Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9]   Go Down

Author Topic: Post-Loss Language  (Read 98138 times)

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 6101
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: Post-Loss Language
« Reply #120 on: October 13, 2015, 10:02:55 AM »

If my understanding is correct, the "patch" shows evidence of having been torn outward from the airframe by water pressure.

That's a whole different and incredibly complex can of worms.  The artifact has no surviving finished edge so it is, without question, a section of sheet that was forcibly removed from a larger sheet.  A variety of forces acted on the artifact to separate it from the larger sheet. Water pressure may have been one of them.
Logged

Jerry Germann

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 421
  • Go Deep
Re: Post-Loss Language
« Reply #121 on: October 21, 2015, 11:29:59 PM »


The word 'ship' as synonym for aircraft seems to have been part of the lingo of those early aviators. It would be interesting to know if the general public of the time used it in this fashion.
I tend to doubt it.

Joe Cerniglia
Another tidbit
.......http://earchives.lib.purdue.edu/cdm/compoundobject/collection/epurdue/id/559/rec/1501
The husband of our aviator of interest, made use of the term "ship" (about 10 times), in this correspondence,.....I see the word plane, but once.... written records seem to suggest husband and wife often used the same terminology....when referring to the Electra.
Logged

Jerry Germann

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 421
  • Go Deep
Re: Post-Loss Language
« Reply #122 on: January 24, 2017, 11:34:00 PM »

Dear Dr Ford,
     
    It has been some time since the introduction of your paper, and I must say I had drifted off to other areas of research, however; coming back to review the paper and all of the comments concerning it, a curious detail came to my attention, this concerning the name that Noonan was said to have called out several times. In Betty's notebook she says she heard Fred call out Marie several times, during the entire episode. Scanning some of the letters Noonan sent home, it appears he never used the name Marie, when referring to his wife, ( Mary Beatrice) or if he did, I missed it, but rather he used a pet name for his new bride, that being a shortened version of his brides middle name Beatrice .... Bee. In all of the letters I have viewed, they begin with or include his pet name for her, ....Bee.
In scenarios such as the one Fred has been described as being involved in, are there any studies or data available to suggest why someone in his suggested impaired state , would revert to calling a loved person by a more formal name, than what he usually tenderly called her?
It just seems puzzling to me that he, in a moment of pure anguish, would try to reach out to that special someone, by using a name or version of her formal name less frequently or never used.
Your thoughts?

Jerry
« Last Edit: January 25, 2017, 09:25:31 AM by Jerry Germann »
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9]   Go Up
 

Copyright 2024 by TIGHAR, a non-profit foundation. No portion of the TIGHAR Website may be reproduced by xerographic, photographic, digital or any other means for any purpose. No portion of the TIGHAR Website may be stored in a retrieval system, copied, transmitted or transferred in any form or by any means, whether electronic, mechanical, digital, photographic, magnetic or otherwise, for any purpose without the express, written permission of TIGHAR. All rights reserved.

Contact us at: info@tighar.org • Phone: 610-467-1937 • Membership formwebmaster@tighar.org

Powered by MySQL SMF 2.0.18 | SMF © 2021, Simple Machines Powered by PHP