Print

[Ric Gillespie]

Here you are Ric, just for you the answer you have been seeking.

Thank you.  I think you've told us all we need to know.

[Matt Revington]

Malcolm
How long has the New Britain hypothesis been investigated ( from a quick check of Dave billings website it seems like at least 20 years) , how many expeditions, from that web page last updated in 2004 at least 9 attempts have been made and with zero results.  If some one is motivated to keep that investigation going then more power to them, as Jeff said its not a zero sum game.  I am puzzled by your continued posting here, you have expertise in archeological matters, I respect what you say about artifacts and clear thinking about data but you now try to nitpick the rdf data which you clearly don't understand and it starts to feel like you just want to be disruptive.  As others who have some applicable skills to this complex mystery but limited knowledge in others have said it's never a shame to say we can agree to disagree

[Malcolm McKay]

As little as you may think of TIGHAR's tangible finds, can you point to any other expedition that has found as much that might relate to the AE flight?  I think that answer is very clear - nothing approaching the possibilities that we have in-hand, however indirect they remain (and I'd wager again that Ric has his own feelings about those things as he yearns for 'incontrovertable' proof, along with many of us).

Thanks Jeff - sensible post as usual. The real problem with TIGHAR's tangible finds is that while they are tangible in sensu stricto the question remains what are they indicative of? And the answer is that they cannot be used precisely to answer the question posed. TIGHAR have assembled  a remarkably comprehensive collection Earhartian information yet withal that they haven't found the hard evidence needed to close the case. We all know that, there is no denying it but without that key act then I'm afraid that it all comes to naught. A lot of people hoped that this last trip would close the case - just like every one before we have a cliff-hanger. But that is precisely not what TIGHAR wants to maintain credibility.

[Malcolm McKay]

Here you are Ric, just for you the answer you have been seeking.

Thank you.  I think you've told us all we need to know.

Yes Ric - I had to come clean and reveal the terrible extent of the McKay/Billings Conspiracy. 

[Matt Revington]

As little as you may think of TIGHAR's tangible finds, can you point to any other expedition that has found as much that might relate to the AE flight?  I think that answer is very clear - nothing approaching the possibilities that we have in-hand, however indirect they remain (and I'd wager again that Ric has his own feelings about those things as he yearns for 'incontrovertable' proof, along with many of us).

Thanks Jeff - sensible post as usual. The real problem with TIGHAR's tangible finds is that while they are tangible in sensu stricto the question remains what are they indicative of? And the answer is that they cannot be used precisely to answer the question posed. TIGHAR have assembled  a remarkably comprehensive collection Earhartian information yet withal that they haven't found the hard evidence needed to close the case. We all know that, there is no denying it but without that key act then I'm afraid that it all comes to naught. A lot of people hoped that this last trip would close the case - just like every one before we have a cliff-hanger. But that is precisely not what TIGHAR wants to maintain credibility.

Actually as far as I have been able to find beyond tighar earhartian evidence is limited to 50 year  post dated remembrances at an Australian army reunion ( let me guess they had at least one beer ) and vague recollections of  various persons on Japanese controlled islands of a western looking woman. No smoking gun on Niku but essentially nothing of any value ( sorry I am discounting psychics and ufos) anywhere else

[Malcolm McKay]

Actually as far as I have been able to find beyond tighar earhartian evidence is limited to 50 year  post dated remembrances at an Australian army reunion ( let me guess they had at least one beer ) and vague recollections of  various persons on Japanese controlled islands of a western looking woman. No smoking gun on Niku but essentially nothing of any value ( sorry I am discounting psychics and ufos) anywhere else

I am sorry Matt but what exactly is your point. I have stated openly a number of times that I am willing to accept the first proof of Earhart's fate derived from whatever hypothesis is being investigated by whoever. If TIGHAR comes up with that proof I'll accept it; if Mr Billings comes up with that proof I'll accept it; if Nauticos comes up with that proof I'll accept it - what else can I say? So far no one has done so - so instead of being partisan I am being open-minded (or is open-mindedness and the desire for proper proof unwanted here?).   

[Matt Revington]

Actually as far as I have been able to find beyond tighar earhartian evidence is limited to 50 year  post dated remembrances at an Australian army reunion ( let me guess they had at least one beer ) and vague recollections of  various persons on Japanese controlled islands of a western looking woman. No smoking gun on Niku but essentially nothing of any value ( sorry I am discounting psychics and ufos) anywhere else

I am sorry Matt but what exactly is your point. I have stated openly a number of times that I am willing to accept the first proof of Earhart's fate derived from whatever hypothesis is being investigated by whoever. If TIGHAR comes up with that proof I'll accept it; if Mr Billings comes up with that proof I'll accept it; if Nauticos comes up with that proof I'll accept it - what else can I say? So far no one has done so - so instead of being partisan I am being open-minded (or is open-mindedness and the desire for proper proof unwanted here?).   

You are playing games now with the term proof versus evidence, tighar has several lines of physical evidence of varying credibility, of a American ( or at least a woman of European descent ) woman being on that island pre1940 and no one that I have seen has a reasonable explanation for that.  Actually much but not all of that evidence is more specific to 1930-1937 timeframe.  The other theories have no physical evidence, none have the smoking gun or the"any idiot" artifact.  In the total absence of evidence the other theories are merely conjectures while the niku hypothesis is at least in the process of being tested

[john a delsing]

Matt,
   I believe the late dr. Burns said " consisent with north European " which to me implies could have been north European. I could be wrong but dr. Burns did not say " only north European "

[Gary LaPook]

Since the official TIGHAR position is that Earhart and Noonan were still alive at the time of the Lambrecht search, the failure of the search in the Fossett case is not analogous to the Earhart case, it's apples to oranges.

So you're saying that if Earhart and Noonan were, for some reason, unable to take steps to make themselves seen they become apples rather than oranges and are analogous to the Fossett case.  I think that's a different position than the one you've taken in the past.

I don't think so, I have been making my point forcefully that they were alive at the time of the flyover and should have greeted the PISS settlers in October. I have also made the point that they were not disabled by disputing the only basis for that claim, the "Betty radio show", and by pointing out that they (according to your theory) waded out to the plane each day across rough and uneven coral, straight arming the sharks out of their way while crossing the boat channel, ran the engine and operated the radio so there is no reason to believe that they were unable to make emergency signals on the beach. You have said that the official TIGHAR theory holds that they were still alive at the time of the flyover and the reason they were not seen is that they were actively doing stuff back in the bush and didn't have time to get to the beach to wave at the planes. Are YOU now changing your position that they were alive but disabled at the time of the flyover?

gl

[Gary LaPook]

TIGHAR had been searching for 23 years and found nothing that is accepted as related to Earhart.

They have found artifacts that can not be ruled out, as belonging to Earhart or Fred either.

Hang a map of the pacific on your wall, step back ten feet and throw a dart at the map. Then go to the island that the dart hit and search for a week and I am quite sure that you will find artifacts that can be classified as "consistent" with Eahart being on that island. (In fact, you will probably have to throw the dart many times to hit an island since it is much more likely that it will land in the ocean, hmmmm.)

I have a suggestion for TIGHAR. Identify an island that is similar to Gardner in terms of periods of human habitation and go to that island and look for artifacts that are "consistent" with Earhart being on the chosen island (an island that we know she was NOT on) to establish a baseline of island artifacts, this would improve the rigour of the TIGHAR scientific search method. In fact, to eliminate any chance of bias (either intentional or unintentional) in finding or overlooking such artifacts, TIGHAR should recruit naysayers to do the search since they will be motivated to find such baseline artifacts. If no such artifacts are found then the TIGHAR collection of stuff becomes much more convincing.

What do you think, Ric?

gl

[Malcolm McKay]

Matt,
   I believe the late dr. Burns said " consisent with north European " which to me implies could have been north European. I could be wrong but dr. Burns did not say " only north European "

Excellent point John - the term "consistent with" is expert speak for "well it could be but don't quote me as saying it is". When I did archaeological consultancy work I sometimes found myself being asked to say something was definitely something when in fact I couldn't say that because I knew that the evidence was lacking. It is a term which many people misread as "is" when in fact it means "possible" and possible is a long way from probably and probably is along way from certainly. Any expert is only as good as the reliability of the data and the honest ones admit it.

[Malcolm McKay]

You are playing games now with the term proof versus evidence, tighar has several lines of physical evidence of varying credibility, of a American ( or at least a woman of European descent ) woman being on that island pre1940 and no one that I have seen has a reasonable explanation for that.

That highlighted bit in your post sums it up but I think that it might be a little too kind. It would be a much more useful piece of evidence if it actually exists.

[Gary LaPook]

Matt,
   I believe the late dr. Burns said " consisent with north European " which to me implies could have been north European. I could be wrong but dr. Burns did not say " only north European "

Excellent point John - the term "consistent with" is expert speak for "well it could be but don't quote me as saying it is". When I did archaeological consultancy work I sometimes found myself being asked to say something was definitely something when in fact I couldn't say that because I knew that the evidence was lacking. It is a term which many people misread as "is" when in fact it means "possible" and possible is a long way from probably and probably is along way from certainly. Any expert is only as good as the reliability of the data and the honest ones admit it.

We call these "wiggle words" and experts use them all the time so we have to pin them down with cross examination under oath. "Consistent with"  actually means "not inconsistent with". The only things that would be "inconsistent with" Earhart on the island would be a 1938 dime (or other objects with a date after 1937) or an object too large to fit in the plane. Anything else can be described as "consistent with" the TIGHAR theory. Here is an example. Let's say on the next expedition they find an old Roman coin at the seven site. Look at the requirements and you will see that this Roman coin is "consistent with" Earhart being on the island since it is not dated after 1937 and it is small enough to fit in the plane. The explanation is that Earhart could have carried it as a "good luck coin." Is there any evidence that Earhart ever owned a Roman coin, no, but that doesn't mean that she didn't, she could have. Then the skeptics will be challenged to provide evidence that Earhart never had a Roman coin and, of course, there is no such evidence so TIGHAR will continue to claim that the Roman coin supports their hypothesis.


gl

[Malcolm McKay]

We call these "wiggle words" and experts use them all the time so we have to pin them down with cross examination under oath. "Consistent with"  actually means "not inconsistent with". The only things that would be "inconsistent with" Earhart on the island would be a 1938 dime (or other objects with a date after 1937) or an object too large to fit in the plane. Anything else can be described as "consistent with" the TIGHAR theory. Here is an example. Let's say on the next expedition they find an old Roman coin at the seven site. Look at the requirements and you will see that this Roman coin is "consistent with" Earhart being on the island since it is not dated after 1937 and it is small enough to fit in the plane. The explanation is that Earhart could have carried it as a "good luck coin." Is there any evidence that Earhart ever owned a Roman coin, no, but that doesn't mean that she didn't, she could have. Then Ric will challenge the skeptics to provide evidence that Earhart never had a Roman coin and, of course, there is no such evidence so TIGHAR will continue to claim that the Roman coin supports their hypothesis.
gl

You are quite right Gary. For instance we need look no further than the terminology applied to the Bevington object. Now as we know that is a rephotographed enlargement of a print from a negative. So to begin with it is two steps removed from the primary source. Therefore can we say with certainty that the object is not a product of the photographic print process itself - no, and the reason is that the actual negative is not available for examination. But it also must be noted that if we were being hypercritical and following strict scientific process we would need for the process of identification of the object that the examination must go back a stage further and determine if there was a tiny speck on the lens itself when the photograph was taken. An impossible task but nevertheless one that is part of the process of elimination. After all we recently saw the discovery of the Higgs Boson using the Hadron Collider - I would expect that the scientists involved made every effort to ensure that their recording equipment was free of any imperfection that would give a false result because the ramification of the God particle being a dust speck in the recording equipment is too awful to contemplate, given that Nobel Prizes may well flow from the discovery.

In reality the Bevington object is on a print which from the point of view of a strict scientific analysis is three steps removed from the event it is now taken to be a record of. Mr Gillespie in a post on the debris field thread said "he felt comfortable in saying that it is consistent with the landing gear of a Lockheed Electra.  Photo analysts at the U.S. State Department Bureau of Intelligence and Research independently reached the same conclusion" http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,913.msg19305.html#msg19305 . However we note that Mr Glickman said "one interpretation of it that it is at least consistent with four components that exist on an Lockheed Electra 10-E, in this case, Special." http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,916.msg18550.html#msg18550 , a statement illustrated by his superimposing scaled drawings of the Electra undercarriage on it, and according to TIGHAR the State Department analysts agreed with this cautious and non-committal assessment.

In that non-committal phrasing lies the statement which absolves those who use the image from any misunderstandings which might arise from someone assuming that with all the publicity attached to it that it actually is an undercarriage leg rather than perhaps something which could be  an artifact either of the photographic process, a stray dust mote or even time itself. It is necessary that people are aware of the subtleties of meaning in the terminology yet so many wish to have their desire for it to be the undercarriage leg confirmed that they ignore that, in reality, no one has said it is; in fact they have said the opposite which is "we don't know, it might be, it might not be".

Language is indeed a wonderful thing 

[Ric Gillespie]

People who actually know what they're talking about (i.e. Glickman and the photo analysts at the State Dept.) are quite certain that the object in the Bevington photo is NOT a dust mote, speck on the lens, or a flaw in the developing process.  People who make their living as photo analysts and forensic imaging scientists can easily make those distinctions. 

The object in the photo has several distinct elements that match the shape and dimensions of specific elements in the landing gear of a Lockheed Electra, but nobody can say (and nobody has said) that it IS the landing gear of a Lockheed Electra, hence we say it is "consistent" with the landing gear of a Lockheed Electra.  We can also say that it is not consistent with any other object we know of - but we're open to suggestions.

The Bureau of Intelligence and Research analysts were so struck by the resemblance of the object to Electra landing gear that they wondered if someone might have "doctored" the original negative to insert a Lockheed landing gear in the photo.  An expert alteration in the negative would be difficult to discover in a print.  However, such a deception seems more than unlikely. The original negative was destroyed when the Japanese invaded Tarawa in 1941. Bevington and the other British colonial officials escaped just prior to the landings with little more than the clothes on their backs.  The prints of Bevington's photographs from his October 1937 visit to Gardner Island only survive because he sent them and his journal from that trip home to his father in England soon after the expedition.