Advanced search  
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6   Go Down

Author Topic: New show on history channel about Amelia Earhart  (Read 48220 times)

Kevin Weeks

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 236
Re: New show on history channel about Amelia Earhart
« Reply #30 on: July 06, 2017, 06:49:24 PM »

That would be make more sense than it being randomly misfiled as they claim
Logged

Jon Romig

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 87
Re: New show on history channel about Amelia Earhart
« Reply #31 on: July 07, 2017, 07:04:35 AM »

Saw the New York Times article this morning.
Here is an excerpt:

"Shawn Henry, a former F.B.I. executive assistant director who has been working with History to investigate the photo for about a year, said facial identification experts called it likely that the photos showed Ms. Earhart and Mr. Noonan.
He said the Marshall Islands theory is supported by other evidence, too: pieces of metal that were found in the area and could have come from the Electra; an interview Mr. Henry conducted with an islander who claims to have seen Ms. Earhart around the time of her disappearance; and government records citing reports about Ms. Earhart being imprisoned by the Japanese, though the reports mentioned have not been found.
“When you take it all together, to me, it’s beyond a reasonable doubt. That photograph is just a bow on top of a box of evidence,” Mr. Henry said in a phone interview. “And that bow, to me, just ties it all together.”
He sounded confident — just as confident, in fact, as Ric Gillespie, who may be the best-known proponent of another, entirely different theory."

It is amazing that they can treat this preview of an unseen show on the "History" Channel as having equal weight to Tighar's work. I guess "confidence" is the only measure for truthfulness in news these days. Our president has established that standard.

Ric, you have amazing patience!

Jon
Jon Romig 3562R
 
Logged

Matt Revington

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 313
  • member #4155
Re: New show on history channel about Amelia Earhart
« Reply #32 on: July 07, 2017, 07:29:33 AM »

From an interview with Les Kinney in the National Post :

"Kinney, who started his career as a naval intelligence agent, said the photograph he found was in a batch of documents collected by U.S. sources in anticipation of the 1944 invasion of the Marshall Islands. “This was a mistake. This was never meant to be there,” he said. The National Archives verified Thursday that the image is from its holdings and was in a file “unrelated to Earhart.”"

So he found a blurry photo in file unrelated to Earhart. As Kevin noted the photo is clearly labelled with what it is,  a view of Jaliut Harbour , which would be useful to have for a planned invasion of the island.  If it was a photo of AE and Electra I would expect that to be included in the label, also if the "barge was important in this view why did the photographer almost cut it off the edge and instead devote half the picture to the other part of harbour and unrelated boats.  This would be like Tighar claiming that Bevington saw the landing gear on the reef but decided to aim his camera at the Norwich City.

http://nationalpost.com/pmn/entertainment-pmn/a-film-claims-to-solve-the-mystery-of-amelia-earharts-fate/wcm/06e438c4-520a-4e3b-acef-af9344f77530
Logged

Kevin Weeks

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 236
Re: New show on history channel about Amelia Earhart
« Reply #33 on: July 07, 2017, 08:07:29 AM »

pictures people can look at generate hits on their web page.. it's not the content that matters it's buzz and revenue they can create.

lets not forget all the airplane parts he found that were no doubt from the electra... but were able to be debunked in minutes by anyone who casually looked at one.
Logged

Friend Weller

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 137
Re: New show on history channel about Amelia Earhart
« Reply #34 on: July 07, 2017, 12:04:35 PM »

Why is (almost) everyone looking at the camera? 

If this was a surveillance or reconnaissance photo, wouldn't the photographer have been a little less obvious?

If it were a "trophy" photo, why was it taken from so far away?   

If it were a press photo, why are the "stars of the show" not readily visible?

Eight out of twelve folks are looking at the camera; it's almost as if the photographer yelled "Say チーズ !"

(That means "cheese"!)
Friend
TIGHAR 3086V
 
« Last Edit: July 07, 2017, 12:06:15 PM by Friend Weller »
Logged

Bruce Thomas

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 648
  • Now where did I put my glasses?
Re: New show on history channel about Amelia Earhart
« Reply #35 on: July 07, 2017, 12:30:25 PM »

All of the Japanese merchant ship's spec can be found here
https://maritime.org/doc/id/oni208j-japan-merchant-ships/index.htm
It's the office of naval intelligence guide to Japanese ships in WWII
The koshu is not listed but many essentially identical vessels, according to another site that cited this manual the koshu was in the 208j classification

I suggest that the Koshu Maru is indeed listed in this document. "Koshu" is the Hepburn spelling for Japanese names, but there are other methods of "romanization" for Japanese words which produce varying spellings. On page front003 of this document it's stated that:
Quote
The Hepburn system is the most nearly phonetic rendering of spoken Japanese and is still employed by the United States Navy except for merchant ships, where Kokutai is used.

About the middle of the listings on page tail041 there is listed the ship named Kosyu Maru with the alternative Hepburn spelling of Koshu Maru, showing it to have been built in 1911 with a length of 298 feet and a beam of 44 feet.

Looking at page 140, there's a silhouette of a vessel, the Taieu Maru, and the Kosyu Maru is listed as "similar" to that.
LTM,

Bruce
TIGHAR #3123R
 
Logged

Matt Revington

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 313
  • member #4155
Re: New show on history channel about Amelia Earhart
« Reply #36 on: July 07, 2017, 01:48:10 PM »

Thanks Bruce I had not considered the translation issues.  There are however 3 Kosyu's  in that document and the one that matches the "1918" picture best is on page 152.

https://maritime.org/doc/id/oni208j-japan-merchant-ships/pg152.htm

It  has the guns that evident in that 1918 picture ( and which are not on the other Kosyu's), it is noted that this a Japanese naval vessel that strongly resembles merchants ships. I am not sure if this is the Koshu that is supposed to be in the Jaliut photo or if there are multiple Koshu's ( Kosyu's) that are confusing people (including me).
Logged

Bruce Thomas

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 648
  • Now where did I put my glasses?
Re: New show on history channel about Amelia Earhart
« Reply #37 on: July 07, 2017, 04:08:44 PM »

Yes, Matt, but the ship on page 152 is military and so it does not have Maru at the end of its name. The story with the Jaluit quay explicitly says the ship is named Koshu Maru.
LTM,

Bruce
TIGHAR #3123R
 
Logged

Matt Revington

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 313
  • member #4155
Re: New show on history channel about Amelia Earhart
« Reply #38 on: July 07, 2017, 04:16:56 PM »

I did not know that Maru was only used for non-military ships.  However I think it is clear that the 1918 ship that we have been trying to match the ship in the photo to is this navy ship on page 152 so if the ship at jaliut was the koshu maru and a merchant ship then we should try to match it to one of the others.
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 5614
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: New show on history channel about Amelia Earhart
« Reply #39 on: July 07, 2017, 05:36:27 PM »

Jeff Glickman says the ship in the photo is not Koshu.  He'll write up a report next week.

TIGHAR's initial response to the photo is now up on the TIGHAR website at https://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/83_JaluitPhoto/83_JaluitPhoto.html
Logged

Bruce Thomas

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 648
  • Now where did I put my glasses?
Re: New show on history channel about Amelia Earhart
« Reply #40 on: July 07, 2017, 05:39:22 PM »

Matt, you mentioned 3 entries listing Koshu, so there is one other with Maru as part of its name. Its the one with Teishu Maru listed to the right. This vessel was built in 1937 with the original name of Teishu Maru, and seems to have been acquired by the Japanese Navy and renamed to Koshu Maru about 1940. There's a picture of that ship here. So this isn't the one in the Jaluit photo.

They're all starting to look the same to me! But the ship in the Jaluit photo looks old and well-worn in 1937, like the one in the famous poem by John Masefield, "Cargoes": "Dirty British coaster with a salt-caked smokestack."
LTM,

Bruce
TIGHAR #3123R
 
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 5614
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: New show on history channel about Amelia Earhart
« Reply #41 on: July 09, 2017, 11:43:57 AM »

New revised critique at https://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/83_JaluitPhoto/83_JaluitPhoto.html

Thanks to Matt Revington for the Kinney confession. 
Logged

William R Warren Jr

  • T1
  • *
  • Posts: 3
Re: New show on history channel about Amelia Earhart
« Reply #42 on: July 10, 2017, 12:27:44 PM »

It's hard to judge the length of the ship in the photo because we're seeing it an an angle.

I'm going to consult the Oracle of Glickman and ask him if they are the same ship.

I wish I could offer even rudimentary services at this moment, but two posts above yours, there exists a simple plan and elevation model of the Koshu. Without too many concerns about details, a rough 3D model in *ANY* 3D package that allows modeling (and simple light and camera placement) should give you an idea. The effect people are confusing with the ship being shorter between images is called "foreshortening" and the same effect that makes the ship look shorter also confuses upright details and their placement (so a stack or mast may appear further fore or aft when the miscalculation comes from the beam vs length being miscalculated.) Given the rough dimensions in the 2-view above, a boilerplate 3D model will either match the photo or not. If it does, we pursue the evidence to its logical conclusion (was Koshu ever even there, was it afloat in 1940, bla bla science is yawn so boring) BUT: pursuing this dead end to its logical conclusion and nailing all of its other flaws to the whipping post is what science does!.

TIGHAR is good about getting people interested in the science ... relatively speaking. National Geographic is better at it, but they've been pursuing a wider variety of interests for a century or two more, so that's expected. I find the timing of the "ooh, it's misfiled!" photograph -- mid-Niku-IX -- to be cute. I find the sudden overwhelming (if occasionally frustrating for news-starved members) agreement with aforementioned NatGeo to be probably the smartest partnership ever!! (If the bones were Amelia's, then ...)

Then Fred was buried and may still be there. Or vice-versa. Either way, no smoking gun (yet?) BUT nothing yet that says there's no gun. And (sniff sniff) what's that?
Logged

Dan Swift

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 347
Re: New show on history channel about Amelia Earhart
« Reply #43 on: July 10, 2017, 12:49:10 PM »

Watched the show!  Didn't find anything other than hearsay and theories.  The pic is interesting, but no way to even know when it was taken and who the people are.  They also left out a fairly important evidence.  I am sure because it doesn't support their hypothesis.  It is documented that Amelia transmitted (strong) that they were on a LOP 157-337 and that they were flying north and south.  She did NOT say we are turning west toward the Gilberts.  Convenient omission of the facts.  Also, not much about ALL the post loss transmissions that were received and tracked by credible facilities and pointed to Gardner....not The Marshalls.  Just one by someone who said she heard her say that were at Mili Atoll.  I doubt it.  Somebody said they saw the plane land (or their Father did), somebody said their mother delivered clean linens to a American women in the prison, someone said they performed medical on them, etc., etc.  I could say that Jimmy Hoffa is buried in my back yard.  So why not believe me!!  I have no proof of that either.  Conveniently no bones, no real pictures, no left behind articles, no anything.   
TIGHAR Member #4154
 
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 5614
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: New show on history channel about Amelia Earhart
« Reply #44 on: July 10, 2017, 01:15:30 PM »

We have an urgent need for someone who can read Japanese.  Contact me through the Forum or by email at ric@tighar.org

Sorry for sounding mysterious but we need to confirm something before announcing it.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6   Go Up
 

Copyright 2019 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 2.0.15 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines Powered by PHP