Post-Loss Language

[Ric Gillespie]

J. Guthrie Ford, Ph.D., was a teaching and research psychologist at Trinity University (San Antonio, TX) from 1972-99. At the millennium, Ford began a second career as a historian specializing in life and times on the Texas coast as per the Port Aransas (Mustang Island) area. For R&R from that history enterprise, Ford rekindled his childhood interest in Amelia Earhart. On "discovering" the Niku Hypothesis in 2012, he was impressed by TIGHAR's empirical standards and scientific rigor.
   Ford's psychological research included the development of a psychological test, with which he gathered data relevant to testing propositions from his Temperament/Actualization concept (theory). When Ford began thinking analytically about the Niku Hypothesis, it seemed there must be some aspect of Earhart's behavior that would point to the possibility that she had been on Gardner Island. He could not put this finger on what that was until he isolated the credible records of Earhart's putative words. That is when he saw a distinctive pattern of change in Earhart's post-lost language from early (July 2) to late (July 7). That is when Ford changed from TIGHAR reader to researcher. What he did in that capacity, be it successful or not, is the topic of the attached paper, which he now lovingly kicks out of the nest and into the stark reality of the Forum!
   Guthrie feels privileged to publish in the space that has seen the work of TIGHAR scientists Bob Brandenburg and Tom King (and certainly other luminaries as well).

[Ted G Campbell]

Ric,

If the author of this report will allow you to publish it the "TIGHAR Tracks" please use my Literary Guild II contribution to do so.  This is a very important analysis and should be preserved in a formal publication.

Ted Campbell

[Scott C. Mitchell]

Dr. Ford's work on these last words of doomed aviators is very compelling, not to mention heart-wrenching.  This is to offer another case history for his analysis:  The journals of Robert Falcon Scott, who died with his companions on the return journey from the South Pole.  I found an excellent compilation of his entries from January 17, 1912 (when they left the Pole) to March 29, when Scott and two others were trapped in their tent in a blizzard, too weak to march to the next food depot 11 miles away.  I did not want to copy the compilation here due to concerns for TIGHAR on copyright issues.  I found it by googling "Robert Falcon Scott Journal".  (The material is copyrighted by American Museum of Natural History, Rice University, and Education Development Co., Inc.).  To my untrained eye, the same pattern emerges of objective, scientific fact reporting at the start (Scott was a gifted writer with a real talent for science), to growing concerns over dwindling food and worsening conditions -- "we hope to die in our traces" and "desperately cold", with a final anguished scrawl:  "For God's Sake, look after our people."  This might add to Dr. Ford's model and strengthen this very significant perspective on AE's language.

Scott
#3292

[Krystal McGinty-Carter]

Excellent read. A very compelling and well-thought out analysis. Thank you for posting this!

[Ric Gillespie]

Ric,

If the author of this report will allow you to publish it the "TIGHAR Tracks" please use my Literary Guild II contribution to do so.  This is a very important analysis and should be preserved in a formal publication.

Ted Campbell

Thanks Ted but that won't be necessary.  Guthrie is making a donation and we'll be including his paper in the next TIGHAR Tracks.

[don hirth]

Gentlemen,
A wonderful read by J. Guthre Ford! MORE reason for me to believe in the Niku landing.
PEACE

[Oskar Erich Heinrich Haberlandt]

Sorry, I don't agree. If Mr. Ford is right, it does not confirm the Niku-hypothesis, it could also confirm the "Captured by the Japanese"-hypothesis. Only "Crashed and sunk" would be out of play!

[Ted G Campbell]

Oskar,
I would like to hear your rational in thinking that the "Captured by the Japanese - hypothesis" is given some support by Mr. Ford's work.
Ted Campbell

[Ric Gillespie]

Sorry, I don't agree. If Mr. Ford is right, it does not confirm the Niku-hypothesis, it could also confirm the "Captured by the Japanese"-hypothesis. Only "Crashed and sunk" would be out of play!

Dr. Ford's work supports the hypothesis that post-loss radio signals judged by TIGHAR to be credible are, in fact, genuine distress calls sent by Amelia Earhart. His work is another nail in the coffin for Crashed & Sank but does it also support Captured by the Japanese?
If the post-loss signals are genuine, the Electra made a relatively safe landing and had sufficient remaining fuel to periodically run an engine to recharge the battery over a period of at least five days.
TIGHAR has shown that:
There is a place on Nikumaroro where the plane could have made a safe landing.
The plane could have arrived with enough fuel to keep the battery charged for the requisite time period.
The times when the water level on the reef was low enough to permit an engine to be run correspond to the times of the credible post-loss messages.
Some of the post-loss messages contain information that can be interpreted to describe Nikumaroro.

None of the above has been shown to be true for any island where there was a Japanese presence.  It is difficult to construct a scenario that gives the Electra enough fuel to reach anywhere in the Japanese mandate. Getting it there with enough remaining fuel to send the  post-loss messages is not in the cards.
None of the credible post-loss messages make reference to the Japanese.
None of the Japanese Capture scenarios I've heard of suggest that the Electra remained undiscovered for at least five days (all of the islands in the Japanese mandate were inhabited).

In short, the post-loss messages are not compatible with the Japanese Capture hypothesis. Any analysis that supports the validity of the post-loss messages, by definition, argues against Japanese Capture.

[Brian Tannahill]

A very impressive paper.  To me, this is one more solid argument supporting the Niku hypothesis.  I appreciate the time and effort Dr. Ford invested in this.

In the interest of trying to strengthen the argument, I'd like to play devil's advocate and explore what may be a weak spot.

I found the paper compelling, but I already had an opinion.  I'm trying to put myself in the shoes of someone who's not already sympathetic to the Niku hypothesis.  As a skeptic, then, when I read the paper, are any parts of it less than convincing?

Yes.  An obvious issue, it seems to me, is the small sample size for the baseline.  The baseline comprises two example cases and three people.  Is this strong enough to establish a pattern?   

My knowledge of psychological research is nonexistent, so I'm asking this out of total ignorance:  Is it acceptable practice to use a small sample size, when the circumstances require it?  Does it affect how we view the conclusions? 

I can easily see how this could be valid:

• The reason the baseline population is small is that there's a very small number of similar cases to draw from.  Dr. Ford found cases that match the Earhart situation extremely well: All are aviators, who were unable to reach their destinations and unable to establish communication with anyone.  And they left a record of their words, from their diaries.
• 
  In this study, unlike studies where statistical rigor is needed, we're not dealing a large number of different values -- for example, fuel temperatures, burn rates, radio frequencies, propagation distances.  These would be expressed in numbers, and we would look for statistical validity.  We're dealing here with how people behave and the things they say under certain circumstances, and we're examining patterns of language, not patterns of numbers.  There's no need to find an average or a standard deviation.  From the baseline, Dr. Ford finds exactly one pattern among the people studied.

Maybe this is a case where a sample size of three is perfectly adequate.  Dr. Ford has worked in this field for decades, and he doesn't even mention the sample size.  One possibility is that it's so clearly acceptable and obviously within standards that it wasn't worth mentioning.

[Oskar Erich Heinrich Haberlandt]

Oskar,
I would like to hear your rational in thinking that the "Captured by the Japanese - hypothesis" is given some support by Mr. Ford's work.
Ted Campbell

Ted,
the Ford paper gives support to the idea A.E. landed on an island at last. A.E. didn't say anything about the name or the place of that island, as we all know. So it could be Mili atoll as well, theoretically...

[Brano Lacika]

Oskar,
I would like to hear your rational in thinking that the "Captured by the Japanese - hypothesis" is given some support by Mr. Ford's work.
Ted Campbell

Ted,
the Ford paper gives support to the idea A.E. landed on an island at last. A.E. didn't say anything about the name or the place of that island, as we all know. So it could be Mili atoll as well, theoretically...

The "Captured by Japanese" theory and all it´s variations ( at least all I know ) is based on the "witness testimony" of local people seeing the aviators captured immediately "on arrival" - whether landing, or crash landing". How could they possibly transmit they messages for almost the week? Moreover, all the credible signals were nailed as originated from the Phoenix islands area - not from Mili or any other Japanese controlled territory. I don´t see any support for Japanese theory by the work of Dr. Ford.

[Oskar Erich Heinrich Haberlandt]

No. There are different variants of "CAPTURED BY THE JAPANESE". One theory says AE landed at Mili atoll and was picked up by the Japanese five days later. (Nobody can know if she was aware of inhabitants watching her) That means she would have stayed there for some days, rather upset about her situation...

[Ric Gillespie]

Let's look at the fuel. 
• The Electra leaves Lae with 1,100 US gallons of gas, enough for 24.4 hours of flight if AE follows Kelly Johnson's recommendations.
• She hits the advanced LOP ("We must be on you...") 19.2 hours later.  She has 5.2 hours of economical cruise (130 kts burning 38 gph) fuel remaining. That's 197 gallons. In calm winds she can fly another 676 nm before running out of gas.
•  A little over an hour later, 20.9 hours into the flight, she says she is "on the line 157 337...running on line north and south."  ITASCA is hearing at Strength 5 so she is somewhere on the LOP roughly 200 nm from ITASCA.  She now has roughly 3.5 hours of economical cruise (130 kts burning 38 gph) fuel remaining. That's 133 gallons.  In calm winds she can fly another 455 nm before running out of gas.

Now.... let's put her on the LOP 200 nm northwest of Howland at this point in the flight.  Let's say she turns and flies toward Mili (perhaps thinking that she is heading for the Gilberts).  Mili is 600 nm miles away.  Winds aloft (2,650 ft) at Howland are 17 kt out of the East so let's give her a 17 kt tailwind and a groundspeed of 147 kts.  With the 3.5 hours of fuel she has left she can fly 515 nm.  She goes into the drink 85 nm short of Mili.  To reach Mili with bingo fuel she needs a 41 kt tailwind.  To reach Mili with enough fuel to send the post-loss messages she needs the Jet Stream.

Now let's put her on the LOP at 200 nm southeast of Howland at 20.9 hours into the flight. As in the above scenario, she has 3.5 hours of economical cruise (130 kts burning 38 gph) fuel remaining. That's 133 gallons.  In calm winds she can fly another 455 nm before running out of gas. If she continues down the LOP, Gardner is 145 nm away. Let's give her a 17 kt headwind which reduces her groundspeed to 113 kts.  It takes her 1.3 hours to reach Gardner.  She arrives over the island 22.2 hours after leaving Lae (10:42 Itasca Time, 11:12 Gardner Time).  She has 84 gallons of fuel remaining. Once on the ground, she can recharge the battery by running the right hand engine at 900 RPM burning 6.6 gph (as confirmed by actual engine tests).  With 84 gallons remaining she can run the engine periodically for a cumulative total of 12.72 hours.

Conclusion:
If the post-loss signals are genuine as suggested by Dr. Ford's work, Japanese Capture is eliminated as a viable theory.

[jgf1944]

A very impressive paper.  To me, this is one more solid argument supporting the Niku hypothesis.  I appreciate the time and effort Dr. Ford invested in this.

In the interest of trying to strengthen the argument, I'd like to play devil's advocate and explore what may be a weak spot.

I found the paper compelling, but I already had an opinion.  I'm trying to put myself in the shoes of someone who's not already sympathetic to the Niku hypothesis.  As a skeptic, then, when I read the paper, are any parts of it less than convincing?

Yes.  An obvious issue, it seems to me, is the small sample size for the baseline.  The baseline comprises two example cases and three people.  Is this strong enough to establish a pattern?   

My knowledge of psychological research is nonexistent, so I'm asking this out of total ignorance:  Is it acceptable practice to use a small sample size, when the circumstances require it?  Does it affect how we view the conclusions? 

I can easily see how this could be valid:

• The reason the baseline population is small is that there's a very small number of similar cases to draw from.  Dr. Ford found cases that match the Earhart situation extremely well: All are aviators, who were unable to reach their destinations and unable to establish communication with anyone.  And they left a record of their words, from their diaries.
• 
  In this study, unlike studies where statistical rigor is needed, we're not dealing a large number of different values -- for example, fuel temperatures, burn rates, radio frequencies, propagation distances.  These would be expressed in numbers, and we would look for statistical validity.  We're dealing here with how people behave and the things they say under certain circumstances, and we're examining patterns of language, not patterns of numbers.  There's no need to find an average or a standard deviation.  From the baseline, Dr. Ford finds exactly one pattern among the people studied.

Maybe this is a case where a sample size of three is perfectly adequate.  Dr. Ford has worked in this field for decades, and he doesn't even mention the sample size.  One possibility is that it's so clearly acceptable and obviously within standards that it wasn't worth mentioning.