Print

[JNev]

Incredible.

[Tim Gard]

I also think the gear collapse was caused by encountering the backwash from a rogue wave that drew the Electra into an area AE had been trying to avoid.

[Mark Samuels]

I also think the gear collapse was caused by encountering the backwash from a rogue wave that drew the Electra into an area AE had been trying to avoid.

Oh my, I think I might have just had a heart attack.  Would someone call Life Alert for me.  I can't reach my button. 

[Ric Gillespie]

I also think the gear collapse was caused by encountering the backwash from a rogue wave that drew the Electra into an area AE had been trying to avoid.

This is a classic example of what I was talking about.  Having decided that there was a gear collapse, you now have decided what caused it.  You have built a second story on your house of cards.  You seem to believe that the harder you think about something the truer it becomes.  It doesn't work that way Tim.  You can't prove a hypothesis by thinking about it.  You need evidence.

[JNev]

Cards.  *PUFF*

Sorry, just something about all this... I know I should behave.

[JNev]

I also think the gear collapse was caused by encountering the backwash from a rogue wave that drew the Electra into an area AE had been trying to avoid.

Why not throw in a rogue, walking whale to devour the airplane occupants?

[Ric Gillespie]

Okay now.  Correction is one thing.  Ridicule is another. 

[Jeff Lange]

I am beginning to wonder if having a certain 3 letter first name makes a person more susceptible to the acceptance or belief of the more outlandish or hard to believe ideas?  Just speculating is all.........

[James G. Stoveken]

Thank you Jeff Lange!  That made my day.   

[JNev]

Now-now, says the self-flagellant in the hair shirt...

[Tim Gard]

This is a classic example of what I was talking about.  Having decided that there was a gear collapse, you now have decided what caused it.  You have built a second story on your house of cards.  You seem to believe that the harder you think about something the truer it becomes.  It doesn't work that way Tim.  You can't prove a hypothesis by thinking about it.  You need evidence.

Again, I think it self evident.

1. AE and FN's injuries are stated in the notebook.
2. A landing/rollout impact is probable cause for same.
3. If Nessie was that cause, then the kinetic energy of the decelerating airframe could have hammered the gear hard into the crevice rather than simply levering it in by tide action as the TIGHAR video shows.
4. The gear was planted in so hard that it persisted in situ for months (Bevington photo).
5. Something caused the Electra to make that impact. Wave action is a probable cause and heavy yawing in an attempt to veer landward possibly caused the gear to hit sideways.

None of that seems any less probable than the TIGHAR video, only a reposition of the events.

Otherwise you have defend the case that Nessie and the injuries were 2 separate events when only one is evident.
 

[Mark Samuels]

This is a classic example of what I was talking about.  Having decided that there was a gear collapse, you now have decided what caused it.  You have built a second story on your house of cards.  You seem to believe that the harder you think about something the truer it becomes.  It doesn't work that way Tim.  You can't prove a hypothesis by thinking about it.  You need evidence.

Again, I think it self evident.

1. AE and FN's injuries are stated in the notebook.
2. A landing/rollout impact is probable cause for same.
3. If Nessie was that cause, then the kinetic energy of the decelerating airframe hammers the gear hard into the crevice rather than simply levering it in by tide action as the TIGHAR video shows.
4. The gear was planted in so hard that it persisted in situ for months (Bevington photo).
5. Something caused the Electra to make that impact. Wave action is a probable cause and heavy yawing in an attempt to veer landward caused the gear to hit sideways.

None of that seems any less probable than the TIGHAR video, only a reposition of the events.

Otherwise you have defend the case that Nessie and the injuries were 2 separate events when only one is evident.

And once again you have 'jumped the shark'.  Nothing in your post is evidence or fact.  Particularly Betty's notebook and the Bevingtion Object that have not been authenticated to a substantial degree as to being the smoking gun.  The rest again is just speculation on your part without the evidence to back up your theory.

[JNev]

Maybe Earhart cut her foot on the coral.

Maybe Fred's head bothered him because he couldn't believe that he sat in the back while Earhart got him into the fix of his life.

Maybe Fred gnawed Earhart's foot off.

[Ric Gillespie]

1. AE and FN's injuries are stated in the notebook.

No injuries are stated in the notebook.  We interpret some of the transcribed entries to be references to injuries.

2. A landing/rollout impact is probable cause for same.

Possible, yes. Probable, in my opinion, is going too far. Having spent time on that reef I can tell you that there is plenty of opportunity to get hurt.

3. If Nessie was that cause, then the kinetic energy of the decelerating airframe could have hammered the gear hard into the crevice rather than simply levering it in by tide action as the TIGHAR video shows.

Yes, that could have happened or the gear could have simply washed into a groove after it separated from the aircraft and gotten hung up.

4. The gear was planted in so hard that it persisted in situ for months (Bevington photo).

That appears to be true, but how can we possibly know what it takes to get the gear stuck firmly enough to stay there for three months?

5. Something caused the Electra to make that impact. Wave action is a probable cause and heavy yawing in an attempt to veer landward possibly caused the gear to hit sideways.

I agree that wave action is the most likely cause of aircraft movement sufficient to cause the gear to collapse.

None of that seems any less probable than the TIGHAR video, only a reposition of the events.

Agreed.  There are lots of possibilities.  The folly is in thinking we can do anything more than try to narrow the possibilities.

Otherwise you have defend the case that Nessie and the injuries were 2 separate events when only one is evident.

If Nessie is landing gear wreckage and if there were injuries, why couldn't they be two separate incidents?

[Tim Gard]

If Nessie is landing gear wreckage and if there were injuries, why couldn't they be two separate incidents?

They could be, but where is the evidence?