Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 15 16 [17] 18 19 ... 34   Go Down

Author Topic: FAQ: Colorado / Lambrecht Search, 9 July 1937  (Read 443949 times)

Dave Potratz

  • T2
  • **
  • Posts: 75
Re: FAQ: Colorado / Lambrecht Search, 9 July 1937
« Reply #240 on: August 22, 2012, 12:23:14 PM »


if the Navy search aircraft could determine "signs of recent habitation"; if Earhart and Noonan were there, they'd have been seen also.


I agree with those who feel that's just too big a stretch in logic:

IF AE & FN were on Gardner, THEN they would have been seen?    Nope, doesn't follow, IMO.

dp
Logged

John Klier

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 47
Re: FAQ: Colorado / Lambrecht Search, 9 July 1937
« Reply #241 on: August 22, 2012, 12:35:48 PM »

I'd like to add something to the discussion of how somebody that wants to be rescued might not be seen.

A few years ago I had a discussion with a person who had been lost in Volcano National Park for almost a week. He had hiked to the point where the lava flows hit the ocean one evening hoping to get some night photos. His plan was to hike back under the light of a full moon. Unfortunately some clouds moved in and he walked deeper into the park rather than out. From what he described, there are areas in the park that aren't completely desolate. There are depression where soil has accumulated over time and created these very lush "mini jungles" that can be fairly large. During the first few days when he was lost he was spending a great deal of time in these areas attempting to stay out of the sun and to find food and water. He would often hear aircraft flying over, that were likely searching for him but by the time he managed to get out of the vegetation (which was very difficult to move through quickly) the aircraft had passed. By the 4th of 5th day he decided he was going to wait at the edge of one of these vegetated areas and not go in no matter how hungry or thirsty he was. That day he managed to get a tour helicopter pilots attention.

So this is a case where somebody wanted to be found but it took several days before he was seen. I know there are many differences between the two scenarios but I do believe that it is at least a possibility that AE and Noonan were alive on the island when the aircraft flew over.
Logged

Gary LaPook

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1624
Re: FAQ: Colorado / Lambrecht Search, 9 July 1937
« Reply #242 on: August 22, 2012, 03:21:23 PM »



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.
There is abundant evidence that somebody was there (probably a bunch of somebodies), but nothing conclusively proving that it was Earhart or Noonan.

gl
« Last Edit: August 23, 2012, 01:57:27 AM by Gary LaPook »
Logged

dave burrell

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 111
Re: FAQ: Colorado / Lambrecht Search, 9 July 1937
« Reply #243 on: August 22, 2012, 04:01:01 PM »



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.
There is abundant evidence that somebody was there, but nothing conclusively proving that it was Earhart or Noonan.

gl

You're right Gary, In fact, the more we dig, the more we find quite a few people were there, in the 1890's, the Aussie newspapers speak of castaways in the 1920's, wrecks, shelters, then a Huge ship wreck in "29 leaving temporary castaways and debris, then "possibly' Fred and AE in '37, the natives arriving in '38, for 25 years.100 people for 25 years on a 4 mile long reef with few areas of real "land", can accumulate some clutter. And top it off with a Coast guard station. Hello. This was quite a happening place in the early century. These are ones we KNOW ABOUT. Emphasis on that.

We may think we are discovering new and unchartered lands, but somebody has probably walked it. Add to that Cyclones(hurricanes) and the place being under 3 feet of water, and ship garbage probably floating up with regularity.
When man starting moving around by motor in the early 1900's, we really started traveling.
And there were lots of causalities. I am sure more than two castaways.
Just because they are Americans and famous, doesn't mean they were "it".
Sometimes in our narrow view, we think Americans are so important, our bones would be the ones found. Bones are bones, none better than the rest.

Occams Razor would say given all the facts, it is unlikely ANY of this land debris is from AE.
Not that I am saying she wasn't there. She may well have been. Ric may well find her plane.
But this 4 mile land mass was more visited than first thought, lending little credence to bottles and planks. Ric and his team will indeed have to find the "idiot proof" evidence.
ZE PLANE BOSS,  ZE PLANE.
« Last Edit: August 22, 2012, 04:04:31 PM by dave burrell »
Logged

Alan Harris

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 137
Re: FAQ: Colorado / Lambrecht Search, 9 July 1937
« Reply #244 on: August 22, 2012, 04:16:30 PM »


if the Navy search aircraft could determine "signs of recent habitation"; if Earhart and Noonan were there, they'd have been seen also.


I agree with those who feel that's just too big a stretch in logic:

IF AE & FN were on Gardner, THEN they would have been seen?    Nope, doesn't follow, IMO.

dp

I think you are mis-stating Bill's logical proposition.  To me it reads "IF the search was good enough to see the signs of habitation, THEN it was also good enough to find AE and FN if present."  Of course we are all free to agree or disagree with either or both of those ways of reading what Bill said.
Logged

Bill Roe

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 161
Re: FAQ: Colorado / Lambrecht Search, 9 July 1937
« Reply #245 on: August 22, 2012, 04:45:30 PM »


Quote
IF AE & FN were on Gardner, THEN they would have been seen?    Nope, doesn't follow, IMO.

dp

I think you are mis-stating Bill's logical proposition.  To me it reads "IF the search was good enough to see the signs of habitation, THEN it was also good enough to find AE and FN if present."  Of course we are all free to agree or disagree with either or both of those ways of reading what Bill said.

Yupper and thank you.

And, again, my opinion comes directly from SAR experience in the military.  In fact, I suggest that it's more than an opinion.  And I'll say it again with authority - after literally dozens of SARs, my experience dictates that if Earhart and Noonan were on Gardner Island during the USN aerial search(es), they would have been seen.

I'll also say again as an experienced pilot, if I had been the pilot of that Electra;  and If I had to ditch under the same circumstances as described here;  that airplane, my navigator and I definitely would have come down, gear up, in the lagoon.  No question about it.  There is not another logical scenario that would provide a better chance of both survival and rescue.  No brainer.

Thank you again, Alan.
« Last Edit: August 22, 2012, 04:49:02 PM by Bill Roe »
Logged

richie conroy

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1412
Re: FAQ: Colorado / Lambrecht Search, 9 July 1937
« Reply #246 on: August 22, 2012, 05:44:33 PM »

Well there is, U wouldn't be able to radio for help for a start, nor would u have the ability to refuel an take off again   
We are an echo of the past


Member# 416
 
Logged

Bill Roe

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 161
Re: FAQ: Colorado / Lambrecht Search, 9 July 1937
« Reply #247 on: August 22, 2012, 06:00:41 PM »

Well there is, U wouldn't be able to radio for help for a start, nor would u have the ability to refuel an take off again

Richie - you don't think about that.  You concentrate on: First - survival and Second - rescue.  And - you don't care if your airplane can get you out of there once down.

Anyway,
Here's what Lambrecht said: "Here, signs of recent habitation were clearly visible but repeated circling and zooming failed to elicit any answering wave from possible inhabitants and it was finally taken for granted that none were there."   -This means that they circled and "buzzed" the area several times without seeing anyone after giving them plenty of opportunity to make themselves available for rescue.  Those biplanes were not hi-speed jets.  They were very, very slow circling at 400 feet altitude and buzzing the island with spotters.  If Earhart had been there, they would have been seen. 

Or else they didn't want to be rescued.  Does that make sense?
Logged

Matt Revington

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 357
  • member #4155
Re: FAQ: Colorado / Lambrecht Search, 9 July 1937
« Reply #248 on: August 22, 2012, 06:08:20 PM »

Bill
Remember that by the time AE and FN would have reached niku they would have been in the air at least 24 hours, if you assume they were awake several hours prior to take off they had been up 27 or so hours straight with increasing stress over the last few, it's hard to say with any definiteness that they would have been making really rational decisions at that point.
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 #249 on: August 22, 2012, 06:36:20 PM »

the Aussie newspapers speak of castaways in the 1920's, wrecks, shelters, then a Huge ship wreck in "29 leaving temporary castaways and debris, then "possibly' Fred and AE in '37, the natives arriving in '38, for 25 years.100 people for 25 years on a 4 mile long reef with few areas of real "land", can accumulate some clutter. And top it off with a Coast guard station. Hello. This was quite a happening place in the early century. These are ones we KNOW ABOUT. Emphasis on that.

There's nothing new here. One newspaper article speculates that a shack (probably Arundel's) belonged to a castaway and you say "Aussie newspapers speak of castaways in the 1920's."  That's outright distortion.  We've done exhaustive research into the "Huge shipwreck" that left 24, not 29 temporary castaways; the people who lived on the island for 24, not 25, years; the Coast Guard station; and every other aspect of the island's history.  We've taken all of those factors into account in evaluating the evidence we've found.  If you have hard evidence that the historical documentation and physical evidence we believe is associated with Earhart is not associated with Earhart lay it on the table.  If you want to debunk, debunk away, but you have to follow the same rules we follow.

Occams Razor would say given all the facts, it is unlikely ANY of this land debris is from AE.

You seem to have a common misunderstanding of Occam's Razor.  William of Occam said, "Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem" (Entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity).  To suggest that the array of evidence gathered by TIGHAR over 24 years of research  (the 157-337 LOP, the signs of recent habitation seen by the Colorado pilots, the post-loss radio signals, the Pan Am bearings, the castaway, the Seven Site artifacts, the Bevington Photo, etc., etc.) are all attributable to other purely speculative events rather than one known event - the disappearance of Earhart in that region - is surely multiplying events far beyond necessity. Occam says we're right.
Logged

Bill Roe

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 161
Re: FAQ: Colorado / Lambrecht Search, 9 July 1937
« Reply #250 on: August 22, 2012, 06:58:42 PM »

Bill
Remember that by the time AE and FN would have reached niku they would have been in the air at least 24 hours, if you assume they were awake several hours prior to take off they had been up 27 or so hours straight with increasing stress over the last few, it's hard to say with any definiteness that they would have been making really rational decisions at that point.

True.  But also keep in mind that the will to survive is very strong. 
Logged

Alan Harris

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 137
Re: FAQ: Colorado / Lambrecht Search, 9 July 1937
« Reply #251 on: August 22, 2012, 08:15:37 PM »

Althought [sic] the Aussie news stories are new to me . . .

This is getting a bit confusing.  This post is in the Lambrecht Search thread, apparently responding to some recent posts in the Freckle Cream thread, and IMO neither of those threads seems totally appropriate for discussing the merits of the Australian newspaper story. . ?
Logged

Matt Revington

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 357
  • member #4155
Re: FAQ: Colorado / Lambrecht Search, 9 July 1937
« Reply #252 on: August 22, 2012, 08:24:17 PM »

Alan
You were correct that post was more appropriate to another thread so I moved it
Logged

Malcolm McKay

  • Read-only
  • *
  • Posts: 551
Re: FAQ: Colorado / Lambrecht Search, 9 July 1937
« Reply #253 on: August 22, 2012, 08:32:08 PM »


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.

.....

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.

And that is where we differ - you are combining two issues here.

1. You argue that the artifacts etc. show that the Seven Site is where the events of the Gallagher activity in 1940 took place in which the partial skeleton etc. was recovered,

2. you then combine that with your hypothesis regarding the fate of Earhart and Noonan and use the data obtained in 1940 and the later TIGHAR searches to argue that you find no other credible explanation for that accumulation of artifacts at the Seven Site, or the identity of the partial skeleton, except that they show evidence of Earhartian origin, and which

3. then is is used to support your initial hypothesis that Earhart and Noonan ended their flight at Nikumaroro.

Yet each artifact taken by itself, and that includes the partial skeleton (now missing), can also be argued to have other equally possible origins based on the evidence they as individual items offer. In another post I said that from an archaeological perspective it is preferable to regard each artifact as having its own individual identity rather than subsume them to a overarching hypothesis. By that I mean that where the hypothesis remains unproven, as in this case, then it is best to let them retain their own individual  putative temporal trajectories until something is found that provides the much hoped for smoking gun.

Part of that suite of artifacts and events is the overflight by the Navy searchers which did not sight either Earhart, Noonan or the Electra. So far, and this where we differ, I see only special pleading as I have listed https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,253.msg18566.html#msg18566 to explain that failure. Because that pleading relies exclusively upon the acceptance that Earhart and Noonan were there and that is yet, I respectfully submit, to be established. 
« Last Edit: August 22, 2012, 08:33:40 PM by Malcolm McKay »
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 #254 on: August 22, 2012, 10:02:09 PM »

I would love to debunk or at least counter with you Ric. Because there is a LOT new lately.

No there isn't.

It's never been talked about on this site newspaper stories of multiple ship wrecks and buried people being found, and reported in the 20's. Of many potential castaways. That is Just one example. But a critical one.

If you've been given a warning it didn't come from me but it was probably because you write distortions like the statement quoted above.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 15 16 [17] 18 19 ... 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