Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10 11 ... 34   Go Down

Author Topic: FAQ: Colorado / Lambrecht Search, 9 July 1937  (Read 441864 times)

Jeff Victor Hayden

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1387
Re: FAQ: Colorado / Lambrecht Search, 9 July 1937
« Reply #120 on: April 26, 2012, 05:28:30 AM »

Quote
We keep coming back to these claims about aircraft skin found on Nikumaroro, now faith is a wonderful thing but I actually would like to see a little more hard evidence.

As for the enhanced photo - are TIGHAR positive that it shows an undercarriage leg or is this still not determined. One can read the statement either way. It will be difficult to take seriously if it is another "might be, possibly be" situation. Too many leaps of faith.

Won't have long to wait now then Malcolm.
Not certain that they have permission to collect anything from the reef and bring it up, doubt it, but should get better images and scale this time round with the better equipment available.
This must be the place
 
Logged

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 2981
Re: FAQ: Colorado / Lambrecht Search, 9 July 1937
« Reply #121 on: April 28, 2012, 06:39:52 AM »

I have "magically" removed several posts to other threads, deleted a couple of posts, and corrected the spelling of "hypothesis" in a subject line.

The only place where questions and complaints about moderation policy are on-topic is in the Chatterbox or Forum FAQs and Problem Solving

Please do not try to moderate other members by nagging them in a thread.  Anyone can start a new thread and invite people to focus conversation on a particular topic there.  You may also report a post to the moderators because of inappropriate content or thread drift.

This post itself is off-topic in a thread about the Lambrecht search.  I will "magically" make it disappear after a few days by moving it elsewhere.
LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
Logged

Jeff Victor Hayden

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1387
Re: FAQ: Colorado / Lambrecht Search, 9 July 1937
« Reply #122 on: May 03, 2012, 04:20:50 PM »

This is just a scenario I put forward simply as a possibility, there is no hard evidence, how could there be? It simply takes what is known (the Lambrecht report) and the dates of possible post loss radio transmissions and puts together a possible scenario to explain them.


From Lambrechts report
http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Lambrecht's_Report.html


‘The search with aircraft got underway at 1430 Wednesday 7 July

At 0700 Friday (9th July) morning the planes were catapulted to search M’Kean and Gardner Islands’


The last possible transmission heard


From the possible post loss radio signals

http://tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/2009Vol_25/postloss.pdf


‘If an account in Fred Goerner’s book The Search for Amelia Earhart (Doubleday, 1966) is true, on July 7, 1937 three operators at U.S. Navy Radio Wailupe (the same station that heard the 281 message) heard the voice of a woman who identified herself as Earhart attempting to contact Itasca using the ship’s call sign and the Electra’s radio call sign.’Which was the last possible post loss transmission

Scenarios arising from this observation of the dates involved and the 2 day window of opportunity gives…
1.   This is a load of tosh
2.   Transmissions from the Electra stopped because…?
a) Batteries flat = run out of gas
b) Batteries/radio flooded = aircraft into the water
If b then airplane might have ended up in one of the grooves of the spur and groove reef and therefore out of sight of the Lambrecht over flight of Gardner island on Friday the 9th.
Any ideas?


This must be the place
 
Logged

richie conroy

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1412
Re: FAQ: Colorado / Lambrecht Search, 9 July 1937
« Reply #123 on: May 04, 2012, 01:04:07 PM »

maybe the search planes did actually miss a wave from Amelia and Fred

the A and B in photo's

A points to what looks like 2 people at top of tree's

and B points to an object that is high above tree line

probably nothing but if in doubt get second opinion  :)

 
We are an echo of the past


Member# 416
 
« Last Edit: May 04, 2012, 01:07:01 PM by richie conroy »
Logged

richie conroy

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1412
Re: FAQ: Colorado / Lambrecht Search, 9 July 1937
« Reply #124 on: May 04, 2012, 01:09:10 PM »

here is inverted image  :)
We are an echo of the past


Member# 416
 
Logged

Gary LaPook

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1624
Re: FAQ: Colorado / Lambrecht Search, 9 July 1937
« Reply #125 on: June 27, 2012, 04:17:55 AM »

]

See my prior post. Here is a part of it:

"In my prior post, for simplification, I assumed the strip of land making up Gardner Island between the lagoon and the sea was half a nautical mile wide (3038 feet), but this was an overstatement. In fact, 39% of this donut is less than 700 feet wide and a further 45% is less than 1200 feet wide. Only the northern end of the island is a half nautical mile wide. This means that the search planes flying down the center of the strip of land would only have to search 350 feet either side of the plane (a little bit longer than a football field) for 39% of the circuit and 600 feet for 45% of the circuit. Only on the northern tip, constituting the remaining 16% of the island,  would they have to search a quarter mile either side, 1519 feet. You can see then that for fully 84% of the circuit the the distance they would have to look was significantly less than the distance that would allow spotting a bobbing head out on the ocean so should have had a very high probability of spotting an entire person on dry land. Only on the northern tip would the search distance be slightly greater, 1519 feet versus 1215 feet, than you would expect to spot a bobbing head among the waves so you would expect to be able to spot an entire person at this distance. "

And another prior post here.

It is hard to conceive of any formation or search pattern that didn't bring one of the planes within a few hundred feet of every spot of dry land on Gardner. And they had time to make three complete circuits each.

gl


Since we have hotly debated on this thread and others the distances that searchers could see people on the ground, I decided to do a test. I went flying today in a Skycatcher and one of my projects for this flight was to see how far away I could see people on the ground. I have attached two Google Earth images of portions of the flight, the red line is the track of my plane which is recorded every five seconds by one of my GPS. (This was not the entire purpose of my flight and you can see the entire flight track by looking at the third attached GE image.) I had no preconceived idea of what I would find. The first image shows my flight offshore of Ventura California. I was flying towards the south at 1,000 feet and looking towards the beach to see if I could spot people on the beach. I planned to fly closer and closer until I could recognize people, note a prominent landmark near the people that I could spot on Google Earth, and push the button on my second GPS to record my location at the point where I detected the people and this worked out well.  From my position offshore I could see people clearly on the section of the beach between the breakwaters. Then I downloaded the GPS data to my computer and used it to to locate my plane on GE and then measured the distance to the people I saw on the beach near the landmark. I was surprised that the distance was so great, 2.48 NM! Later I flew along a road and looked for workers in the fields nearby along with landmarks near them so that I would be able to accurately place them on GE. The second image shows that I could see field workers at a distance of 0.89 NM but it is also possible that if there had been workers farther away that I would have been able to see them at an even greater distance. The crops are a little more than waist high so the vegetation is nowhere as difficult as that on Gardner but it was an interesting test anyway since only the tops of the workers' torsos were visible and yet it was not difficult to see them at close to a nautical mile away.

gl
« Last Edit: June 27, 2012, 12:07:48 PM by Gary LaPook »
Logged

Tom Swearengen

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 818
  • earhart monument, Hawaii
Re: FAQ: Colorado / Lambrecht Search, 9 July 1937
« Reply #126 on: June 27, 2012, 07:29:03 AM »

Wow Gary---that is awesome. I know that flying into our local airport that usually I can make out who is there---but I cheat beacuse I know their cars ( LOL). Open area, etc. Not in trees, or crops like Gary's experiment.
Now, IF AE had put a signal in a tree, or climbed a tree, etc,
A) could she have done it?, and
B) is there some surviving evidence of the signal?
Dont know about you guys, but I would think climbing a coconut tree isnt as easy as we see on TV. Also---it would take time to do that, so how would she know to climb a tree and signal, and the time that he overflight was taking place? I mean, its not like running out your front door, and waving a sheet---we're talking about climbing a tree, and making some sort of signal AT the right time. It is a stretch for me to grasp that. sorry. Even if she had previously set up this signal, I still think its a pretty big task for her to accomplish.
Tom Swearengen TIGHAR # 3297
 
Logged

C.W. Herndon

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 634
Re: FAQ: Colorado / Lambrecht Search, 9 July 1937
« Reply #127 on: June 27, 2012, 08:39:29 AM »

Gary, here we go again. First of all let me again point out that your experiment was accomplished over flat terrain with no overhead cover.

Second of all let me refer to your oft quoted "Land Probability of Detection Tables", on page 77 of the pdf copy of the National Search and Rescue Supplement, see below. Please note what it says in Para 5.5.1 "The following POD tables used by the CAP and Air Force assume a crash location is more difficult to see in heavy terrain, and the search object is relatively small, such as a light aircraft". I think this is quite clear that the POD's listed are for, at a minimum, a light aircraft and not people.

Third of all let me point out the clothing that AE and FN were wearing in most of the pictures made of them. AE is usually shown wearing either khaki or very dark trousers, either of which tends to blend in with most backgrounds, plus a plaid blouse which would show up very well most anywhere but would be a rather small target. FN is almost always shown wearing dark blue or black trousers and shirt which again would tend to blend in with most backgrounds.

http://earchives.lib.purdue.edu/u?/earhart,904 

And lastly, the SAR documents always talk about the condition of the crews as being critical to detection of crash sites. While it does not talk about the attitude or attentiveness of the other crews, check out what Lt(jg) William Short had to say about the search in his log/letter to his father about the search. Especially note his comments about the search in general in his July 5, 1937 entry and the specific comments about the Gardner Island search on July 9, 1937. He gives a good discription of the ship on the reef but apparently fails to even notice the Buka trees on the atoll.

http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Forum/Highlights21_40/highlights26.html 
Woody (former 3316R)
"the watcher"
 
« Last Edit: June 27, 2012, 09:05:19 AM by C.W. Herndon »
Logged

C.W. Herndon

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 634
Re: FAQ: Colorado / Lambrecht Search, 9 July 1937
« Reply #128 on: June 27, 2012, 10:00:17 AM »

Gary, since you like to work with numbers so much, you might find this document, Compatibility of Land SAR Proceedures with Search Theory , interesting.

Especially note the conclusions on pdf pages 78, 79 (pgs 72, 73 of the document) which says in part, "In short, none of the POD estimation procedures found in the land SAR literature are compatible with search theory and none can be modified to make them compliant with search theory".
Woody (former 3316R)
"the watcher"
 
Logged

C.W. Herndon

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 634
Re: FAQ: Colorado / Lambrecht Search, 9 July 1937
« Reply #129 on: June 27, 2012, 11:47:37 AM »

For anyone who might be interested in the most current of the SAR information, here is a US Coast Guard web site with many of the current items.

http://www.uscg.mil/hq/cg5/cg534/SAR_Manuals.asp
Woody (former 3316R)
"the watcher"
 
Logged

C.W. Herndon

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 634
Re: FAQ: Colorado / Lambrecht Search, 9 July 1937
« Reply #130 on: June 27, 2012, 01:01:47 PM »

]

See my prior post. Here is a part of it:

"In my prior post, for simplification, I assumed the strip of land making up Gardner Island between the lagoon and the sea was half a nautical mile wide (3038 feet), but this was an overstatement. In fact, 39% of this donut is less than 700 feet wide and a further 45% is less than 1200 feet wide. Only the northern end of the island is a half nautical mile wide. This means that the search planes flying down the center of the strip of land would only have to search 350 feet either side of the plane (a little bit longer than a football field) for 39% of the circuit and 600 feet for 45% of the circuit. Only on the northern tip, constituting the remaining 16% of the island,  would they have to search a quarter mile either side, 1519 feet. You can see then that for fully 84% of the circuit the the distance they would have to look was significantly less than the distance that would allow spotting a bobbing head out on the ocean so should have had a very high probability of spotting an entire person on dry land. Only on the northern tip would the search distance be slightly greater, 1519 feet versus 1215 feet, than you would expect to spot a bobbing head among the waves so you would expect to be able to spot an entire person at this distance. "

And another prior post here.

It is hard to conceive of any formation or search pattern that didn't bring one of the planes within a few hundred feet of every spot of dry land on Gardner. And they had time to make three complete circuits each.

gl


Since we have hotly debated on this thread and others the distances that searchers could see people on the ground, I decided to do a test. I went flying today in a Skycatcher and one of my projects for this flight was to see how far away I could see people on the ground. I have attached two Google Earth images of portions of the flight, the red line is the track of my plane which is recorded every five seconds by one of my GPS. (This was not the entire purpose of my flight and you can see the entire flight track by looking at the third attached GE image.) I had no preconceived idea of what I would find. The first image shows my flight offshore of Ventura California. I was flying towards the south at 1,000 feet and looking towards the beach to see if I could spot people on the beach. I planned to fly closer and closer until I could recognize people, note a prominent landmark near the people that I could spot on Google Earth, and push the button on my second GPS to record my location at the point where I detected the people and this worked out well.  From my position offshore I could see people clearly on the section of the beach between the breakwaters. Then I downloaded the GPS data to my computer and used it to to locate my plane on GE and then measured the distance to the people I saw on the beach near the landmark. I was surprised that the distance was so great, 2.48 NM! Later I flew along a road and looked for workers in the fields nearby along with landmarks near them so that I would be able to accurately place them on GE. The second image shows that I could see field workers at a distance of 0.89 NM but it is also possible that if there had been workers farther away that I would have been able to see them at an even greater distance. The crops are a little more than waist high so the vegetation is nowhere as difficult as that on Gardner but it was an interesting test anyway since only the tops of the workers' torsos were visible and yet it was not difficult to see them at close to a nautical mile away.

gl

Gary, I know you have very good eyes, but would you be so good as to give us an estimate of the apparent altitude in your photos when they are brought up on your post. I do not have Google Earth so I cannot zoom in on what you are showing.
Woody (former 3316R)
"the watcher"
 
Logged

john a delsing

  • T2
  • **
  • Posts: 66
  • Minnesota Johnny D.
Re: FAQ: Colorado / Lambrecht Search, 9 July 1937
« Reply #131 on: June 27, 2012, 09:38:50 PM »

   For the sake of argument let’s say that Amelia was alive and well and so deep in the brush that she could not get to an opening or to the beach when he Lambrecht flights flew over. Is it possible that most of us can agree that certain facts would probably have entered her mind, such as:
   1).    Wow, they are using airplanes to search for me, not boats like I had thought. There must be some type of airfield, or aircraft carrier, or large ship with planes around.
   2).   The good news is they are looking in the right area for me.
   3).   Hopefully they’ll be back, hopefully this was just a “quick search”.
   4).   If and when they come back I’ve got to be ready, I can’t let them miss me again.
   5).    As a pilot myself, what would tell me that someone was down here signaling me, if I was flying over this island searching for someone ?

   Each and every TIGHAR member should be able to think of how they would construct a signal. I would think Amelia would give some thought to gathering some rocks and on the beach, or a cleaning, lay the rocks out to spell:  A E    or  maybe just one big letter would be quicker; like a giant man made X , ( or actually woman made ).   But wait, there is even better news, according to the TIGHAR hypothesis, the ‘castaway’ of the seven site lived there at the seven site for many weeks, and possibly months, so if true, Amelia would have plenty of time to construct a straight line of rocks running perpendicular on the beach, from the woods into the ocean, a straight line that couldn’t be missed by airplanes searching the island for he, or even by a fellow like Bovington walking around the island a few months later. Please remember, this castaway who hunted and fished and built many fires "for weeks and possibly months " at the seven site is YOUR creation, not mine. If she did exist, then I would certainly believe she could spend 5 or 10 minutes each morning, before the sun rose too high, and the same in the evening when the sun was setting. dropping rocks in a straight line. In a very short time she would have a straight line, maybe 1 foot wide and maybe 20 or 30 feet into the ocean, and as the weeks turned into months, the line would get wider and longer.

   Before you criticize too much, please take the time to tell me two things: after missing the Lambrecht flight, what would you have done to make sure that it wouldn’t happen again, and what kind of ‘ signal ‘ do you think Amelia made ?
The Earth is Full
 
Logged

John Ousterhout

  • T4
  • ****
  • Posts: 487
Re: FAQ: Colorado / Lambrecht Search, 9 July 1937
« Reply #132 on: June 27, 2012, 10:08:05 PM »

This may be a trivial question, but does Niku even have rocks?  Or chunks of coral that would substitute for rocks?
Cheers,
JohnO
 
Logged

john a delsing

  • T2
  • **
  • Posts: 66
  • Minnesota Johnny D.
Re: FAQ: Colorado / Lambrecht Search, 9 July 1937
« Reply #133 on: June 27, 2012, 10:13:13 PM »

   This is just one scenario, of what I would think should be very many scenarios, that better answers the question about how the artifacts got to the seven site, than the Amelia Earhart as the castaway of the seven site theory does.
   
   Back in the 1930’s and 1940’s the United States was a very different country. Most people did not live in the urban areas, rather most lived in rural areas, i.e. on farms or in small villages or towns. When WWII began, many of these ‘farm boys’ were drafted and sent overseas to places like Gardner island to man equipment such as loran stations. To most ‘coasties’ this would be quite a different life style, from pretty much living off the land back home, to a deserted island, thousand of miles from anywhere, temps over 110 degrees every day with no change of seasons, no crops to till, or livestock to raise, no ‘real food’ just stuff out of a can or packet, milk and eggs in powder form…..  After many months ( or years ) of this kind of existence I would not be surprised if some coasties, ( whether legal or illegal ) took an occasional ‘overnighter’, or a day or two of  “sick leave” which meant grabbing a canteen or two of water  and getting back to their roots by leaving the base and going out exploring the island and living off the land, and eating real food, i.e. fishing, catching and eating turtles and birds, and even real eggs. (We know the coasties were at the seven site by the ammunition casing we have found) One coastie may set up a camp with his kitchen here ( fire for cooking ), his relaxing area over there, and his sleeping area in some other place. The next coastie (s), may very well set up camp in the same general area, but with his fire area over there, sleeping area here and the like. It seems to me that would explain the many ‘fire areas’ found at the seven site at lot better than one person ( the castaway ), changing her camp setup so many times. I would think most people would agree that common sense says that once you have setup a camp site you probably would be inclined to cook all your meals in the same location, set aside a different area for bathroom chores, and the same spot for sleeping at each night.
   Was it only coasties visiting the seven site? I would doubt that, probably settlers also found reason to spend some time at this site, maybe it was the breeze, or the view, or maybe it was just a good fishing spot, or as Gary LaPook suggested, maybe at times it became a lovers lane. Did any of the Norwich City crew visit this site? I think quite possibly, and maybe others that we don’t know of. But many people could have, and probably did spend time at this site and yes they probably lost things, wore out things, and discarded things. All the artifacts that we have found at the seven site could easily have gotten there without the existence of a  castaway. 
 occam’s razor ?
The Earth is Full
 
Logged

Greg Daspit

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 781
Re: FAQ: Colorado / Lambrecht Search, 9 July 1937
« Reply #134 on: June 27, 2012, 10:24:58 PM »

John,
Assuming AE and/or FN happened to be on the other end of the island searching for water the day after their plane washed out, and they saw the planes circling and zooming again and again over what Lambrecht described as signs of recent habitation. And assuming what Lambrecht thought were signs of recent habitation was a camp near the Norwich City, I think AE and FN may have thought the Norwich City was attracting the bulk of the attention. So maybe they went back and painted a big S.O.S. on the Norwich City along with some fresh banners and flags.  My latest thought is the S.O.S was painted from inside the ship through an open seam in the hull.
3 months later, winds blew away the banners. Then maybe Bevington thought the S.O.S was left by survivors of the Norwich City and ignored it.
 See my thread on the SOS on Norwich City.
http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,689.0.html
3971R
 
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10 11 ... 34   Go Up
 

Copyright 2021 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