Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 24 25 [26] 27 28 ... 34   Go Down

Author Topic: FAQ: Colorado / Lambrecht Search, 9 July 1937  (Read 443932 times)

Gary LaPook

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1624
Re: FAQ: Colorado / Lambrecht Search, 9 July 1937
« Reply #375 on: August 31, 2012, 01:20:23 AM »


You left out that the signal continued for two hours! From Brandenberg's paper:

"A bearing of 175 degrees on a signal on 3105 kHz described as “a strong carrier” and a “steady unmodulated carrier” that “continued for over two hours.” The Midway report further stated that this signal “proved to be some unidentified station probably in South America or Russia and was later definitely disregarded as a possibility.”

Does anybody actually believe that Earhart just sat on her microphone so that the PTT switch was depressed and then ran the engine for two straight hours? (her butt would be hurting by that time.) Especially since the reason given for her extremely short prior transmissions was that she was afraid of blowing out the fuse as had happened when Manning transmitted for a long period on the flight to Hawaii. Yet, this report is viewed as "credible?"
gl

This is bearing number 5 in Brandenberg's analysis and he called this report plausible, further elaborating on this point, he said:

 "A 2-hour transmission by KHAQQ would be plausible although it would have been necessary to keep the starboard engine running to avoid depleting the battery charge."

I used to live for those occasions when I was cross-examining an adverse expert witness and I was able to show a clear contradiction in his testimony, this is one of those occasions. If we look at Brandenberg's analysis of radio reception report number 67 we see:


67
Identifier41037IA
Z Time/Date 1037 to 1055 July 4
Local Time/Date 2307 to 2329 July 3
Gardner Time/Date 2337 to 2355 July 3
Agency/Person Itasca
Location Central Pacific
Freq (kHz) 3105 kHz
Content Itasca still hears a continuous weak carrier on 3105 kHz.
Source RADREST.PDF, p. 154
Probability 0.44
Qual Factors This appears to be a continuation of the long-duration carrier reported by Itasca above, possibly from Nicaragua. It is not plausible for Earhart to have keyed her transmitter continuously for 19 minutes.
Credibility Not credible



Wait a minute, if it is "not plausible" for her to transmit for only 19 minutes how can it be "plausible" for her to have transmitted that two hour signal? Everybody see the clear contradiction? If a 19 minute transmission is not plausible and is, therefor, "not credible" how can the two hour transmission be considered to be "credible?"
And this isn't the only one that Brandenberg labled as "not plausible" and "not credible" because the transmissions were too long, yet they were all much shorter than the two hour transmission. See also:

report 58, 35 minutes, NOT credible;
report 59, 16 minutes, NOT credible;
report 61, 19 minutes, NOT credible.

The conclusion of the analysis of the two hour bearing at Midway states:

"On balance, there is no clear weight of evidence for or against this signal originating at Gardner Island."

Hummm, the 19 minute and other "too long" reports were too long to be credible so how can it be said that there is no evidence, either for or against the two hour bearing since, to be consistent with the analyses of the other "too long" transmissions, there is evidence against the bearing originating from Earhart on Gardner. This "too longedness" was sufficient to rule those other, much shorter, transmissions "not credible" so why isn't it sufficient, in spades, to rule out the two hour bearing?

(BTW, is there some reason that this Midway bearing reception is not in the catalog of reports, it should be between reports 122 and 123 and have identification 51115PY.)

gl
« Last Edit: August 31, 2012, 01:25:40 AM by Gary LaPook »
Logged

Malcolm McKay

  • Read-only
  • *
  • Posts: 551
Re: FAQ: Colorado / Lambrecht Search, 9 July 1937
« Reply #376 on: August 31, 2012, 01:24:04 AM »


It is true that if you are locating a moving target, the times must be synchronous, but in locating a fixed target the times or days of the Bearings do not affect the accuracy.  In fact it allows for greater precision when you are plotting a stationary target.
 


Thank you Art for that reply. The problem as I see it is that the post loss radio messages have to be assumed to be stationary in order to accept that they come from Earhart, obviously they cannot be moving if they are out of fuel and therefore must be in one spot. But, and this where we come back to the nub of the problem, the messages really aren't precisely centered on Gardner are they and the Navy did fly over the island and apart from the report of "recent habitation" signs which is a relative term in any case they neither see any people nor an aircraft. So are they really stationary, and how accurate are the bearings - frankly to me those bearings are a bit splayed.

So how does that explain the messages - it doesn't unless you build several layers of hypotheses on it (Electra on reef, washed off reef, Earhart and Noonan on island but comatose or otherwise occupied when the Navy flies over). Thus we are right back at square one - I have always felt that the multiplication of hypotheses simply to contradict something that is in itself simply obvious using the available evidence, i.e. Earhart and Noonan weren't there, will eventually collapse into an idée fixe and that is not helpful. The sole eye-witnesses present at the island close to the event (the Navy fliers) see nothing and in order to discount that it is necessary to offer another multiplication of hypotheses (not trained, couldn't see past the struts, too high, too low, avoiding sea birds etc. etc.). In the end it seems everyone is wrong except the people advancing the hypothesis - silly  romantic comparisons with Galileo aside that is scarcely a satisfactory way to proceed.

I agree that it is necessary that a forum like this must discuss each side of the debate and with rigour - simple cheering from the side lines doesn't actually contribute much.  :) 
Logged

Adam Marsland

  • T2
  • **
  • Posts: 88
Re: FAQ: Colorado / Lambrecht Search, 9 July 1937
« Reply #377 on: August 31, 2012, 01:40:28 AM »


I used to live for those occasions when I was cross-examining an adverse expert witness and I was able to show a clear contradiction in his testimony, this is one of those occasions. If we look at Brandenberg's analysis of radio reception report number 67 we see:


67
Identifier41037IA
Z Time/Date 1037 to 1055 July 4
Local Time/Date 2307 to 2329 July 3
Gardner Time/Date 2337 to 2355 July 3
Agency/Person Itasca
Location Central Pacific
Freq (kHz) 3105 kHz
Content Itasca still hears a continuous weak carrier on 3105 kHz.
Source RADREST.PDF, p. 154
Probability 0.44
Qual Factors This appears to be a continuation of the long-duration carrier reported by Itasca above, possibly from Nicaragua. It is not plausible for Earhart to have keyed her transmitter continuously for 19 minutes.
Credibility Not credible



Wait a minute, if it is "not plausible" for her to transmit for only 19 minutes how can it be "plausible" for her to have transmitted that two hour signal? Everybody see the clear contradiction? If a 19 minute transmission is not plausible and is, therefor, "not credible" how can the two hour transmission be considered to be "credible?"

gl
Because the 19 minute transmission was keyed, and the two hour transmission was voice.  Without special knowledge, that distinction seems pretty clear to me from a cursory read of what you posted -- the disqualifier was the keying, not the length of the transmission itself.   Someone correct me if I've missed the "gotcha" here.
« Last Edit: August 31, 2012, 01:42:47 AM by Adam Marsland »
Logged

Gary LaPook

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1624
Re: FAQ: Colorado / Lambrecht Search, 9 July 1937
« Reply #378 on: August 31, 2012, 02:33:43 AM »

Wait a minute, if it is "not plausible" for her to transmit for only 19 minutes how can it be "plausible" for her to have transmitted that two hour signal? Everybody see the clear contradiction? If a 19 minute transmission is not plausible and is, therefor, "not credible" how can the two hour transmission be considered to be "credible?"

gl

Because the 19 minute transmission was keyed, and the two hour transmission was voice.  Without special knowledge, that distinction seems pretty clear to me from a cursory read of what you posted -- the disqualifier was the keying, not the length of the transmission itself.   Someone correct me if I've missed the "gotcha" here.
Yes, you missed it, what do you think a “steady unmodulated carrier” is, it ain't voice. It is exactly the same as the "carriers" in the other "too long" reports. Number 67, "Itasca still hears a continuous weak carrier on 3105 kHz...This appears to be a continuation of the long-duration carrier. " Number 61, "Itasca still hears a carrier signal on 3105 kHz, but very weak now... It was not plausible for Earhart to key her transmitter continuously for 24 minutes." Number 58, "Heard one carrier continuously" during this period. Number 59, "Itasca still hears a continuous carrier." Maybe you are not familiar with the term "to key" which means to push  the key down so that a carrier is sent out. If the key is moved up and down then you interrupt the carrier when the key is in the up position so it is no longer "continuous" and you end up sending dots and dashes but none of these reports mentioned Morse code just a continuous carrier produced by holding the key down and not letting it up or, on some transmitters, by throwing a switch which relieves the operator of holding the key down for extended periods. Maybe you are also not familiar with the term "modulate" which means to impress information, such as voice, on a carrier which causes the carrier's amplitude to vary in sync with the modulating signal as in "amplitude modulated" (A.M) like Earhart's radios. (F.M. is a diferent kind of modulation in which the frequency of the carrier varies, not its amplitude which stays constant.) So "unmodulated" means no modulation was applied to the carrier to there was no voice transmission, just a constant amplitude continuous carrier for all of these "too long" and the Midway 1115 Z bearing report.
gl

l
« Last Edit: August 31, 2012, 02:53:29 AM by Gary LaPook »
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 #379 on: August 31, 2012, 08:22:24 AM »

I used to live for those occasions when I was cross-examining an adverse expert witness and I was able to show a clear contradiction in his testimony, this is one of those occasions.


Before you get too excited, remember that this is not a courtroom trial.  It's an on-going and evolving investigation. Brandenburg's paper on the RDF bearings was published in August of 2006.  The Post-Loss Radio Signals Catalog was published in September of 2011.  During that five-year interim Bob and I developed and applied a set of criteria for credible signals (as described on the first page of the catalog).

(BTW, is there some reason that this Midway bearing reception is not in the catalog of reports, it should be between reports 122 and 123 and have identification 51115PY.)

You're right.  It should be there as a Not Credible signal.  Not sure how we missed including it.  We'll fix it.
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 #380 on: August 31, 2012, 08:46:42 AM »

The problem as I see it is that the post loss radio messages have to be assumed to be stationary in order to accept that they come from Earhart, obviously they cannot be moving if they are out of fuel and therefore must be in one spot. But, and this where we come back to the nub of the problem, the messages really aren't precisely centered on Gardner are they and the Navy did fly over the island and apart from the report of "recent habitation" signs which is a relative term in any case they neither see any people nor an aircraft. So are they really stationary, and how accurate are the bearings - frankly to me those bearings are a bit splayed.

I'd be interested to hear your explanation of how the origin of the post-loss signals could be other than stationary. 


So how does that explain the messages - it doesn't unless you build several layers of hypotheses on it (Electra on reef, washed off reef, Earhart and Noonan on island but comatose or otherwise occupied when the Navy flies over).

Let's hear your explanation.

Thus we are right back at square one - I have always felt that the multiplication of hypotheses simply to contradict something that is in itself simply obvious using the available evidence, i.e. Earhart and Noonan weren't there, will eventually collapse into an idée fixe and that is not helpful.

But the post-loss transmissions DID exist.  They came from someone, somewhere - and the somewhere, based on the Pan Am bearings and the strength and content at which various signals were heard around the Pacific, was the region around Gardner. 

The sole eye-witnesses present at the island close to the event (the Navy fliers) see nothing and in order to discount that it is necessary to offer another multiplication of hypotheses (not trained, couldn't see past the struts, too high, too low, avoiding sea birds etc. etc.). In the end it seems everyone is wrong except the people advancing the hypothesis - silly  romantic comparisons with Galileo aside that is scarcely a satisfactory way to proceed.

Ever hear of a guy by the name of Steve Fossett?

I agree that it is necessary that a forum like this must discuss each side of the debate and with rigour - simple cheering from the side lines doesn't actually contribute much.  :)

Amen.  You just need to work on the "rigour" part.
« Last Edit: August 31, 2012, 10:31:32 AM by Martin X. Moleski, SJ »
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 #381 on: August 31, 2012, 06:14:33 PM »

I should comment on the kerfluffle about whether the post-loss radio messages were "swept under the rug."  The allegation is mine and I stand by it.  The sweeping was done after, not during, the search.  I devoted the entire final chapter in Finding Amelia to it.  The name of the chapter is Banquo's Ghost.  Perhaps I assumed too much familiarity with Shakespeare.
Logged

richie conroy

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1412
Re: FAQ: Colorado / Lambrecht Search, 9 July 1937
« Reply #382 on: August 31, 2012, 06:24:50 PM »

Wait a minute, if it is "not plausible" for her to transmit for only 19 minutes how can it be "plausible" for her to have transmitted that two hour signal? Everybody see the clear contradiction? If a 19 minute transmission is not plausible and is, therefor, "not credible" how can the two hour transmission be considered to be "credible?"

gl

Because the 19 minute transmission was keyed, and the two hour transmission was voice.  Without special knowledge, that distinction seems pretty clear to me from a cursory read of what you posted -- the disqualifier was the keying, not the length of the transmission itself.   Someone correct me if I've missed the "gotcha" here.
Yes, you missed it, what do you think a “steady unmodulated carrier” is, it ain't voice. It is exactly the same as the "carriers" in the other "too long" reports. Number 67, "Itasca still hears a continuous weak carrier on 3105 kHz...This appears to be a continuation of the long-duration carrier. " Number 61, "Itasca still hears a carrier signal on 3105 kHz, but very weak now... It was not plausible for Earhart to key her transmitter continuously for 24 minutes." Number 58, "Heard one carrier continuously" during this period. Number 59, "Itasca still hears a continuous carrier." Maybe you are not familiar with the term "to key" which means to push  the key down so that a carrier is sent out. If the key is moved up and down then you interrupt the carrier when the key is in the up position so it is no longer "continuous" and you end up sending dots and dashes but none of these reports mentioned Morse code just a continuous carrier produced by holding the key down and not letting it up or, on some transmitters, by throwing a switch which relieves the operator of holding the key down for extended periods. Maybe you are also not familiar with the term "modulate" which means to impress information, such as voice, on a carrier which causes the carrier's amplitude to vary in sync with the modulating signal as in "amplitude modulated" (A.M) like Earhart's radios. (F.M. is a diferent kind of modulation in which the frequency of the carrier varies, not its amplitude which stays constant.) So "unmodulated" means no modulation was applied to the carrier to there was no voice transmission, just a constant amplitude continuous carrier for all of these "too long" and the Midway 1115 Z bearing report.
gl

l

Gary, How long after plane was thought down, Was this 24 minute episode ?
We are an echo of the past


Member# 416
 
Logged

Malcolm McKay

  • Read-only
  • *
  • Posts: 551
Re: FAQ: Colorado / Lambrecht Search, 9 July 1937
« Reply #383 on: August 31, 2012, 07:06:00 PM »


Amen.  You just need to work on the "rigour" part.

I think Ric that you should withdraw that remark - it is going against forum rules. Besides all the points I have made are valid, your complaint is simply because I disagree with TIGHAR's assessment of the evidence provided to support the Nikumaroro hypothesis - something in which I am not alone. The fact is that the Navy fliers did not see anyone on the island, they did not see an aircraft and they were the only witnesses in the vicinity of Gardner immediately after the disappearance of Earhart and Noonan. As I have posted several times TIGHAR have needed to construct a series of hypotheses to support that hypothesis all of which seem to stem from either painting the Navy searchers as incompetent, having Earhart and Noonan collapsed from starvation and thirst on an island which does have food available and quite probably water at the time, and the Electra washed off the reef. They have all been thoroughly canvassed in this thread and I will not repeat them.
Logged

john a delsing

  • T2
  • **
  • Posts: 66
  • Minnesota Johnny D.
Re: FAQ: Colorado / Lambrecht Search, 9 July 1937
« Reply #384 on: August 31, 2012, 07:38:30 PM »

Ric,
   Your continual sarcasm to dr. McKay is, in my opinion, very unwarranted and also very unprofessional. I, and I think many others, believe Malcolm has very valid questions and very valid points.
The Earth is Full
 
Logged

richie conroy

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1412
Re: FAQ: Colorado / Lambrecht Search, 9 July 1937
« Reply #385 on: August 31, 2012, 07:58:33 PM »

Why is that John

Malcolm has had daily phone contact with David Billing's of the New England hypothesis, which is based on a engine tag found by a member of a ground troop in jungle of new Britain, What little evidence they found was lost in personnel in following month's. Yet Malcolm believe's the new Britain hypothesis is just as good as Tighar's hypothesis. Yet because the skeletal remain's Have gone missing there is no proof that they were of a european woman, So why shouldn't the engine tag be scruitinised the same , Without the engine tag there is no evidence at all to support the hypothesis. Yet Tighar has evidence separate from bones found to support hypothesis. Yet Malcolm is very critical of that.

hmmm
We are an echo of the past


Member# 416
 
Logged

Malcolm McKay

  • Read-only
  • *
  • Posts: 551
Re: FAQ: Colorado / Lambrecht Search, 9 July 1937
« Reply #386 on: August 31, 2012, 09:30:39 PM »

Why is that John

Malcolm has had daily phone contact with David Billing's of the New England hypothesis, which is based on a engine tag found by a member of a ground troop in jungle of new Britain, What little evidence they found was lost in personnel in following month's. Yet Malcolm believe's the new Britain hypothesis is just as good as Tighar's hypothesis. Yet because the skeletal remain's Have gone missing there is no proof that they were of a european woman, So why shouldn't the engine tag be scruitinised the same , Without the engine tag there is no evidence at all to support the hypothesis. Yet Tighar has evidence separate from bones found to support hypothesis. Yet Malcolm is very critical of that.

hmmm

G'day Richie.

Well not quite in daily contact with David - I last spoke to him about 3 weeks ago IIRC, and I might add, if it is relevant, he rang me.

Given that no one to date has found anything more than information or artifacts that might suggest a solution to the Earhart/Noonan puzzle then until some one comes up with the deal closer then I am afraid that each hypothesis offered has a chance of being right. However some are less likely than others due to internal factors in the argument. You can make up your own mind as to which ones are more or less likely.

Now elsewhere I have questioned the East New Britain hypothesis but one must admit that if that is a construction number on that tag attached to the engine bearer of a Lockheed Electra then that will take it to the top of the list. I know Dr Moleski doesn't accept that Lockheed used construction numbers but they did - especially in the case of highly individual aircraft like the Electra which were built to customer specifications for particular tasks. Then, of course, Nauticos may find the Electra in deep water so that would close the deal properly. The Saipan spy story is ruled out if we follow Gary LaPook's reasoning (something with which I can, in my limited knowledge, see no fault) but that doesn't rule out a folk tale that may have originated in the Gilberts which were under Japanese occupation after the Pacific War broke out and the Japanese were not shy of using natives as virtual slave labour where they were needed. I suggest the Gilberts because there is the Vidal story that Earhart had nominated the Gilberts as a possible emergency landing spot if the missed Howland which as we all know they did. It is a long shot but in the absence of anything concrete elsewhere then so far it remains in contention. 

Now you are right that the skeleton has gone missing and in its absence, however, it was reassessed as female instead of male and had its ethnic origins changed. Now I don't think I am being overly picky is saying that building a part of a case on missing evidence which has been reidentified so that it is offered as hypothetical support for one's hypothesis is dangerous in that it immediately invites scepticism regardless of whether your overall hypothesis is right or wrong. The engine tag C/N was noted by observers way back in 1945 - so far as we are aware that wreck has not been located so as in the case of the absence of wreckage on Nikumaroro I'd say that things are in tennis terms love all. Now criticism has been levelled at the means by which the tag and its number were noted however if that criticism is admissible then so is the criticism directed at the testimony of Emily Sikuli about seeing aircraft wreckage near the Norwich City when elsewhere on the island Gallagher was recovering the partial skeleton which he thought was Earhart and which is, as we know, now missing. The question is that Ms Sikuli was intelligent enough to be sent off the island for more training yet she omits to mention the wreckage to Gallagher - why?

As for the problems surrounding the attempts to dismiss the Navy fly over see my summation here http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,253.msg19253.html#msg19253 . The post loss radio messages are subject to huge debate so read what Gary La Pook and others have to say. I am not alone in querying these things. The thread on the Bevington object has my own and the questions and comments of others - so once again I am not the sole person out of step.

The comments on the two ROV videos have yet to identify a single solitary demonstrable piece of aircraft wreckage. The only thing that is man made so far is in the first and is a piece of what could be thin nylon rope or wire cable. There is nothing else. And I might add that is the current position of TIGHAR regarding the first video - we are awaiting their assessment of the second.

The freckle cream jar seems to have run up against a brick wall. No proof that it was Earhart's or used by her or even available to her elsewhere. The Seven Site is a well excavated archaeological exercise which hasn't yielded anything that can be traced to Earhart. And to cap it off the island has had a string of visitors since the early 19th century, it has had a shipwreck, two attempts at settlement and setting up coconut plantations (Arundel in 1892 and PISS 1939 to 1965) and in 1944 to 1946 a US Coast Guard base (the Loran station) all of whom have left traces of European and European influenced material artifacts. So you must forgive me if I remain sceptical in the absence of a demonstrated chunk of Electra wreckage. You can accept that TIGHAR's hypothesis is proven if you want, but I don't.
Logged

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 2982
Re: FAQ: Colorado / Lambrecht Search, 9 July 1937
« Reply #387 on: August 31, 2012, 11:41:51 PM »

I know Dr Moleski doesn't accept that Lockheed used construction numbers but they did - especially in the case of highly individual aircraft like the Electra which were built to customer specifications for particular tasks.

Right.  I'm waiting for a sample of a tag like that from Lockheed in the 1930s.

Or a reference in a reliable book.

It would be something along the lines of "evidence" that your assertion about Lockheed is correct.

It still leaves a lot of other questions about how the references on the map are decoded to produce the meaning: "They found a tag with the Electra's C/N on it."

But in terms of providing evidence, you are at ground zero so far as I can tell.  All we have is your word for it, and I know that you recommend that serious thinkers should not take anyone at their word without hard evidence to back it up.
LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
Logged

Malcolm McKay

  • Read-only
  • *
  • Posts: 551
Re: FAQ: Colorado / Lambrecht Search, 9 July 1937
« Reply #388 on: September 01, 2012, 12:04:06 AM »

I know Dr Moleski doesn't accept that Lockheed used construction numbers but they did - especially in the case of highly individual aircraft like the Electra which were built to customer specifications for particular tasks.

Right.  I'm waiting for a sample of a tag like that from Lockheed in the 1930s.

Or a reference in a reliable book.

It would be something along the lines of "evidence" that your assertion about Lockheed is correct.

It still leaves a lot of other questions about how the references on the map are decoded to produce the meaning: "They found a tag with the Electra's C/N on it."

But in terms of providing evidence, you are at ground zero so far as I can tell.  All we have is your word for it, and I know that you recommend that serious thinkers should not take anyone at their word without hard evidence to back it up.

Dr. Moleski go back and read the whole thread again not just my posts and you will see that others have also confirmed it. Then do a Google search, or whatever your favourite search engine is, and then come back on the matter. I think you will find lots of info, or here's an idea you could research the whole matter and prepare a TIGHAR Research Bulletin proving conclusively that Lockheed and other aircraft manufacturers did not use construction numbers, which might offer a whole new slant on the history of Lockheed because others accept that the Lockheed used C/Ns http://www.airspacemag.com/history-of-flight/electra.html  . In that article it is referred to as a serial number but for factory purposes it is the same. That reference took me about 30 seconds to find. Now I am prepared to concede, as I always have, that the East New Britain tag may just be a coincidence and is not attached to an Electra - after all these numbers were internal factory numbers not government allotted serial numbers so it is entirely possible that some other aircraft from another manufacturer, or engine might have had a similar number attached to it. But until it or TIGHAR locate wreckage of the Electra off Nikumaroro then I'd say as I said above scores are level at zero. 
Logged

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 2982
Re: FAQ: Colorado / Lambrecht Search, 9 July 1937
« Reply #389 on: September 01, 2012, 12:13:42 AM »

Dr. Moleski go back and read the whole thread again not just my posts and you will see that others have also confirmed it.

You mean "make the same assertion without hard evidence."  Not one photograph.  Not one specimen.  Not one reference that could be checked.

Quote
Then do a Google search, or whatever your favourite search engine is, and then come back on the matter. I think you will find lots of info, or here's an idea you could research the whole matter and prepare a TIGHAR Research Bulletin proving conclusively that Lockheed and other aircraft manufacturers did not use construction numbers, which might offer a whole new slant on the history of Lockheed because others accept that the Lockheed used C/Ns http://www.airspacemag.com/history-of-flight/electra.html  .

The assertion in need of proof is not that Lockheed used "constructor numbers" but that the tags attached to engine mounts had those constructor numbers on them.

You made the assertion.  The burden of proof rests on you.  All you need is an construction tag with constructor numbers on it for an engine mount that is undeniably connected to a Lockheed aircraft from the 1930s, and then you will have taken the first step toward making your case.
LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 24 25 [26] 27 28 ... 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