's found and many secrets of her passing are known.
Thinking of that I nearly dread the idea of Earhart's disappearance being solved for certain... well, almost... there's always another or so - like White Bird... and whatever happened to Paul Redfern? I would love to pursue that one.