Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 25 26 [27] 28 29 ... 34   Go Down

Author Topic: FAQ: Colorado / Lambrecht Search, 9 July 1937  (Read 444034 times)

Malcolm McKay

  • Read-only
  • *
  • Posts: 551
Re: FAQ: Colorado / Lambrecht Search, 9 July 1937
« Reply #390 on: September 01, 2012, 12:23:52 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.

You didn't bother to do the research did you? - that's an F for you young man. Did you expect me to actually write the paper for you as well.  ;) 

Had a student once who used my Masters research to write an essay, I had to fail him as it was a little too close to outright plagiarism - although he did at least provide three citations of my work, mind you they were the only ones.

It raised a conundrum for me. By using my research he had shown incredibly good taste, but by not really attempting to rewrite it showed that he was a bit lazy. Still he did better when he redid the essay using some other sources - looks a lot more kosher and he learned a lot more. 
Logged

dave burrell

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 111
Re: FAQ: Colorado / Lambrecht Search, 9 July 1937
« Reply #391 on: September 01, 2012, 01:06:34 AM »

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.

Can you expand on your comments here, or do I have to buy the book? I can understand the Navy wanting to bury the mistakes on the Morse code issues, the dead battery on the RDF, but what did they do wrong on the search, and specifically on the Post loss tranmissions that would make them want to sweep them under the rug? After all, they did search where the bearings showed. They didn't find anything but did search, and did mount the largest search ever for a plane. They didn't have to do half of what they did.
I don't see any egg that needs to wiped from the face on the Navy's part unless I am missing the story here?
Logged

Alan Harris

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 137
Re: FAQ: Colorado / Lambrecht Search, 9 July 1937
« Reply #392 on: September 01, 2012, 01:55:14 AM »

It should be there as a Not Credible signal.

It certainly seems that Not Credible is a prudent judgment for the Bearing 5 signal report (which may soon also be called 51105PY) considering both the length of transmission and the Midway operators' characterization as ". . . proved to be some unidentified station probably in South America or Russia and was later definitely discarded as a possibility".  [Emphasis added]  Those are pretty strong words that stand out among the various Pan Am "uncertains" and "don't knows".

What I am wondering is whether this judgment of Bearing 5 should have any impact on how the Bearing 6 signal report (51105HD) should be viewed.  They were apparently recorded on the same day, at the same time, and on the same frequency; and so one possibility is that both Midway and the Howland Island ops could have been hearing portions of the same signal.  IF that were the case -- and I can't say it is or is not the case -- then the two reports should logically have equal credibility, or lack of same.  I raise this merely as a point for discussion, it may be there is an obvious flaw in my thinking, or there may be other information that clearly proves Bearing 5 and Bearing 6 were separate, distinct signals.
Logged

Gary LaPook

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1624
Re: FAQ: Colorado / Lambrecht Search, 9 July 1937
« Reply #393 on: September 01, 2012, 03:26:36 AM »


The knife artifact found on Gardner and mentioned in the Luke Field Inventory, see this prior message. The skin of the Electra was 0.032 inch thick aluminum which is easily cut with a pocket knife. I have kicked lots of aluminum around at wreckage inspections and have cut off pieces with my swiss army knife for examination by my experts. If you don't believe me that you can cut this aluminum with a pocket knife then do this little experiment, go out to your refrigerator, take out a soda, drink it, and then cut the can open with your pocket knife. Pretty easy wasn't it? Off course the aluminum of the can is thinner than the aircraft skin, it is only 0.016 inches so you have to push a bit harder to cut the aircraft skin. If you think this experiment was not representative then pull off the pop top lever from the can and cut it with your pocket knife. It is tougher because it is 0.053 inches thick, much thicker than the Electra's skin but you will still be able to cut it with your pocket knife, see the photos I have attached.

you are comparing a soda can which is made of 3XXX series non heat treatable aluminum (chosen for exceptional corrosion resistance) with the skin of an aircraft which in this case is made of alu clad (the pre curser to what is today called 2024 which is strong but highly corrosive hence it is clad with pure aluminum) which is heat treatable. you cannot compare the two. heat treated 2024 cannot be worked unless it is re-heated to 0 temper. generally this is done with an acetylene torch. You set up a sooty flame on your torch and cover the object you want to be able to work with the black soot, then you heat the aluminum up until the soot burns off. the soot just so happens to burn off at the correct temp for the aluminum to lose it's temper.
Just for you Kevin, since I didn't have a scrap piece of Alclad around the house, I went out and purchased (from Aircraft Spruce and Specialty for $12.00) a piece .032 inch thick type 2024 Alclad sheet aluminum, the same as in artifact 2-2-V-1 that TIGHAR believes is the same type of aluminum sheet used on the skin of the Electra. I have attached four photos showing the aluminum, my three inch blade pocket knife, and the cut in the sheet, a half inch in about twenty-five seconds of cutting, Earhart and Noonan had nothing but time. You can see it done on Youtube.

gl
« Last Edit: September 01, 2012, 04:22:47 AM by Gary LaPook »
Logged

C.W. Herndon

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 634
Re: FAQ: Colorado / Lambrecht Search, 9 July 1937
« Reply #394 on: September 01, 2012, 03:35:09 AM »

OK Gary, I'll bite. Why did you include "Ronnie's" picture?
Woody (former 3316R)
"the watcher"
 
« Last Edit: September 01, 2012, 03:52:53 AM by C.W. Herndon »
Logged

Gary LaPook

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1624
Re: FAQ: Colorado / Lambrecht Search, 9 July 1937
« Reply #395 on: September 01, 2012, 04:15:52 AM »

OK Gary, I'll bite. Why did you include "Ronnie's" picture?
It just happened to be the ruler I had. I bought it at the Reagan Library which is about four miles from my house, its worth a visit.

gl
Logged

C.W. Herndon

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 634
Re: FAQ: Colorado / Lambrecht Search, 9 July 1937
« Reply #396 on: September 01, 2012, 06:42:05 AM »

Gary, I thought it might be something like that. Just curious. A rather different type of ruler though.

Would love to be able to visit places like that but I can't travel much any more.
Woody (former 3316R)
"the watcher"
 
Logged

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 2982
Re: FAQ: Colorado / Lambrecht Search, 9 July 1937
« Reply #397 on: September 01, 2012, 08:20:10 AM »

You didn't bother to do the research did you? - that's an F for you young man.

So you are conceding that you cannot provide an artifact to back up your assertions, but are relying on anecdotes instead.

You are not living up to the standards you set for others.

In this case, you are in the role of the researcher, because it is you who advance the theory that there could have been a tag with the Electra's C/N on it.
LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
Logged

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 2982
Re: FAQ: Colorado / Lambrecht Search, 9 July 1937
« Reply #398 on: September 01, 2012, 08:22:23 AM »

Can you expand on your comments here, or do I have to buy the book?

The Forum is not a good setting for publishing the contents of Finding Amelia.  I hazard the guess that Ric wrote a book because organizing the materials required a book-length treatment.
LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
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 #399 on: September 01, 2012, 10:08:33 AM »


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.

I'm not aware of a forum rule against giving advice.  You do it all the time. 

Besides all the points I have made are valid,

No, they are not.  That's why I suggested that you exercise more rigour.

your complaint is simply because I disagree with TIGHAR's assessment of the evidence provided to support the Nikumaroro hypothesis

My complaint is that you disagree without offering anything but your own lofty opinion which more often than not proves to be based on only a cursory familiarity with TIGHAR's research. 

- something in which I am not alone.

Those on this forum who interpret the evidence differently than you seem to be quite capable of speaking for themselves.  Or are you speaking of your acquaintance and fellow Australian David Billings who has been desperately trying to get some traction for his bizarre theory by attacking TIGHAR's work and me personally?  Tell me Malcolm, how long have you known Mr. Billings?  Does your acquaintance with him predate your appearance on this forum?

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.

It is also a fact that the senior aviator reported unexplained "signs of recent habitation"  and later described them as "markers of some kind."  Reasonable people can differ about how to interpret those remarks but, given the frequent failure of aerial searches in general, and TIGHAR's own direct experience with the difficulty of seeing people on Gardner from the air,  to say that AE and FN could not have been on Gardner because the Navy pilots didn't see them is - to use your term - special pleading.

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,

We have never painted the Navy pilots as incompetent.  (An example of your lack of rigour.)

having Earhart and Noonan collapsed from starvation and thirst on an island which does have food available and quite probably water at the time,

We have never suggested that Earhart and Noonan were unable to respond to the Navy overflight because they had collapsed from starvation and thirst. (It's that rigour thing again.)

and the Electra washed off the reef. They have all been thoroughly canvassed in this thread and I will not repeat them.

Good.
« Last Edit: September 01, 2012, 10:14:38 AM by Ric Gillespie »
Logged

john a delsing

  • T2
  • **
  • Posts: 66
  • Minnesota Johnny D.
Re: FAQ: Colorado / Lambrecht Search, 9 July 1937
« Reply #400 on: September 01, 2012, 11:05:10 AM »

Quote from: C.W. Herndon on Today at 03:35:09 AM
OK Gary, I'll bite. Why did you include "Ronnie's" picture?
It just happened to be the ruler I had. I bought it at the Reagan Library which is about four miles from my house, its worth a visit.

gl

The Reagan library or your house ?
The Earth is Full
 
Logged

C.W. Herndon

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 634
Re: FAQ: Colorado / Lambrecht Search, 9 July 1937
« Reply #401 on: September 01, 2012, 11:47:50 AM »

I took him to mean the library. :)
Woody (former 3316R)
"the watcher"
 
Logged

john a delsing

  • T2
  • **
  • Posts: 66
  • Minnesota Johnny D.
Re: FAQ: Colorado / Lambrecht Search, 9 July 1937
« Reply #402 on: September 01, 2012, 02:30:47 PM »

C.W. Herndon

Re: FAQ: Colorado / Lambrecht Search, 9 July 1937
« Reply #425 on: Today at 11:47:50 AM »
Quote
I took him to mean the library.
LTM,

Woody

   I think his house would be just as interesting!
The Earth is Full
 
Logged

Jeff Scott

  • T2
  • **
  • Posts: 93
Re: FAQ: Colorado / Lambrecht Search, 9 July 1937
« Reply #403 on: September 01, 2012, 02:40:44 PM »

It just happened to be the ruler I had. I bought it at the Reagan Library which is about four miles from my house, its worth a visit.

When we chatted at the Washington DC conference, I didn't realize we both came from southern California.
It's not too late to be great.
 
Logged

Bob Lanz

  • T4
  • ****
  • Posts: 422
Re: FAQ: Colorado / Lambrecht Search, 9 July 1937
« Reply #404 on: September 01, 2012, 02:54:52 PM »

The incidental conversation here is best done in the Private Message feature.  We also have the Chatterbox for Extraneous exchanges.  Can we please get back on topic?
Doc
TIGHAR #3906
 
« Last Edit: September 01, 2012, 05:12:31 PM by Bob Lanz »
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 25 26 [27] 28 29 ... 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