Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 14 15 [16] 17 18 ... 34   Go Down

Author Topic: FAQ: Colorado / Lambrecht Search, 9 July 1937  (Read 444150 times)

Bill Roe

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 161
Re: FAQ: Colorado / Lambrecht Search, 9 July 1937
« Reply #225 on: August 21, 2012, 09:32:55 PM »


Am I the only one who finds the special pleading argument which is adopted to explain why, if Earhart and Noonan were on Nikumaroro, the Navy searchers didn't see them just a little too contrived.


No.  You are not the only one.  And simply because, as I explained previously, there are hundreds of documented cases of SAR in which a lone pilot, traveling at speeds greater than 200-250kts, searching in much more difficult terrain, on the deck, located hidden individuals.  If Earhart and Noonan were on that island during the Navy search, they didn't want to be found.  Any other scenario - they would have been seen.

Logged

john a delsing

  • T2
  • **
  • Posts: 66
  • Minnesota Johnny D.
Re: FAQ: Colorado / Lambrecht Search, 9 July 1937
« Reply #226 on: August 21, 2012, 09:51:48 PM »

I am still sticking to my oridginal hypothesis:  They were there and they were dead !
The Earth is Full
 
Logged

Gary LaPook

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1624
Re: FAQ: Colorado / Lambrecht Search, 9 July 1937
« Reply #227 on: August 22, 2012, 03:23:15 AM »

Some people here believe that, although Earhart and Noonan had landed on Gardner, they were not spotted by Lambrecht and the five other aviators when they flew a search over the island seven days later because Earhart and Noonan had already died due to dehydration. Of course the other explanation for why they were not spotted is that they were NEVER in that island. I have said before that they could have fabricated a usable saltwater distillation outfit that would supply they with all the water they needed to survive. I'm sure those that believe they had already died doubt that this was possible. To test this idea I decided to make a proof-of-concept distiller and, I am happy to report, I was right and the naysayers were wrong. Using only commonly available items I found in my kitchen, I put together a simple still that produces a fluid ounce of fresh water in eight minutes. Since, according to the Air Force Survival Manual, a person needs only one pint (16 ounces) a day to survive, this simple still can produce enough drinking water in about two hours of operation to supply one person for one whole day. If you were not satisfied with that amount of water then you could run it for a longer period each day. All that is necessary is a supply of sea water (no lack of that on Gardner) and fuel to burn, some gasoline to get started and then wood harvested from all the vegetation on Gardner (no lack of that either) to keep the fire going. Now it may seem like a pain in the butt to have to tend the fire for two or three hours a day but what else did they have to do? Think of survival as being your normal full time job so you certainly would spend at least your normal working eight hours a day working to survive. The still I made is quite small but Earhart and Noonan had seven thousand pounds of aircraft aluminum from which to fabricate their still so could have made a much bigger one so that they could supply their daily water needs by operating it fewer hours per day. Or, they could have made two, so Earhart could have her very own and Noonan could have his very own, now wouldn't that be sweet.

We discussed before the 1925 Navy attempted flight to Hawaii on which the crew had to distill water after they were forced down at sea. This was a big deal then and it got lots of publicity so it is unlikely that Eahart and Noonan had not heard of it and the use of the still fueled with parts of the seaplane's wooden structure to provide drinking water for the crew as they sailed their seaplane to Kauai. With this knowledge in their heads it is likely that they would have realized the utility of making a still if they were stranded on Gardner.

I'm sure that many imagine a saltwater distillation plant as being very complicated with pipes and copper coils and bubbling liquids, kinda like an old science fiction movie, one that would be impossible for castaways to make. Nothing could be farther from the truth! I fabricated mine out of two pots, a small piece of aluminum, two small pieces of aluminum foil and a standard bar jigger to catch and measure the fresh water. The device consists of one pot filled with seawater (the evaporator unit) with the second pot (the condenser unit) positioned over it and mounted so that it is sloped. The steam from the water boiling in the evaporator unit condenses on the bottom surface of the condenser unit and then runs down along the sloped bottom and drips into the jigger. The condenser unit is also filled with seawater to keep it cool so that the steam will condense. This water heats up during operation as the condenser unit absorbs heat from the condensing steam. This heated water is then ladled, from time to time, into the evaporator unit so this heat energy is not wasted and it then takes less energy to raise the temperature of this already heated water up to its boiling point. New cool seawater is then added to the condenser unit.

I have made a fourteen minute You tube video of this so you can see how ridiculously easy it is to make one of these. You doubters can make one of your own and try it yourselves in the privacy of your own kitchens.

gl
« Last Edit: August 22, 2012, 03:29:57 PM by Gary LaPook »
Logged

Kevin Weeks

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 236
Re: FAQ: Colorado / Lambrecht Search, 9 July 1937
« Reply #228 on: August 22, 2012, 05:44:32 AM »


I've already stated the facts that support my position that Betty did not hear Earhart and you are they guys that are making the unreasonable assumption that she did in spite of your own expert, Brandenberg, giving it an infinitesimally small probability and the fact that it contains no mention of Gardner or the word "Phoenix."

that's all well and good, you don't have to believe any of the hypothesis Tighar presents no matter how much or little evidence supports it. my problem is that you assume they land in 100% good shape because there is no radio signal saying there are injuries.

One of the main pillars of the TIGHAR theory is that the plane was standing upright which makes injury to the occupants highly unlikely especially when compared to the Hawaiian accident damage in which no one was injured, but you guys make the opposite, unreasonable, assumption all just to support your favorite theory.

this is a huge assumption. the Tighar theory also supposes a stuck landing gear leg. the plane needed one engine to run, how it ended up in that position is anyones guess. it could have landed 100% smooth, it could have stuck a leg and spun or even ripped one completely off. no one knows what shape the plane was in or if it was a smooth landing. would they have buckled in tight to avoid injury or would they have been unbuckled in case they were afraid they would be trapped in a sinking plane?? All assumptions.


As to making a still, they had seven thousand pounds of sheet aluminum to use and you are ignoring the storm that TIGHAR loves (to push the plane off the reef) and the rain water that could be captured. Since the radio messages stopped after only three days then the storm must have occurred then so they could capture water at that time, after only being thirsty for three days, and then have enough to last a long time after.

and what tools did they have to work it??


I already have posted facts that show it is impossible to starve to death in only seven days, read that again, it is IMPOSSIBLE to starve in seven days.  I have posted the official U.S. Air Force Survival manual that states that you can survive nine days, at least , with no, none, ZERO, nada, water, in the DESERT and much longer in a more benign environment such as the seashore but you assume the exact opposite. But, in spite of the FACTS, you make the unreasonable assumption that Earhart and Noonan accomplished the impossible and managed to starve to death.

who said they had to starve or die of dehydration?? Who said they weren't already somewhat dehydrated from 20 hours in the air. Who said they were even dead for that matter. the manual says you may live, but it does not say what condition you will be in. I've watched the survivor shows you like to quote as well and before you actually die of thirst your organs start shutting down and you are in agony. You aren't doing anything for several days before you succumb.


You also unreasonably assume that these two people managed to trip and fall and sustain life ending injuries in spite of them having successfully followed their mommies' advice for forty years to "watch where you are walking" and had managed to avoid such injuries for forty years.


I've assumed no such thing. neither of these people had ever been stuck on a desert island in the pacific. To say what they knew, didn't know or would have been able to do is pure assumption on YOUR part.


Did they get eaten by sharks? Well there are about 5 people killed by sharks WORLDWIDE in a full year so you assume that these two people represented 40% of the worldwide yearly shark deaths, that looks a lot like an unreasonable assumption to me.

Did they get hit by a meteorite? I don't know if anybody gets killed by one every year, I put that one in to illustrate the ridiculousness of your assumptions.

gl


any number of things could have happened. You are saying it is impossible for them to be dead even though Tighar does not even claim that they HAD to be dead....
Logged

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 2982
Re: FAQ: Colorado / Lambrecht Search, 9 July 1937
« Reply #229 on: August 22, 2012, 05:49:32 AM »

... Using only commonly available items I found in my kitchen ...

Ah.

No one has expressed any doubts that AE and FN could have survived for more than seven days if they had thought to take you and your kitchen with them to Gardner.   ;D
LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
Logged

JNev

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 778
  • It's a GOOD thing to be in the cornfield...
Re: FAQ: Colorado / Lambrecht Search, 9 July 1937
« Reply #230 on: August 22, 2012, 06:17:49 AM »

What were the 'signs of recent habitation', i.e. 'markers of some sort' that Lambrecht described?  How would those things have appeared had someone not been there in that time?

I don't recall that Lambrecht ever declared 'no one was there' - only that they failed to get anyone out where they could be seen.  Maybe whomever was there was dead, sick or injured.

I will always wonder what those 'markers' were, who put them there and what they may have meant.

LTM -
- Jeff Neville

Former Member 3074R
 
Logged

Bill Roe

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 161
Re: FAQ: Colorado / Lambrecht Search, 9 July 1937
« Reply #231 on: August 22, 2012, 06:24:08 AM »


What were the 'signs of recent habitation', i.e. 'markers of some sort' that Lambrecht described?  How would those things have appeared had someone not been there in that time?


But, but - if the Navy search aircraft could determine "signs of recent habitation"; if Earhart and Noonan were there, they'd have been seen also.  Remember, the Navy fliers were only looking for people on the island, not axolotyls or potrizebies.  So, a Navy flier's interpretation of something on the ground don't really make no never mind.  Do it?
Logged

Jeff Victor Hayden

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1387
Re: FAQ: Colorado / Lambrecht Search, 9 July 1937
« Reply #232 on: August 22, 2012, 07:24:20 AM »

Great video Gary!
Reminds me of the scrapheap challenge shows on TV. Won't get many hits in my opinion but, well put together.
This must be the place
 
Logged

dave burrell

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 111
Re: FAQ: Colorado / Lambrecht Search, 9 July 1937
« Reply #233 on: August 22, 2012, 08:44:38 AM »

For years tighars stance was that they were not dead but lived some time after the navy search. They were missed. One quote I remember is that tighar feels that the couple would not have been on opposite ends of the island in a week.
So is the theory now that they were in fact dead?
Logged

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 2982
Re: FAQ: Colorado / Lambrecht Search, 9 July 1937
« Reply #234 on: August 22, 2012, 09:11:32 AM »

For years tighar's stance was that they were not dead but lived some time after the navy search. They were missed. One quote I remember is that tighar feels that the couple would not have been on opposite ends of the island in a week.

If you can find the passage and quote it, that will help to determine whether the view was expressed by TIGHAR.

We need a big disclaimer on every page here: the views expressed by posters are their own and do not necessarily represent TIGHAR's official position.

Quote
So is the theory now that they were in fact dead?

Some people on the Forum have advanced that theory.  They are responsible for their view.  TIGHAR's official views are expressed in various kinds of documentation and TIGHAR TracksAs noted by others, those views are subject to revision as more is learned about a particular topic.
LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
Logged

dave burrell

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 111
Re: FAQ: Colorado / Lambrecht Search, 9 July 1937
« Reply #235 on: August 22, 2012, 09:43:08 AM »

I read it last night in tighar tracks but it was years back. I will find it.
So what is tighars stance today on this matter of alive or missed?
Logged

Gary LaPook

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1624
Re: FAQ: Colorado / Lambrecht Search, 9 July 1937
« Reply #236 on: August 22, 2012, 10:14:02 AM »

... Using only commonly available items I found in my kitchen ...

Ah.

No one has expressed any doubts that AE and FN could have survived for more than seven days if they had thought to take you and your kitchen with them to Gardner.   ;D
Well, Marty, I take that as a compliment, thank you.

gl
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 5923
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: FAQ: Colorado / Lambrecht Search, 9 July 1937
« Reply #237 on: August 22, 2012, 10:54:21 AM »

So what is tighars stance today on this matter of alive or missed?

TIGHAR's "stance" is that we have, so far, been unable to find a credible alternative identity for the castaway whose remains, campsite and artifacts were discovered at a location on the southeast end of the island in 1940.  We believe the artifacts, faunals and features found at the Seven Site reliably establish that location as the place where the events of 1940 transpired.  If Earhart died at the Seven Site, as the available evidence suggests, then she was certainly alive when the Colorado's planes flew over the island on July 9.  To suggest otherwise is to say that in the two days since the last credible post-loss radio message was heard she traveled to the Seven Site, caught and ate numerous fish, birds and clams; worked out a way to collect and boil water for drinking; etc., etc., etc. and died.
Fred is a different story.  The only clue we have to his possible presence at the Seven Site are the parts of man's shoe found by Gallagher - but shoes are an essential commodity on Niku and Amelia may have salvaged Fred's shoes.  It may be that Fred died early on - maybe even while still aboard the plane.

Malcom's and Gary's special pleading that the Colorado pilots must have seen Earhart and Noonan if they were there dismisses the abundant evidence that they WERE there. 
Logged

dave burrell

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 111
Re: FAQ: Colorado / Lambrecht Search, 9 July 1937
« Reply #238 on: August 22, 2012, 11:45:56 AM »

Thanks Ric. I knew you had said as much in a Tighar track. That it was unlikely the two seperated within a week since bones were found on opposite ends. Glad I wasnt forced to find the Tighar article. Therefore they had to be missed.

Now, In the light of the newly found newspaper accounts dicussed in the jar thread, of burial mounds, many castaways, shelters found in the 1920's, does that make you rethink the physical land evidence?
Logged

john a delsing

  • T2
  • **
  • Posts: 66
  • Minnesota Johnny D.
Re: FAQ: Colorado / Lambrecht Search, 9 July 1937
« Reply #239 on: August 22, 2012, 11:46:16 AM »

Quote
john a delsing
T1

Posts: 42
Minnesota Johnny D.

XRe: After the Landing
« Reply #325 on: June 19, 2012, 11:43:37 PM »QuoteModifyRemove
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

   I believe there are three major theories to why Lambrecht and crew did not see AE.
   1).   The Gary LaPook theory that AE and FN were never on Gardner island, that they crashed and sank some where else.
   2).    The TIGHAR theory that AE landed at Gardner, transmitted from Gardner, a storm, or high winds, or tidal actions, blew the plane off the beach or reef, AE ( and possibly FN ) were inland in thick ‘jungle like woods’ when Lambrecht flew over and could not get to an opening or beach in time to be spotted, or because of wind and wave sounds Lambrecht planes were not heard in time to get to an opening, or Lambrecht and crew were busy looking at other objects ( maybe recent habitations ) and just did not see them, or similar reasons. After the flight she or both migrated down to the seven site and survived for a few weeks, or possibly a few months.
   3).   My theory, John Delsing’s theory if you don’t mind. Yes, they certainly may have landed on Gardner, and transmitted from there, but if you believe this you might also want to believe that most of their transmits were real and truthful, and yes they were injured, just ask Betty or Mabel and after 5 days of 110 to 120 degree heat with injuries and little or no water or food and little or no survival training, they both were either dead or so near death that they could not answer the bell when Lambrecht flew over. ( I have no proof or manuals Martin, just my thoughts on how well they prepared for their radio communications, and how well they striped needed things from the plane for weight reasons ).
   Please note; if you accept some, or all of my theory then you will have to also accept the fact, as hard a it will be for some, that AE never visited, let alone survived at the seven site ( She may have, in her last hours, staggered down the beach till she could go no farther, and crawled up under the shade of a large wren tree and died ). Not very romantic or the ending that most of us would like, but to me much more logical than spending weeks ( or months ) at the seven site hunting and fishing and building fires in different places but never building a monument of some type, or placing stones or coconuts saying “AE 7-2-37” or using her knife blade to crave in a tree a similar msg, or similar. 
   We have spent trips, much money, and much, much time digging and then analyzing objects from the seven site, and have found not one item that we can say came from AE. Hindsight is always 20/20 and I don’t want to criticize our past decisions, I am sure at the time the evidence looked good, but if we would have spent just a small portion of that search effort searching the ‘brush’ near where most of us think the plane landed and where “we know” they had to have camped for 5 days, I think our odds of finding something would have been far greater. But that will probably be a good reason to launch a new expedition.
  All events at the seven site can much more easly be explained by reconizing the fact that there were 25 Anerican 'coasties' in this area for 3 years, there were many, many PISS people in this area for 20 years, and probably several unknowns. Would you explain one event, just one, that occurred at the seven site that you know that Anelia, and only Amelia, could have done. Does not Occums razer apply to also to TIGHAR ?
The Earth is Full
 
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 14 15 [16] 17 18 ... 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