TIGHAR

Amelia Earhart Search Forum => Radio Reflections => Topic started by: Heath Smith on July 01, 2012, 09:18:37 AM

Title: Betty's Notebook, Page 53, S309 165E
Post by: Heath Smith on July 01, 2012, 09:18:37 AM
While I must admit that I am somewhat skeptical of Betty's Notebook, not because I do not believe her but rather it is possible that a local hoaxer might have created the broadcast, I do find this reported position interesting.

On Page 53 (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Notebook/page53.html) of Betty's Notebook (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Notebook/notebook.html), this position is shown at the lower right of the page.

Reader over the TIGHAR document Occult References (http://tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/2000Vol_16/occult.pdf), there is a discussion of the position beginning on page 5.

In the discussion there is the following statement:

Might they represent the exact midpoint of the flight? No, that point has been calculated to be 3° 2´ South, 165° 10´ East. The position written in Betty’s notebook is about 7 miles south and 10 miles west of there. (We’ve actually had various measurements of the midpoint from a number of equally competent navigators. None match Betty’s note.)

Can someone confirm whether this is still the belief held by TIGHAR? I am a bit curious as to how this point was derived by the navigators mention above. Looking at Google Earth, the above stated position seems to be a bit North (about 7SM) of the Great Circle flight path. My assumption is that Google Earth is using the Great Circle calculations when you draw a point from A to B. Can someone shed light on that?

What is perhaps interesting is that if we assume that Google Earth is correct, the original flight plan created for the original flight attempt written by Williams would have the end of a segment  marking the midpoint of the flight. If we for the sake of argument say that they did indeed reverse the original plan plan, this end of segment marker would end up very near the position that Betty had written (about 2SM miles, assuming Betty's Notebook stated 3 degrees 9 minutes South, 165 degrees East). I have attached a Google Earth file that lists the points of interest around this area where the flight segment would have terminated as well positions of the Ontario and the TIGHAR estimated midpoint of the flight.

If we take the position that a hoaxer might have been able to derive this information, this would very interesting in that they would have had to have some knowledge of Great Circle navigation or they would have had to read something in the paper that stated position of the Ontario and fudged the number to make it seem reasonable. If they fudged the numbers to make it seem reasonable it would be very coincidental that they chose a point so close to the Great Circle flight path, right near the end of a segment in the original flight plan from the first attempt.
Title: Re: Betty's Notebook, Page 53, S309 165E
Post by: Ric Gillespie on July 01, 2012, 09:59:32 AM
While I must admit that I am somewhat skeptical of Betty's Notebook, not because I do not believe her but rather it is possible that a local hoaxer might have created the broadcast,

Explain how a local hoaxer could create a broadcast that was not heard by hundreds, if not thousands, of people in the local area.
Title: Re: Betty's Notebook, Page 53, S309 165E
Post by: Ric Gillespie on July 01, 2012, 10:06:09 AM
I was referring specifically to what Betty heard, not the other many post loss signals.

You miss my point.  So Betty is really hearing a hoaxer who is transmitting somewhere in the St. Pete area.  Why aren't hundreds of other people also hearing the hoaxer?  You can't make a broadcast and and target a single listener.
Title: Re: Betty's Notebook, Page 53, S309 165E
Post by: Heath Smith on July 01, 2012, 10:09:53 AM

As a hypothetical, they might have been in that town or hundreds of miles away. I do not believe anything was targeted toward Betty specifically but it is a possibility that no one else had heard this broadcast regardless of the range because no one was listening.

It is my understanding that no one else has come forward as a collaborating ear witness that matches the data given in Betty's notebook but perhaps I missed that.
Title: Re: Betty's Notebook, Page 53, S309 165E
Post by: Heath Smith on July 01, 2012, 12:06:02 PM

If you believe that Betty heard "This is Amelia" that is a bit of a stretch to think that she heard random transmissions and invented the rest.

Also, we are straying from the topic. ;)
Title: Re: Betty's Notebook, Page 53, S309 165E
Post by: Tim Collins on July 02, 2012, 07:07:39 AM
What is so hard to understand? Earhart is missing and a radio broadcast is playing audio clips of Earhart from the past.

I can't imagine it was as easy as that back then - just play sound clips of Earhart, make sure their the ones where she's in distress and panicked. How quickly we can get lost in the technological ease and conveniences of our own time.  But ok, if Betty didn't hear Earhart where were these "clips" originating? 
Title: Re: Betty's Notebook, Page 53, S309 165E
Post by: Chris Johnson on July 02, 2012, 07:13:58 AM
So Betty hears a montarge (sp) of spliced reels of Amelia speaking (Fred chipping in from the rear so to speak) played by a local station.

Why then is her diary not better organised?

IMO if I were going to try and perpetrate a fraud it would look slicker and appear more genuine?

BTW I know and never will know anything about how a radio works, how the signal gets from a to b or if it is possible to have a fourth wave harmonic let alone a first wave.  I do know that i'm using someone elses wireless and it serves them right for not having a WEP key :)
Title: Re: Betty's Notebook, Page 53, S309 165E
Post by: Heath Smith on July 03, 2012, 04:34:25 AM
Quote
Could she be a hoaxter, possible but not likely. Could she be honest but mistaken, very probable.

There are a couple of things that defy your explanation of mish-mash of broadcasts if you believe that Betty was telling the truth.

The topic of this thread was originally about the coordinate that was given in the notebook. According to Betty this was repeated several times. On the page you can see where she had written a similar position on the page. She later said that she recalled hearing very clearly the coordinate mentioned that was the topic of the post. If this was the March of Time broadcast, or any other broadcast, why would they repeat a coordinate that was specific to the flight and of little interest to a listening public? That does not make much sense to me.

The fact that this repeated position is so close to a relevant piece of information about the flight (assuming Williams flight plan reversed) that leads me toward the real thing or a very clever perpetrator of a hoax with detailed knowledge of the flight plan and the position of the Ontario that would probably not been available to the general pubic.

The only thing that I am a bit bothered by is that Betty used the degree symbol on the longitude and a ' on the latitude. If it was Earhart, do you think she would have stated "degrees" on the radio and that Betty (at 13 years old) would have known to write the degree symbol in the appropriate place? That is a bit troubling.
Title: Re: Betty's Notebook, Page 53, S309 165E
Post by: Gary LaPook on July 03, 2012, 05:26:31 AM
Quote
Could she be a hoaxter, possible but not likely. Could she be honest but mistaken, very probable.

There are a couple of things that defy your explanation of mish-mash of broadcasts if you believe that Betty was telling the truth.

The topic of this thread was originally about the coordinate that was given in the notebook. According to Betty this was repeated several times. On the page you can see where she had written a similar position on the page. She later said that she recalled hearing very clearly the coordinate mentioned that was the topic of the post. If this was the March of Time broadcast, or any other broadcast, why would they repeat a coordinate that was specific to the flight and of little interest to a listening public? That does not make much sense to me.

The fact that this repeated position is so close to a relevant piece of information about the flight (assuming Williams flight plan reversed) that leads me toward the real thing or a very clever perpetrator of a hoax with detailed knowledge of the flight plan and the position of the Ontario that would probably not been available to the general pubic.

The only thing that I am a bit bothered by is that Betty used the degree symbol on the longitude and a ' on the latitude. If it was Earhart, do you think she would have stated "degrees" on the radio and that Betty (at 13 years old) would have known to write the degree symbol in the appropriate place? That is a bit troubling.
You are referring to the notations written at an angle. It looks like something added later, trying to make sense out to the line " SOUTH 391065 Z or E."

It looks like you could break that string of numbers a lot of different ways, it could be 39° 10' south, 65° east, just one possibility. This seems more reasonable than shoehorning "1065" into "165" east.  There are other possibilities.

gl
Title: Re: Betty's Notebook, Page 53, S309 165E
Post by: Heath Smith on July 03, 2012, 05:34:14 AM
Quote
You are referring to the notations written at an angle. It looks like something added later, trying to make sense out to the line " SOUTH 391065 Z or E."

Correct, this is where she recalls that she heard a repetition of the position more clearly than the prior ones (at the left edge). This position is difficult to explain even if added later unless it was again someone with detailed knowledge of the prior attempt flight and the position of the Ontario.

Betty specifically recalled remembering writing the notations at the right side of the page at the time of the broadcast, suggesting that this was not written at a latter time by herself or perhaps a parent.

In any case, it is hard to see how this could have been part of any re-enactment/drama/other public broadcast.
Title: Re: Betty's Notebook, Page 53, S309 165E
Post by: Malcolm McKay on July 05, 2012, 04:21:24 AM

From Ric in the old Forum (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Forum/Forum_Archives/200011.txt), 17 November 2000: "All of the entries in the notebook are in pencil.  A red pencil was used for some detailing in the portraits (lips, etc.) and for a few song lyric entries.  All of the Earhart notes appear to have been made with the same pencil which was apparently a bit harder than the pencil used by Betty later to make the explanatory notes.  The brackets coordinates on page 53 are consistent in appearance with the other entries on that page.  The bracketed explanatory note on the preceding page is darker and is consistent with the explanatory notes on page 49.  All of the entries in Betty's notebook seem to be in her hand but we'll be having a document expert look into that."

"On November 5, 2000 we interviewed Betty on videotape at her home in the Midwest. (We’re not disclosing Betty’s full name and location at this time because she has a heart condition and we don’t want her to be assailed by the press.) She was able to provide us with much more detail about her own history and her recollections about the entries she made in her notebook. One of her neighbors was also able to provide us with correspondence dating from 1970 which documents that he attempted unsuccessfully to interest Earhart author Fred Goerner in Betty’s story at that time.

"The same neighbor also had notes of a conversation he had with Betty’s mother, then still living. Although differing in some minor details, the notes generally agree with Betty’s version of the story. While we were there we also collected handwriting examples from Betty which will be used in an evaluation of her notebook by a recognized expert in document authentication."


Not wishing to appear niggling or willfully contrary but did the handwriting expert (s) confirm that it was indeed Betty's handwriting at the time when she was 15 years old as against what her handwriting as an adult was. I know that when I was 15 my handwriting had yet to lose the school indoctrinated style which was replaced by my notoriously unreadable scrawl that developed in later years. Pencils are very difficult things to verify vis-à-vis pens which use ink. "Betty" may indeed be kosher in regard to what she recalls but as I see it the two important questions remain -

1. Did she hear a transmission or only a garbled March of Time broadcast, and

2. Could this be a later fake using a notebook she retained from her childhood - only handwriting analysis can test that, although graphology is undeniably, like polygraphs, a very very scientifically uncertain area in which to venture.

I ask these questions because as far as I can ascertain the whole outer reef landing hypothesis hangs upon her notes, not to mention the speculations about Earhart and Noonan's subsequent behaviour on Nikumaroro. 
Title: Re: Betty's Notebook, Page 53, S309 165E
Post by: Bruce Thomas on July 05, 2012, 08:15:10 AM
We don't know where on the reef or where in the plane the water had become "knee deep."  When sitting in a three-point stance, it could be knee deep aft but not yet that deep in the cockpit.

And building on what Marty said in that last paragraph of his, the "knee deep" comment could just as well be about the depth of the water on the reef outside the aircraft ... a consideration for someone having to wade back to shore, particularly if the tide is coming in and the surf is becoming active.
Title: Re: Betty's Notebook, Page 53, S309 165E
Post by: Tom Swearengen on July 05, 2012, 09:23:05 AM
Breaking news: I actually agree with malcolm on the bettys notebook dating thing. If we were using it as a major factor in our search, I would say it would be logical to have the pages time dated to 1937. Makes logical sense to me, to remove any doubt that it could have been faked, say in 1966.
But---even though its an important peice in the overall puzzle, its content doesnt give me enough specifics to warrant a search of Niku. But-----if she had stated something like, "one a island with a shipwreck on the western shoreline", or something more geographically specific, I would be all over it.
just saying. Good point Malcolm.
Title: Re: Betty's Notebook, Page 53, S309 165E
Post by: pilotart on July 05, 2012, 09:47:23 AM
Although the Navy Experts pointed to the Phoenix Islands as being the most logical place to look on July 2, 1937, they had looked there and found nothing.

This idea was not resurrected until TIGHAR brought it up again long after 1966.

TIGHAR has well documented Betty's notebook already.

Title: Re: Betty's Notebook, Page 53, S309 165E
Post by: John Hart on July 05, 2012, 12:43:04 PM
Upfront I will admit to being a newbie late to the discussion and only slightly read in to the overwhelming amount of info on this site but as an aviator would like to post some thoughts for consideration in this debate.  Having frequently been involved in extended radio checks I know that after a certain amount of "testing, 1,2,3..." etc. you often find yourself resorting to words that are nonsensical.  Without regard to the validity of Betty's notebook I would not be surprised to hear unusual statements on an extended transmission like "New York, New York" if someone were trying to insure a steady, long transmission to faciltate direction finding.  After several days of not receiving responses at some point you would suspect your receiver and hope that at least you were transmitting and someone could get a bearing on you to come help.  You would transmit info you thought was important but to extend the transmission add whatever filler came to mind.

As to their physical condition under the hypothesis I would wonder how either of them could be seriously injured if the aircraft was not sufficiently damaged as to allow an engine to be run and the radio to work?  I would instead suspect some other injury resulting from the process of exploring/searching for shelter/water.  Some of these injuries can result in less than coherent behavior such as drinking contaminated or salt water, cutting one's feet on coral, eating something bad.  Sunburn, sunstroke, and dehydration all also produce unusual behavior.  So silly babbling would not be unusual after a while.

Apologize for going off this thread but in line with that train of thought, as an aviator I would have circled the island looking for the best place to land.  In that process I would have noted all the features of the island to focus my immediate survival efforts.  If, as stated, the dark pond at the SE end of the island looks like a fresh water pond I would have gone there.  Seems others assumed till they found out otherwise that it might be a fresh water pond.  I would have had to taste the water to find out it wasn't fresh and who knows what that might have done to me?  I would have also noted all open/cleared areas as having the potential for inhabitants.  We know the island was not inhabited, they would not have.  They see a wrecked ship and might expect someone to still be there.  If you saw a clearing such as the 7 sight that might be the next place you look after finding no one near the wreck.

Finally, as an aviator I do not doubt in the least your hypothesis about what they did upon arrival at LOP.  That decision would have been made before hand, if not by AE at least by FN, who knew the only direction to go. After a brief run to verify to the north you would go 337 toward the greater preponderance of islands close by.  Having been low on fuel and "sucking up the seat cushion" as we say I also know you would land at the first place you found suitable once you are flying on reserve.  I know from experience flying over water that islands can sometimes be seen at 100 miles that at other times cannot be seen till you are right on top of them.  Humidity, sun angle, and cloud cover all play a part and sometimes low cumulus is worst as the shadows can hide a sizable island from view.  They would have arrived at Gardner with sufficient fuel to conduct a survey similar to your helicopter ride.   Prudence would dictate a low approach to determine the texture of the landing surface.  What looks smooth at 100+ feet can turn out to be a washboard on landing.

I applaud your work to date, am fascinated at the analysis and wealth of data on your site which I have only scratched the surface, and apologize if I have added nothing to the debate that may be found elsewhere that I have not read yet.

JB
Title: Re: Betty's Notebook, Page 53, S309 165E
Post by: Bruce Thomas on July 05, 2012, 01:00:42 PM
After a brief run to verify to the north you would go 337 157 toward the greater preponderance of islands close by.

Welcome, John.  I've noted in the quote-snippet above the change I think you'd probably make yourself after another proofreading of what you wrote.  :) (You can modify your own postings, using the "Modify" button at the top.)  Join in with your additional thoughts -- this is a wide-ranging Forum, as I guess you've already discerned.

Why not go to the New Member Introduction topic (https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,235.0.html) and let us know more about yourself?
Title: Re: Betty's Notebook, Page 53, S309 165E
Post by: Malcolm McKay on July 06, 2012, 01:09:59 AM
Breaking news: I actually agree with malcolm on the bettys notebook dating thing. If we were using it as a major factor in our search, I would say it would be logical to have the pages time dated to 1937. Makes logical sense to me, to remove any doubt that it could have been faked, say in 1966.
But---even though its an important peice in the overall puzzle, its content doesnt give me enough specifics to warrant a search of Niku. But-----if she had stated something like, "one a island with a shipwreck on the western shoreline", or something more geographically specific, I would be all over it.
just saying. Good point Malcolm.

Good God Tom - nearly gave me a heart attack  ;D . Next time you agree could you sort of gently lead into it?  :)
Title: Re: Betty's Notebook, Page 53, S309 165E
Post by: Adam Marsland on July 06, 2012, 03:59:29 AM
There's a great quote from Sherlock Holmes that goes something like, "when you have eliminated all possibilities, whatever remains, however unlikely, must be the truth."

To me, it's not quite enough to just say that you don't believe something, or that the evidence does not meet one's criteria.  I want to hear an alternative explanation that fits the facts without bending them.  TIGHAR, to their credit, have done this on nearly every area of their hypothesis.  Proof?  No.  But anticipating the flaws in their hypothesis and advancing credible explanations for them?  Absolutely. 

This is one reason I'm not particularly impressed with the naysayers' arguments.  It is not enough to merely poke holes in a theory.  You need to be able to come up with a better explanation of your own that fits the facts and the situations as they were (not as they are now, or were at some other time, or would like them to have been), and critically think one's own arguments.  This is something few people do, and one of the reasons I have always liked TIGHAR's approach, because they do do this.  I knew from reading this website in the past that TIGHAR had gone through and verified all of the song lyrics in Betty's Notebook as being period-authentic, to give one example, and did not bring it up because I assumed someone as thorough as Malcolm would not have advanced the criticism about authentication without already knowing this. But he did...which is what frustrates me sometimes about the potshots that keep getting leveled.  Most of this stuff has already been asked and answered credibly, and I confess to rolling my eyes when someone comes up with a highfalutin' GOTCHA and I know full-well TIGHAR dealt with this or that issue at some length 10 years ago and the person just hasn't done their homework.

What I DO like is when someone comes up with something new, pro or con.  That's the good stuff, and it helps advance us to the truth. Because skepticism for its own sake is not objectivity.  It is simply another form of bias -- professional skeptics often are deathly afraid of looking stupid or being played for suckers, and want to preserve intellectual superiority at all times -- but radical changes in our understanding of the world are more often advanced by people thinking out of the box, and who are often ridiculed for going against the prevailing wisdom -- not because they are blind believers, but because they put two and two together and didn't worry that everyone else said it made five.  To see the truth, you have to be able to follow the threads of evidence wherever they lead, even if they lead somewhere that counters conventional belief and in the short term your peers may make fun of you. 

However, healthy skepticism equally applied coupled with an open mind that weighs competing arguments fairly and critically thinks its own arguments' weaknesses as hard as it does others -- now, there's an approach that, in my opinion, arrives at the truth.  And coming up with new ways of looking at the problem that meet these criteria, wherever they point, is really valuable.

So let's say Amelia Earhart's plane washes up on Howland tomorrow.  It will still leave us with a fascinating conundrum, because none of the alternative explanations for Betty's Notebook, or the post-loss messages, or the artifacts found at the Seven Site, have to me manifested a fraction of the thoroughness and attention to detail that TIGHAR's has.  These things are explained away, in my opinion, far too glibly and without taking into account a lot of the actual factual details surrounding them.  If you look closely at all these issues, they are much harder to explain away.  I do agree it is manifestly unlikely for Betty's Notebook, for example, to be what it purports to be...but the alternative explanations are so much more unlikely as to beggar belief.  The basis for believing in the alternative explanations mostly lies in the incredulity that she actually heard Earhart -- but that, in itself, is not an argument. 

There's a difference between being unconvinced of something and being convinced something didn't happen because you find it too fantastic, and in so doing reach for an explanation that, if examined closely, is even more unrealistic.  But because it has the comfort of not being a sensational claim, we feel safe in making it.

Which brings me back to Sherlock Holmes: "when you have eliminated all possibilities, whatever remains, however unlikely, must be the truth."  I personally find it highly unlikely she faked the journals, but it's certainly possible and doable assuming she did it in 1937.  The other explanations advanced simply don't wash when given the same level of scrutiny the Earhart scenario is.  Now this does not mean there couldn't be some other explanation, some odd coincidence of fate and misunderstanding and the mystery of radio, that's even odder than an Earhart reception.  But I would say whatever that would be, would be an even more fascinating and unlikely scenario than the one we're looking at.
Title: Re: Betty's Notebook, Page 53, S309 165E
Post by: richie conroy on July 06, 2012, 08:07:02 AM
Excellent post Adam  :)

Tighar have done the most they can to prove the artifacts belong to Amelia and Fred

Those naysayers who disagree and say they could belong to anyone ?

can they prove they didn't belong to the lost flyer's, Doubt it.

as for the notebook, with or without it Tighar would still be were they are today.

if it said they are on gardner then it would be questionable ? 
Title: Re: Betty's Notebook, Page 53, S309 165E
Post by: Leon R White on July 06, 2012, 09:18:56 AM
Well stated Adam.  There have been discussions elsewhere that in the scientific method you cannot DISPROVE anything.  You can only prove another explanation that by its proof, makes the first explanation unusuable.  There is a fine line between scepticism and cynicism - but they are not the same thing.  And poking holes doesn't disprove anything.  Alternate proof is what is needed - not probabilities, possibilities, plausible alternatives, or opinions. The fact that there are 42 alternative explanations means nothing without proof. Did she land in New Britain? Australia? the Moon? believe what you like, but pursue some proof.
And the search for proof, not the search of disproof, is what, for me, makes true science elegant and beautiful.  Plus, it keeps my mind off the cricket scores.

Leon
Title: Re: Betty's Notebook, Page 53, S309 165E
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on July 06, 2012, 09:52:02 AM
There have been discussions elsewhere that in the scientific method you cannot DISPROVE anything.  You can only prove another explanation that by its proof, makes the first explanation unusuable.

This is how posts about TIGHAR's work turn into philosophical arguments.

We have touched on the question of "proving negatives" in the Chatterbox (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,608.0.html).  While establishing the falsehood of some theories by proving another is a valid approach, it is also possible to establish falsehood on other grounds without having established the truth of another theory.

In other words, I think your theory about theories is not a reliable guide to how to think about "scientific method."
Title: Re: Betty's Notebook, Page 53, S309 165E
Post by: Dave Potratz on July 06, 2012, 01:50:41 PM
Quote from Adam Marsland:
"There's a great quote from Sherlock Holmes that goes something like, 'when you have eliminated all possibilities, whatever remains, however unlikely, must be the truth.'


Adam, a bit of a clarification, FWIW, the Sherlock Holmes quote you reference is actually:  "When you have eliminated the impossible , whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth".

Your comment is well said sir...and now that you've mentioned the Great Detective, makes me think of what an asset he would be sometimes on this particular forum. ;)
Title: Re: Betty's Notebook, Page 53, S309 165E
Post by: Malcolm McKay on July 06, 2012, 05:48:50 PM
... I knew from reading this website in the past that TIGHAR had gone through and verified all of the song lyrics in Betty's Notebook as being period-authentic, to give one example, and did not bring it up because I assumed someone as thorough as Malcolm would not have advanced the criticism about authentication without already knowing this. But he did...which is what frustrates me sometimes about the potshots that keep getting leveled.  Most of this stuff has already been asked and answered credibly, ...


No Adam - the problem is that it has been answered to suit TIGHAR's take on it but is that credible, and the answer without intending to slur TIGHAR is no and that is why I ask questions about paper, the medium used to record the note and handwriting. These questions are quite neutral but given the importance of the Betty notebook they need to be answered neutrally rather than in a fashion that suits the hypothesis.
Title: Re: Betty's Notebook, Page 53, S309 165E
Post by: Malcolm McKay on July 06, 2012, 06:03:10 PM

The habit of listening is not the habit of writing down what you listened to.
Maybe she only kept a written record that time because she heard “This is Amelia Earhart” and realized the importance, and during the other times she listened, there was not anything as important to write down.   

Like the importance of writing down the songs she heard?

gl
[/quote]

Well put Gary. This diary, despite some denials, has a lot riding on it. Without it we don't have the landed on the outer reef scenario nor the means to conjecture post-landing behaviour on the island. It needs to thoroughly examined.
Title: Re: Betty's Notebook, Page 53, S309 165E
Post by: richie conroy on July 06, 2012, 06:18:08 PM
Not at all Malcolm

Tighar has found and produced items, not smokeing gun items

but items that would not be out of place in a suitcase belonging to either Amelia or Fred

freckle cream, hand lotion jar's. Amelia, pre Tighar search benedictine bottle inverting eye piece Fred related

can u show me proof or evidence of someone else being on island to which them items could belong ?   
which backup the naysayers  case ?


 
Title: Re: Betty's Notebook, Page 53, S309 165E
Post by: richie conroy on July 06, 2012, 06:53:42 PM
Excellent post Adam  :)

Tighar have done the most they can to prove the artifacts belong to Amelia and Fred

Those naysayers who disagree and say they could belong to anyone ?

can they prove they didn't belong to the lost flyer's, Doubt it.

as for the notebook, with or without it Tighar would still be were they are today.

if it said they are on gardner then it would be questionable ?

TIGHAR have not proved in the sense of establishing provenance that they belonged to either Earhart or Noonan. If they had the whole search would be over right now and the history rewritten.

I say that the naysayers have established just a good a case for each artifact to have belonged to people other than Earhart or Noonan as to the contrary. Richie I am quite neutral in this matter - you are allowing your desire to believe that these things to belong to the pair overwhelm your objectivity.

If TIGHAR come up with the much sought Electra wreck on this trip then that will be the thing that settles it - not these artifacts which are of questionable provenance.

so your sayin if Tighar produce Electra wreckage on this trip that settles it ?

 Is that with and without decals of NR16020 on tail wing  :-X
Title: Re: Betty's Notebook, Page 53, S309 165E
Post by: Matt Revington on July 06, 2012, 07:23:28 PM
Of course if the devil's advocate was posting on these forums he/she could say that the Electra crashed into the ocean near Howland drifted to Gardner and broke up and sunk on the reef face. 
Title: Re: Betty's Notebook, Page 53, S309 165E
Post by: Malcolm McKay on July 07, 2012, 12:15:30 AM

so your sayin if Tighar produce Electra wreckage on this trip that settles it ?

 Is that with and without decals of NR16020 on tail wing  :-X

Richie in answer to all of your posts -

1. TIGHAR have not produced one single item that has direct provenance to either Earhart or Noonan, and have never claimed to, and

2. I'm sure if they discover the identifiable wreck of the Electra on the reef off the island, even I would be gracious enough to accept it.   
Title: Re: Betty's Notebook, Page 53, S309 165E
Post by: Malcolm McKay on July 07, 2012, 12:26:07 AM

Malcolm, you said "Without it we don't have the landed on the outer reef scenario"
 My interpretation of Tighar's "landed on the outer reef scenerio" is that the plane could not transmit if in water for any length of time, that there were several credible radio transmissions, and the props needed to be operable to transmit that long, so a "landed on the outer reef" scenerio best explained the multiple radio transmissions. I also think the outer reef scenario came before Betty's notebook was revealed to Tighar. You can look at Tighars index of dated subjects to see this.

And even before Tighar came up with that scenerio, I think the Navy thought a reef of some kind was a scenario in the 1937 search as well, and I don't think the Navy even talked to Betty. So Betty's notebook is not needed at all to have a "landed on the outer reef scenerio".

You have forgotten that TIGHAR have had to come up with a scenario that supports their hypothesis for the Nikumaroro landing. The reef landing is I believe the fourth attempt at this, the previous ones involved landings on the beach or the island. Therefore for things like the "Betty" notebook entry to have validity there must be a reef landing to keep the radio dry, and there is no landing on the island as has been well and truly demonstrated. Accordingly "Betty" must be kosher in order for the reef landing hypothesis to work and there must be a reef landing for "Betty" to be kosher - it's a circular argument. One supports the other.   
Title: Re: Betty's Notebook, Page 53, S309 165E
Post by: Malcolm McKay on July 07, 2012, 06:44:17 AM

Nothing essential to the Niku hypothesis hangs on Betty's notebook.  I guess you are thinking that she decided in her old age (78 in 2000, I believe) to make up a story about her childhood that would bring her riches, fame, and glory.  If so, she sure worked hard to fake the document.

So now you are saying that the story http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Notebook/notebook.html that she offered it to Fred Goerner (1925 - 1994) presumably after he published his book on Earhart is not true.
Title: Re: Betty's Notebook, Page 53, S309 165E
Post by: Gary LaPook on July 07, 2012, 02:23:38 PM

so your sayin if Tighar produce Electra wreckage on this trip that settles it ?

 Is that with and without decals of NR16020 on tail wing  :-X

Richie in answer to all of your posts -

1. TIGHAR have not produced one single item that has direct provenance to either Earhart or Noonan, and have never claimed to, and
 
Well, yes they have, read the 1992 Life Magazine article.

gl
Title: Re: Betty's Notebook, Page 53, S309 165E
Post by: Malcolm McKay on July 07, 2012, 06:12:39 PM

No Malcolm,  I did not forget that.
I think you should read what Tighar's hypothesis is. It seems you forgot or don't know alot of what is in the hypothesis.
I think you should read Marty's post to point you in the right direction of what Tighar's hypothesis is.
This link is what I find informative
http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Overview/AEhypothesis.html

I have read the hypothesis - however the simple truth is that the "Betty" notebook and the outer reef landing need each other to work. Simply because if "Betty" is correct then the engines must be functioning and they cannot have been functioning if the aircraft was somehow parked in a clear spot on land because there is no wreck on the actual island itself. The only other clear spot albeit at low tide is the outer reef. As I said it is a circular argument.
Title: Re: Betty's Notebook, Page 53, S309 165E
Post by: Greg Daspit on July 07, 2012, 09:53:57 PM

4 different sources in about a 25 minute period. 2 logged by professionals, one of which got a bearing to Gardner. A 3rd logged by newspaper account at the time.
Again we are talking about Tighar's hypothesis of a landing on a reef. It does not need Betty's notebook.

Looking at the plots in the map in Marty's post #98 above very few seem to actually point to Nikumaroro. I'd say that at present to work the hypothesis needs "Betty" and all it can get including artifacts with clear provenance. A wreck would be useful.

Maclolm, once again, It's a hypothesis. We are on a forum set  up to talk about a hypothesis. You were dismissing all other parts of their landing on a reef hypothesis by saying the landing on the reef aspect of their hypothesis can't exist without Betty. When in fact their landing on a reef hypothesis existed before Betty was even included.

 
Title: Re: Betty's Notebook, Page 53, S309 165E
Post by: Greg Daspit on July 07, 2012, 11:19:21 PM

Maclolm, once again, It's a hypothesis. We are on a forum set  up to talk about a hypothesis. You were dismissing all other parts of their landing on a reef hypothesis by saying the landing on the reef aspect of their hypothesis can't exist without Betty. When in fact their landing on a reef hypothesis existed before Betty was even included.

Yep a hypothesis and the fourth so far. We wait to see what this trip turns up.

This article is from 1989. The base hypothesis seems to be the same today.
http://tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/1989Vol_5/testing.pdf
Title: Re: Betty's Notebook, Page 53, S309 165E
Post by: Gary LaPook on July 07, 2012, 11:26:20 PM
Gary

have u never flicked through the bands/stations looking for songs u like ?

i have on my dads steeple tone radio, and happened on the neighbour over the road talking to her lover on a cordless house phone, yes really

also i have some old newspapers from 1939, radio times to be exact, and they show programe guides for shortwave radio stations  all over world  :)


Please scan them and share them with us.

gl
Title: Re: Betty's Notebook, Page 53, S309 165E
Post by: Chris Johnson on July 08, 2012, 04:16:26 AM

Maclolm, once again, It's a hypothesis. We are on a forum set  up to talk about a hypothesis. You were dismissing all other parts of their landing on a reef hypothesis by saying the landing on the reef aspect of their hypothesis can't exist without Betty. When in fact their landing on a reef hypothesis existed before Betty was even included.

Yep a hypothesis and the fourth so far. We wait to see what this trip turns up.

Malcolm,

isn't that what Archaeology is about?

Dig a site, see some stuff, different colours in soil, items on or near such as burnt area and bone.  Come up with hypothysis, such as food prep area.  Another dig, another digger spots ceramics, hypothysis food prep area.  More ceramics come up or match with urn similar to one found site 'X'.  Site X suggested cremation/burial site, change hypothysis.

Seems to me digs from the 19th C were interpreted differently than digs now because of changes in understanding of what is happening at site.

Seems the same for TIGHAR but in less time scale.

Just an arm chair observation  ;D
Title: Re: Betty's Notebook, Page 53, S309 165E
Post by: richie conroy on July 08, 2012, 10:49:15 AM
here is a couple scans
Title: Re: Betty's Notebook, Page 53, S309 165E
Post by: richie conroy on July 08, 2012, 10:52:43 AM
an couple more
Title: Re: Betty's Notebook, Page 53, S309 165E
Post by: richie conroy on July 08, 2012, 11:49:36 AM
some more
Title: Re: Betty's Notebook, Page 53, S309 165E
Post by: richie conroy on July 08, 2012, 11:52:47 AM
will get in loft an dig some more out  :)
Title: Re: Betty's Notebook, Page 53, S309 165E
Post by: richie conroy on July 08, 2012, 06:30:28 PM
doc

you Malcolm's clone or side kick by any chance ?
Title: Re: Betty's Notebook, Page 53, S309 165E
Post by: Malcolm McKay on July 08, 2012, 07:18:17 PM

Malcolm,

isn't that what Archaeology is about?

Dig a site, see some stuff, different colours in soil, items on or near such as burnt area and bone.  Come up with hypothysis, such as food prep area.  Another dig, another digger spots ceramics, hypothysis food prep area.  More ceramics come up or match with urn similar to one found site 'X'.  Site X suggested cremation/burial site, change hypothysis.

Seems to me digs from the 19th C were interpreted differently than digs now because of changes in understanding of what is happening at site.

Seems the same for TIGHAR but in less time scale.

Just an arm chair observation  ;D


Whatever this is it isn't archaeology any more. I note that, after this discussion, people who before thought "Betty's" notebook to be the most revealing source of data for Earhart and Noonan's post landing behaviour on the island,  are now backtracking to pretend that it really isn't all that important.

I note that the actual archaeology on Nikumaroro failed to produce any artifacts with clear provenance to Earhart or Noonan, and now when anyone questions these there is also an immediate backtrack with former partisans saying well it's not that artifact it's the accumulation etc. etc. As if a pile of artifacts of uncertain provenance can somehow by a process of metamorphosis acquire provenance. I note that Marty made a spirited, but ultimately failed, defence of the use of circumstantial evidence - something I assume he equates with this metamorphosis, but while it might be a spirited use of the philosopher's stone it isn't archaeological method.

The only shot left in the locker is the finding the Electra somewhere on the side of the reef. If that doesn't occur then what is Plan B?
Title: Re: Betty's Notebook, Page 53, S309 165E
Post by: john a delsing on July 08, 2012, 11:27:59 PM
Quote
The only shot left in the locker is the finding the Electra somewhere on the side of the reef. If that doesn't occur then what is Plan B?
Malcolm,
   You surprise me. Surely you can read between the lines. For the past many weeks the momentum has been building to return to the camp zero site for a real through search. Altho I hope we find something this month, I'm afraid that it is going to be similar to past expeditions, many interesting things, but no smoking gun. I think the electra is there, but because of equipment problems, wrong equipment, weather, or . . . . . it will be just wait till next year.
    I also believe that as we speak there are some members making plans for what we, TIGHAR, should be doing to celabrate Amelia's 100 year aniversity that is coming up on us, like what kind of expedition, and to what part of the island, etc.
Title: Re: Betty's Notebook, Page 53, S309 165E
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on July 09, 2012, 05:35:45 PM
William, only a moderator can move a post. However, down in the lower right corner of your post you will see a little "Report to moderator" link.

If you click on it you will see a box to enter a comment. Just request the post be moved and specify to where. That should do it.


If you move quickly enough, you can also:
It sounds harder than it is.  This is just a more detailed description of how to accomplish what Gary already suggested above.
Title: Re: Betty's Notebook, Page 53, S309 165E
Post by: Tom Swearengen on July 09, 2012, 09:31:50 PM
Breaking news: I actually agree with malcolm on the bettys notebook dating thing. If we were using it as a major factor in our search, I would say it would be logical to have the pages time dated to 1937. Makes logical sense to me, to remove any doubt that it could have been faked, say in 1966.
But---even though its an important peice in the overall puzzle, its content doesnt give me enough specifics to warrant a search of Niku. But-----if she had stated something like, "one a island with a shipwreck on the western shoreline", or something more geographically specific, I would be all over it.
just saying. Good point Malcolm.

Good God Tom - nearly gave me a heart attack  ;D . Next time you agree could you sort of gently lead into it?  :)

NAAAA this is more fun ;D



Title: Re: Betty's Notebook, Page 53, S309 165E
Post by: Mark Pearce on July 11, 2012, 12:43:59 PM
FAA search results for

Betty Klenck Brown
Elizabeth Klenck Brown

"No records found based on search criteria provided above."
Title: Re: Betty's Notebook, Page 53, S309 165E
Post by: Malcolm McKay on July 17, 2012, 06:34:29 AM
And remember, in the whole hour and half tht Betty was listening Earhart never uttered the words "Gardner" nor "Phoenix," words that an authentic emergency message from Amelia on Gardner should have contained.
So I ain't buying it.

gl

She actually doesn't even mention an island - just water rising.

I wonder also about the mention of  "can't bail out" could that be a reference to being unable to bail the water out rather than anything to do with a parachute. In which case is this a reenactment on a news show dramatizing a landing at sea, given that the mention of water above knee high suggests that in reality the electrics wouldn't be functioning - probably something a news program would not be aware of. Sounds like a Hollywood sound stage - perhaps the one they shot the Apollo 11 landing on the moon on  ;D (Only kidding folks)