Print

[Oskar Erich Heinrich Haberlandt]

Ric,
what would you call the ANY IDIOT ARTIFACT? At the first look, one would say that's an easy question. But I think it could be rather difficult.
Just one example: NIKU VIII, and TIGHAR finds the sonar anomaly to be the fuselage of an Electra. Some years later the fuselage is out of the water, BUT: Nobody can tell for sure if it's the fuselage of NR 16020. As we know, it has to be NR 16020, because there wasn't lost any other Electra there. But would the public accept it? Would Smithonian accept it?
So, my question: Would only  a serial number on an artifact make an ANY IDIOT ARTIFACT?
Oskar Haberlandt, #4421A

[Ric Gillespie]

So, my question: Would only  a serial number on an artifact make an ANY IDIOT ARTIFACT?

In truth, there is probably no such thing as an ANY IDIOT ARTIFACT.  No matter what we find, there will always be unconvinced idiots. I think of the Earhart mystery as an IQ test.

[Christophe Blondel]

Richie Conroy already remarked it in Is the Seven an "A", one and a half year ago : even finding an Electra with the good serial number near Niku will not prevent defenders of the splash-and-sink theory from going on thinking that AE and FN splashed elsewhere, e.g. near Howland. They will say the plane was just floated there from were they think it went down. Even if you find a message inside telling "we landed safely on coral", some will still argue that the very fact the plane is no longer on coral clearly demonstrates it can have been brought by currents from very far away.

The same for smaller artifacts. If one can e.g. finally demonstrate that the anti-freckle ointment pot found at the Seven Site was AE's one, they will tell it was swallowed by some kind of sea-bird when the plane crashed on the waves, which made the poor bird sick and finally led it to die on Niku. The very fact the glass is not of the proper color demonstrates it had to be kept for a while in a bird's stomach!

Happy Christmas to all

Christophe

[manjeet aujla]

To paraphrase (a judge from the 50s?): I don't know what porn is, but I know it when I see it.

All artifacts add up, I think, until a "Eureka" moment. I was interested in Gallagher's lost trunk, and read up on it a bit here, and still have hopes it will surface. What if he took some pictures, in situ, of the bones-skeleton, and there are clearly identifiable things which belong to AE in the pictures? That would be pretty compelling... but a convincing IA? ... maybe not to many.

The Smithsonian people have to be careful about making a public affirmation ... that would put a lot of weight behind Niku, as they carry some clout, credibility.

Ignore the clearly wrong naysayers. The ones that I have read, which were linked here, have clearly mis-interpreted the data. As for deniers, there are some people who still believe the moon landings were staged.

all imo.

[Ric Gillespie]

What if he took some pictures, in situ, of the bones-skeleton, and there are clearly identifiable things which belong to AE in the pictures?

Among the artifacts we've recovered from the Seven Site are the remains of a "Sasha Light" (1930s-vintage British camera flash).  The light is so intense on Niku that still photography often requires "fill flash" to soften shadows.

The Smithsonian people have to be careful about making a public affirmation ... that would put a lot of weight behind Niku, as they carry some clout, credibility.

That's the problem.  They do carry some clout and credibility.  We don't ask for affirmation.  We don't even ask for agreement.  We ask only for honest engagement.