Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 19 20 [21] 22 23 ... 34   Go Down

Author Topic: FAQ: Colorado / Lambrecht Search, 9 July 1937  (Read 446466 times)

john a delsing

  • T2
  • **
  • Posts: 66
  • Minnesota Johnny D.
Re: FAQ: Colorado / Lambrecht Search, 9 July 1937
« Reply #300 on: August 24, 2012, 11:36:00 PM »

Pilot art,
    I have not heard any nay sayer say quit.  Can you be more specific ?
The Earth is Full
 
Logged

pilotart

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 139
Re: FAQ: Colorado / Lambrecht Search, 9 July 1937
« Reply #301 on: August 25, 2012, 02:21:36 AM »

Malcom & John,

The first who comes to my mind would be Robert Goyer, editor of Flying who wrote what he thought was an amusing editorial (GL has a link to it in this thread) about finding Electra Parts under his barbecue.  This was someone who had some of my respect before.  Others are not worth my time to recall...  When I wrote that word "quit" I was not thinking of any particular individual in this forum but a broader view of what I have seen written (and at times linked to from this forum).

John, your Delsing Hypothesis may well be true, but I cannot accept the failure of the Colorado as "Proof" that it is true.  I will agree that it is truly strange that they were not located and odd that they would have perished and the P/L Radio calls did not provide much needed information beyond location (by HF/DF), but then her radio calls while she was flying did not provide much information either.

Thinking of a naysayer or debunk-er like the fine gentleman who has so thoroughly attacked the 'Freckle Jar'. He Has Obviously done a lot of Research and Greatly added to the fountain of knowledge on the subject and that sort of a criticizer only adds value to this forum.  GL is another excellent example of great value added.  To attempt to solely debunk without adding knowledge begins to fall under the definition of a Troll and rule number one in any forum should be "Never Feed a Troll".     

Malcom, I recall your thread on Betty's Notebook and I did respond to you there, I don't think that you even began to provide any sort of equally valid alternative explanations for post-loss radio messages.  I did not look at your thread on Emily Sikuli at all.  Please recognize that there is a difference between evidence and clues, Post-Loss Radio Messages would be evidence, but post 'bone-loss' measurement analysis would be a clue.  It is the gathering and connecting of the clues that gives TIGHAR its value while they continue to search for evidence.

My interest in TIGHAR has been mostly limited to Aircraft Operations, Radio and factors which were involved prior to their disappearance.  When it comes to identifying ancient residue and relics, I have little interest. 

My wife is a talented amateur paleontologist/archaeologist/gemologist/horticulturist with her tags in museums and university plaques in her gardens, but I would just as soon let those objects be for others and I support her as much as I can, but for the rest of you talented enthusiast's in those fields, I will just thank you all for the knowledge and beauty you have added to the world.

As far as TIGHAR's quest for the answers, all I can contribute is in matters where I hold knowledge and experience which would be limited to Aviation and some radio.

I have enjoyed scuba diving for over 50 years, but never got anything out of 'wreck diving' or identifying old wreckage.  I will gather old bricks after a hurricane moves an old sandbar to uncover them and will pave a walkway without a thought about the ancient storm that deposited them or curiosity about who lost them.  I am grateful for the knowledge gained by the discovery of the Titanic, but viewing the actual artifacts makes my skin crawl and my heart sad.
Art Johnson
 
« Last Edit: August 25, 2012, 02:24:37 AM by pilotart »
Logged

Malcolm McKay

  • Read-only
  • *
  • Posts: 551
Re: FAQ: Colorado / Lambrecht Search, 9 July 1937
« Reply #302 on: August 25, 2012, 05:42:17 AM »


Malcom, I recall your thread on Betty's Notebook and I did respond to you there, I don't think that you even began to provide any sort of equally valid alternative explanations for post-loss radio messages.  I did not look at your thread on Emily Sikuli at all.  Please recognize that there is a difference between evidence and clues, Post-Loss Radio Messages would be evidence, but post 'bone-loss' measurement analysis would be a clue.  It is the gathering and connecting of the clues that gives TIGHAR its value while they continue to search for evidence.

I don't see the point of offering alternative explanations for the post-loss radio messages - there is no evidence presented other than themselves to assert their validity. I have already said several times that the argument is circular.

TIGHAR has advanced the hypothesis that Earhart and Noonan landed on Nikumaroro, but for that to work they also need to to explain why the Navy overflight saw no trace of the Electra. Therefore they argue that it was landed on the outer reef then washed off and that at some time, before that happened, Earhart was able to run one engine and send out messages. Betty's Notebook, plus a couple of other messages are used to support that view of things even though none of them identify the landing site. So, as you see, the one is used to prove the other is correct. As no trace of the Electra has been identified so far on, or in, the water around Nikumaroro, and there is considerable doubt about the validity of Betty's Notebook and the other messages, then I see a circular argument which relies on two unproven hypotheses to create an equally unproven third. Multiplication of hypotheses is a bit like shouting at someone in an argument, it doesn't actually add veracity to one's point of view, it simply complicates the issue. But finding material evidence of the aviators presence on Nikumaroro is another matter altogether because that will demonstrate that TIGHAR's hypothesis is correct. Alas, however, it will still not demonstrate that the post-loss radio messages are genuine.

I understand evidence - clues are simply tools in crime fiction. Either you have evidence of something or you don't. I'm happy for your wife that she is a talented amateur paleontologist/archaeologist/gemologist/horticulturist and I hope she thoroughly enjoys it. I was a professional archaeologist, my academic qualifications include a Masters and Ph.D., plus the usual teaching, fieldwork etc. All I can do as an archaeologist is assess evidence, certainly I can speculate, but in the end I can only go with what the evidence tells me. If you are calling me a troll for simply expressing my doubts then I suggest with all respect that you are allowing yourself to get a little too close to the debate. If you read the thread on Emily Sikuli you will see why I am doubtful, and why others are also doubtful. In my work I used indigenous informants - frankly I found their testimony to be no more or less reliable than any person recounting their view of events whether at first hand or from what they were told. I think anyone who has a background in legal work would also advise the same caution.
Logged

pilotart

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 139
Re: FAQ: Colorado / Lambrecht Search, 9 July 1937
« Reply #303 on: August 25, 2012, 12:56:48 PM »

Malcom,

If I thought you were a troll, you would never know it as I would just completely ignore you.  It is not my place here to call anyone a troll, that is strictly for Moderators and Administrators to deal with and I would not even go as far as "reporting" my opinion on a poster to a Moderator.

Your posts that I have read recently on the "Debris Field Found?" topic are excellent and really show (to me) your expertise on the subject and I thank you for adding your knowledge.

My comment about "...solely debunking without adding knowledge..." was not an accusation of you and although I might have seen some of your posts in that light, that is not for me to say.  Your post rate is some 60 times mine, so perhaps you like to write  ;)   and I should expect some 'noise' from your proliferation.  You should accept the fact that I have replied to you several times in the past two months proves that I do not consider you to be a Troll at all.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion:
Quote
"...they all have equally valid alternative explanations....there is considerable doubt about the validity of Betty's Notebook and the other messages, then I see a circular argument which relies on two unproven hypotheses to create an equally unproven third. Multiplication of hypotheses is a bit like shouting at someone in an argument, it doesn't actually add veracity to one's point of view, it simply complicates the issue.
and I do not agree with your opinion at all about Betty's Notebook or most of the other messages, but I would never 'shout' or argue with you.

In my opinion, the Professional, Dedicated Direction Finding Stations
Quote
Of six bearings taken by Pan American Airways Radio Direction Finding stations on Oahu, Midway, and Wake Island, the four strongest cross near Gardner Island. A seventh bearing taken by the Coast Guard also passes near Gardner.
Put the Electra on Nikumaroro, TIGHAR is working on establishing where, the tide charts point to an area where the Tide would make a difference and the missing Electra indicates that the Tide was most likely to have consumed her, I just can't buy the "Japanese took them and the Electra away...".

There is a lot of 'reef' around Nikumaroro and TIGHAR has been there to surmise the most likely portion of that reef's seamount to search and I wish them the best in that endeavor.

Tom King has stated on his blog in 2010 that he doubted that the Electra could be found in the ocean... he also has a tale on anecdotal evidence in 2011 that you might appreciate.
Art Johnson
 
Logged

C.W. Herndon

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 634
Re: FAQ: Colorado / Lambrecht Search, 9 July 1937
« Reply #304 on: August 25, 2012, 02:48:59 PM »

Art, I have not been able to get your "Outside Lomcovak Club" link to work.

Also, don't you go picking on my Twin Bonanza. I take that personally. :(

Art, you didn't respond to my post here. Did you miss it like I sometimes do? Bruce Thomas has "fixed" the first part, thanks again Bruce, but I did expect a response to the second part. ;D

By the way, I like your new avatar. Just wish we could see it better.
Woody (former 3316R)
"the watcher"
 
Logged

Malcolm McKay

  • Read-only
  • *
  • Posts: 551
Re: FAQ: Colorado / Lambrecht Search, 9 July 1937
« Reply #305 on: August 25, 2012, 06:31:18 PM »

Malcom,

If I thought you were a troll, you would never know it as I would just completely ignore you.  It is not my place here to call anyone a troll, that is strictly for Moderators and Administrators to deal with and I would not even go as far as "reporting" my opinion on a poster to a Moderator.

Your posts that I have read recently on the "Debris Field Found?" topic are excellent and really show (to me) your expertise on the subject and I thank you for adding your knowledge.

My comment about "...solely debunking without adding knowledge..." was not an accusation of you and although I might have seen some of your posts in that light, that is not for me to say.  Your post rate is some 60 times mine, so perhaps you like to write  ;)   and I should expect some 'noise' from your proliferation.  You should accept the fact that I have replied to you several times in the past two months proves that I do not consider you to be a Troll at all.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion:
Quote
"...they all have equally valid alternative explanations....there is considerable doubt about the validity of Betty's Notebook and the other messages, then I see a circular argument which relies on two unproven hypotheses to create an equally unproven third. Multiplication of hypotheses is a bit like shouting at someone in an argument, it doesn't actually add veracity to one's point of view, it simply complicates the issue.
and I do not agree with your opinion at all about Betty's Notebook or most of the other messages, but I would never 'shout' or argue with you.

In my opinion, the Professional, Dedicated Direction Finding Stations
Quote
Of six bearings taken by Pan American Airways Radio Direction Finding stations on Oahu, Midway, and Wake Island, the four strongest cross near Gardner Island. A seventh bearing taken by the Coast Guard also passes near Gardner.
Put the Electra on Nikumaroro, TIGHAR is working on establishing where, the tide charts point to an area where the Tide would make a difference and the missing Electra indicates that the Tide was most likely to have consumed her, I just can't buy the "Japanese took them and the Electra away...".

There is a lot of 'reef' around Nikumaroro and TIGHAR has been there to surmise the most likely portion of that reef's seamount to search and I wish them the best in that endeavor.



Thank you - first up, after I posted I realised the reference to troll was a misunderstanding on my part and I apologise to you for misreading your original post.

Archaeology is a field in which the practitioner is a slave to the vagaries of preservation, i.e. what someone in the dim past might have accidently left for us to find. Accordingly archaeologists tend to take a rather narrow view of what exactly we can deduce from artifacts - this is even more so in problems where there is no other information e.g. written sources, and the only source of information is an artifact. The artifact then becomes the focus of our thoughts and conclusions. If it is associated with something that can be clearly understood, or a clear association that enables us to tie it precisely to an event then that's wonderful. However most of the time not only don't they have these characteristics but even the event is a complete mystery - therefore we hypothesize a lot and speak with certainty on precious few occasions. That is why I will always err on the side of caution when interpreting any artifact - even if the possibilities look attractive, honesty compels one to say "yes that is possible but so are a number of other interpretations and accordingly we need more evidence to narrow those options". That isn't negativity that is simple caution and surrender to the prayer that is uttered by all human beings, whatever their beliefs, "oh please don't let me get egg on my face":)

I 'll leave you to reread my comments about Betty's Notebook and also those of others. You are entitled to your interpretation but also I am entitled as are others to our doubts. The post-loss radio messages are also not so clear cut in their transmittal location as you would think so I can only respectfully suggest that you have another look at the map on which they are charted.

Regards

Malcolm
Logged

pilotart

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 139
Re: FAQ: Colorado / Lambrecht Search, 9 July 1937
« Reply #306 on: August 25, 2012, 09:37:17 PM »

Art, you didn't respond to my post here. Did you miss it like I sometimes do? Bruce Thomas has "fixed" the first part, thanks again Bruce, but I did expect a response to the second part. ;D

By the way, I like your new avatar. Just wish we could see it better.

Hi Woody,

I had replied about seven posts back, but I had included it within a post to Malcom, so I understand why you did not see it.  A false economy on my part to minimize posts...

I had no intent to pick on your Twin Bonanza.

The subject of my post had been the British ST18 which can most closely compared with the Lockheed Electra except that it was not as sleek looking.

The British Beagle was a more modern aircraft which can be most closely compared with a Twin Bonanza except that, again it was not as sleek looking.

It was just what came to my mind when thinking about British aircraft that might have seen more favorable acceptance if they only had been prettier.

I do believe that in both instances, that they were competitive with their American counterparts in quality, safety, performance and comfort.  It was unfortunate because as we know, the Brits have designed some really beautiful aircraft.

edit:-  Thinking about it, I could probably have made the same comparison using an Aero Commander (also a fine aircraft), but I had always compared the Beagle with the Twin-Bonanza's, but it actually falls between those two.

That avatar was just the single only photo that I could find on my system that included myself and an aircraft, I cropped it from a pix of a Maule out in the bush.  Wish I could cut off the hat and those dark glasses...
Art Johnson
 
« Last Edit: August 26, 2012, 12:29:19 AM by pilotart »
Logged

pilotart

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 139
Re: FAQ: Colorado / Lambrecht Search, 9 July 1937
« Reply #307 on: August 25, 2012, 09:59:07 PM »

Archaeology is a field in which the practitioner is a slave to the vagaries of preservation, i.e. what someone in the dim past might have accidently left for us to find. Accordingly archaeologists tend to take a rather narrow view of what exactly we can deduce from artifacts - this is even more so in problems where there is no other information e.g. written sources, and the only source of information is an artifact. The artifact then becomes the focus of our thoughts and conclusions. If it is associated with something that can be clearly understood, or a clear association that enables us to tie it precisely to an event then that's wonderful. However most of the time not only don't they have these characteristics but even the event is a complete mystery - therefore we hypothesize a lot and speak with certainty on precious few occasions. That is why I will always err on the side of caution when interpreting any artifact - even if the possibilities look attractive, honesty compels one to say "yes that is possible but so are a number of other interpretations and accordingly we need more evidence to narrow those options". That isn't negativity that is simple caution and surrender to the prayer that is uttered by all human beings, whatever their beliefs, "oh please don't let me get egg on my face":)

I 'll leave you to reread my comments about Betty's Notebook and also those of others. You are entitled to your interpretation but also I am entitled as are others to our doubts. The post-loss radio messages are also not so clear cut in their transmittal location as you would think so I can only respectfully suggest that you have another look at the map on which they are charted.

Regards

Malcolm

Thank you for this explanation of your caution with artifacts.  It is certainly a first-class mystery that TIGHAR is dealing with.

I presume this is the Post-Loss Radio Bearing chart we are discussing:

Five of the seven Bearings plotted cross closest to Gardner or McKean.

The not plotted bearing of 213 degrees (1523Z to 1530Z July 4th) reported by Mokapu Point, Oahu also passes within 30 nmi southeast of Gardner Island, which makes it six of the eight.

This report discusses each of the eight Bearings and concludes with:
Quote
The evidence associated with Bearings 2, 3, and 7 strongly supports the TIGHAR hypothesis that Earhart landed at Gardner Island and transmitted radio signals from there. The evidence associated with Bearings 1, 4, and 6 moderately supports the hypothesis, and the evidence associated with bearings 5 and 8 is inconclusive.

In sum, the weight of available evidence strongly supports the TIGHAR hypothesis.

I would most certainly agree that you are entitled (as are others) to your doubts.

I will never believe that Betty fabricated or misrepresented her Notebook and do believe her testimony about the involvement with her Family and Neighbors in the event.  This would disavow her getting that information from any "March of Time" or other sort of local broadcast. 

BY FAR the greatest significance of the "Betty Notebook" to me is that it was not until after Betty appeared, that TIGHAR researched ANY Post-Loss Radio Report.
Art Johnson
 
Logged

Malcolm McKay

  • Read-only
  • *
  • Posts: 551
Re: FAQ: Colorado / Lambrecht Search, 9 July 1937
« Reply #308 on: August 25, 2012, 11:17:27 PM »


I will never believe that Betty fabricated or misrepresented her Notebook and do believe her testimony about the involvement with her Family and Neighbors in the event.  This would disavow her getting that information from any "March of Time" or other sort of local broadcast. 

BY FAR the greatest significance of the "Betty Notebook" to me is that it was not until after Betty appeared, that TIGHAR researched ANY Post-Loss Radio Report.

Then we must agree to differ.
Logged

C.W. Herndon

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 634
Re: FAQ: Colorado / Lambrecht Search, 9 July 1937
« Reply #309 on: August 26, 2012, 03:15:29 AM »


Hi Woody,

I had replied about seven posts back, but I had included it within a post to Malcom, so I understand why you did not see it.  A false economy on my part to minimize posts...

I had no intent to pick on your Twin Bonanza.


Well, Like I said I do miss things. I was just kidding you. I know that you like the Beech 18 so we almost have something in common there.

Your picture of the L23/U8 was right on except for the DayGlo stripes, mine didn't have those and it had chrome prop spinners. We had a constant problem with the spinner bulkheads slipping with the painted spinners. Had no problem at all with the chrome ones. Now that I think about it, if I remember correctly, the U.S. Army painted on the top of the right wing and bottom of the left wing were yellow. A color I had forgotten about. Oh well, that was a long time ago.

I found the info about the ST18 fascinating. Had never seen it before. I love the sweptback wing.

I kind of liked the Beagle. The biggest problem I could see with it was that there were just none of them in this country, less than 10 if I remember corrrectly. It would have been very hard to maintain one. I agree with you about the quality of the British aircraft, it just appears that they have a little different design philosophy than we do, but that's ok.

I never flew the Aero Commander but did fly the Turbo Commander. I really loved that airplane. Best I ever flew, a real "pilots" airplane.

Keep on flying as long as you can. It really hurts when you have to quit. :P
Woody (former 3316R)
"the watcher"
 
Logged

jgf1944

  • Guest
Re: FAQ: Colorado / Lambrecht Search, 9 July 1937
« Reply #310 on: August 26, 2012, 10:16:49 AM »

This Search for Howland is an informative aerial video made under the conditions prevailing on the morning of 2 July. Scroll down to the video. All Best, John #3245

« Last Edit: August 27, 2012, 12:14:41 AM by Bob Lanz »
Logged

Gary LaPook

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1624
Re: FAQ: Colorado / Lambrecht Search, 9 July 1937
« Reply #311 on: August 26, 2012, 06:41:24 PM »


I never flew the Aero Commander but did fly the Turbo Commander. I really loved that airplane. Best I ever flew, a real "pilots" airplane.

Keep on flying as long as you can. It really hurts when you have to quit. :P
As long as we are talking cabin class twins, the one I liked flying the most was the Aerostar.

gl
Logged

C.W. Herndon

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 634
Re: FAQ: Colorado / Lambrecht Search, 9 July 1937
« Reply #312 on: August 27, 2012, 03:36:49 AM »

Gary, I never got to fly that one. I have a friend who had one and he loved it. One of my cousins also had one and he loved it too.

I guess we've gotten a little off the subject here but good conversation.
Woody (former 3316R)
"the watcher"
 
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 5934
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: FAQ: Colorado / Lambrecht Search, 9 July 1937
« Reply #313 on: August 27, 2012, 07:26:04 AM »

It is an interesting conundrum - all the evidence either artifacts or less tangible sources like radio messages, islander recollections etc. all fall short of providing that much sought smoking gun, because they all have equally valid alternative explanations.

They do?  All I've seen are imaginative speculations about possible alternative explanations.  We have, I think we can all agree, reliable documentation of a castaway's remains being found on Gardner Island in 1940.  There are good reasons  (the part of a woman's shoe and the doctor's bone measurements)  to think the castaway was a woman.  We have named a particular woman known to have gone missing in that area in the appropriate time frame.  Your turn.

I would also like to hear your equally valid alternative explanation for the 57 post-loss radio signals we consider to be credible.

Logged

Malcolm McKay

  • Read-only
  • *
  • Posts: 551
Re: FAQ: Colorado / Lambrecht Search, 9 July 1937
« Reply #314 on: August 27, 2012, 08:36:34 AM »

It is an interesting conundrum - all the evidence either artifacts or less tangible sources like radio messages, islander recollections etc. all fall short of providing that much sought smoking gun, because they all have equally valid alternative explanations.

They do?  All I've seen are imaginative speculations about possible alternative explanations.  We have, I think we can all agree, reliable documentation of a castaway's remains being found on Gardner Island in 1940.  There are good reasons  (the part of a woman's shoe and the doctor's bone measurements)  to think the castaway was a woman.  We have named a particular woman known to have gone missing in that area in the appropriate time frame.  Your turn.

I would also like to hear your equally valid alternative explanation for the 57 post-loss radio signals we consider to be credible.

With all due respect Ric I might say that your interpretations of the things you list could also fall into the category of imaginative speculations.

The skeleton is missing and was also incomplete at the time of its discovery. As an archaeologist I would not go out on a limb to assert quite so definitely that an incomplete skeleton once interpreted as a stocky male Islander (which then went missing and was unavailable for physical examination) was that of a tall thin woman of Northern European hereditary. I would not then in order to further strengthen the limb to bear this gymnastic exercise then claim that the notes were by an examining physician whose ability is conveniently labelled as below par, because that raises the inconvenient question that if the physician and his notes are substandard then how can they then be used to assert that the skeleton is not a stocky Islander but a thin tall woman of Northern European heritage. If they are substandard for one conclusion than they are substandard for the other. On that basis alone if TIGHAR is right in its assessment then I would respectfully suggest that that is serendipity rather than science.

The part of a woman's shoe is just that nothing more, the question is - is it Earhart's shoe? That as far as I am aware has not been demonstrated. Perhaps in the rush to fit it into the overarching hypothesis other sources have been rejected, which is a danger with overarching hypotheses - they tend to bury the individuality of each piece of data rather than treat those pieces of data as artifacts which have their own identity and their own singular histories.

If you believe that these two items constitute the smoking gun for the presence of Earhart on Nikumaroro then why not just stop there? Write finis and claim victory. Or is it that I am not the only person who is not completely convinced.

As you have raised the subject of alternate explanations, do you have an answer for the questions regarding the other key piece of evidence the Bevington object. I asked in the thread regarding it ( https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,916.0.html  ) these questions -

1. How was the size of the object calculated, and

2. Was similar analysis of the anomalies on the photo (the one on the top edge of the photo and the odd dots in the clouds) done to determine if these had similar characteristics to the anomaly that is located on the reef and was subsequently enlarged and with scale drawings of the Electra's undercarriage overlaid then claimed to be evidence of the u/c of Earhart's Electra.

You may well be right that it is the undercarriage of an Electra but it would certainly be sound practice to allay doubts by answering those questions.     
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 19 20 [21] 22 23 ... 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