Print

[Malcolm McKay]

...................................................

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

Good.

Ric, with all due respect, TIGHAR been searching Nikumaroro since 1989 and this is now 2012. In that 23 years TIGHAR not found one item shown to be from the Electra nor any item that can be traced to Earhart or Noonan. Now you may find that my questions annoy you however until TIGHAR actually does find something to demonstrate that the Nikumaroro hypothesis is the answer then you are in exactly the same position in regard to solving the puzzle as anyone else who is searching according to the hypotheses they have developed. And the simple truth is that I am not the sole person who question the hypothesis, or the evidence so far offered, so TIGHAR is just going to have to show that their hypothesis is correct or accept the fact that so far, after 23 years they haven't found anything. In other words - don't shoot the messenger.   

[Malcolm McKay]

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

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

Oh but I am - I used to ask that students do their own research because if I spoon fed them they would not learn research techniques. I am simply applying that very important principle to you. I provided one example for you as a guide, it is up to you Dr Moleski as the sole person I know who has a problem accepting that aircraft manufacturers used construction numbers as a means to keep track of the products they were producing for clients who often had specific construction requests. So go to it young man - don't let me down, I know you can do it. 

[richie conroy]

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

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

Oh but I am - I used to ask that students do their own research because if I spoon fed them they would not learn research techniques. I am simply applying that very important principle to you. I provided one example for you as a guide, it is up to you Dr Moleski as the sole person I know who has a problem accepting that aircraft manufacturers used construction numbers as a means to keep track of the products they were producing for clients who often had specific construction requests. So go to it young man - don't let me down, I know you can do it. 

A compliment for you Marty "So go to it young man" 

[Ric Gillespie]

Ric, with all due respect, TIGHAR been searching Nikumaroro since 1989 and this is now 2012. In that 23 years TIGHAR not found one item shown to be from the Electra nor any item that can be traced to Earhart or Noonan.

I didn't know there was a time limit.  We're doing the best we can and I think we're doing pretty darned well.

Now you may find that my questions annoy you however until TIGHAR actually does find something to demonstrate that the Nikumaroro hypothesis is the answer then you are in exactly the same position in regard to solving the puzzle as anyone else who is searching according to the hypotheses they have developed.

The notion that all hypotheses are equal until finally proven is ridiculous on its face.  Do you consider creationism, intelligent design and evolution to be equally valid theories for the origin of human life?   

And speaking of theories, I'm still waiting to hear how long you have been corresponding with David Billings.  If you really think his New Britain theory is just as valid as TIGHAR's I'll be happy to offer my views on that.

And the simple truth is that I am not the sole person who question the hypothesis, or the evidence so far offered,

That's fine.  We're patient.

so TIGHAR is just going to have to show that their hypothesis is correct or accept the fact that so far, after 23 years they haven't found anything.

I'll admit that the notion that nothing counts as evidence except absolute stand-alone proof is new to me.  It flies in the face of everything I know about the investigative process. 

In other words - don't shoot the messenger.

You're not a messenger.   Messengers bring any information. 

[Malcolm McKay]

You're not a messenger.   Messengers bring any information.

Yep - but in this case I am a messenger and the message is I am not convinced, simply because there are equally valid alternate explanations for the evidence offered and questions. That is the problem with hypotheses that are built on a shaky framework of subordinate hypotheses - everything has to hold together. When you find the evidence that proves the Nikumaroro hypothesis I'll be convinced.

[richie conroy]

You're not a messenger.   Messengers bring any information.

Yep - but in this case I am a messenger and the message is I am not convinced, simply because there are equally valid alternate explanations for the evidence offered and questions. That is the problem with hypotheses that are built on a shaky framework of subordinate hypotheses - everything has to hold together. When you find the evidence that proves the Nikumaroro hypothesis I'll be convinced.

That is the problem with hypotheses that are built on a shaky framework

Can you advance on this comment, Of why you believe the frame work is shaky ?

[Ric Gillespie]

Yep - but in this case I am a messenger and the message is I am not convinced, simply because there are equally valid alternate explanations for the evidence offered and questions.

It won't surprise you that I disagree.

That is the problem with hypotheses that are built on a shaky framework of subordinate hypotheses - everything has to hold together.

Yes, I'll be happy to take a look at the New Britain theory.  (You really don't want to talk about your relationship with Billings, do you?)

When you find the evidence that proves the Nikumaroro hypothesis I'll be convinced.

That's a deal.  See you then.

[Malcolm McKay]

It won't surprise you that I disagree.

Of course it doesn't, after all TIGHAR is advancing the Nikumaroro hypothesis so I'd be surprised if they disagreed with it.

It is like the old story about the Archbishop of Canterbury.

If the Archbishop says that he believes in God then that isn't news, its just in the line of business, but if the Archbishop says he doesn't believe in God then that's news.

So it is with TIGHAR and Nikumaroro.

[Doug Giese]

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

Good.

Ric, with all due respect, TIGHAR been searching Nikumaroro since 1989 and ...

The quiet period didn't last long, did it? I wish it had. Given your steady stream of objections, I'd also appreciate an answer to Ric's questions about your relationship with David Billings and the New Britain theory.

[Malcolm McKay]

The quiet period didn't last long, did it? I wish it had. Given your steady stream of objections, I'd also appreciate an answer to Ric's questions about your relationship with David Billings and the New Britain theory.

Tell me Doug what is your relationship with Ric?

You see how silly that sort of question is. 

[pilotart]

The quiet period didn't last long, did it? I wish it had. Given your steady stream of objections, I'd also appreciate an answer to Ric's questions about your relationship with David Billings and the New Britain theory.

Tell me Doug what is your relationship with Ric?

You see how silly that sort of question is. 

Malcom,

I agree with Doug and I don't think it's one bit silly.

You know that in the past I have thanked you and complemented you on some of your posts that did provide intelligent constructive information.

My last statement to you was:

There is no doubt that the contributions of the members who intelligently and constructively disagree with TIGHAR are what makes this public forum worthwhile and if it were only agreeing members, it might not accomplish nearly as much.

When I see a hypothesis that does not hold water, I will provide my opinion backed up with facts.  You can see an example here:

This was in response to a question about a link to someones 'proof' of their "splashed & sank" hypothesis.  Were I responding on their site, I probably would not have used the term "ridiculous poppycock" and perhaps I was out-of-line to even use that term here, but you will notice that I provided expert information to show why their hypothesis was false.  You can judge if it was intelligent and constructive and notice that I only had to say it once....

I know you have suggested that the New Britain hypothesis has equal fitting with TIGHAR's And Ric's questions to You:

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 notion that all hypotheses are equal until finally proven is ridiculous on its face.  Do you consider creationism, intelligent design and evolution to be equally valid theories for the origin of human life?   

And speaking of theories, I'm still waiting to hear how long you have been corresponding with David Billings.  If you really think his New Britain theory is just as valid as TIGHAR's I'll be happy to offer my views on that.

Yes, I'll be happy to take a look at the New Britain theory.  (You really don't want to talk about your relationship with Billings, do you?)

And now from Doug:

The quiet period didn't last long, did it? I wish it had. Given your steady stream of objections, I'd also appreciate an answer to Ric's questions about your relationship with David Billings and the New Britain theory.

Certainly Deserve Honest Answers from you....

I see that you do have a discussion on the New Britain Hypothesis. 

As to how intelligent and constructive I will leave for others to judge

My (and others) requests for your equally valid alternative explanation for the post-loss radio signals was not satisfied by your statement that "Then we must agree to differ."  (which I agree)  and then "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." (which I tried to explain to you).

[Malcolm McKay]

Tell me Doug what is your relationship with Ric?

You see how silly that sort of question is. 


Malcom,

I agree with Doug and I don't think it's one bit silly.

Don't you? - you saw my reply to Mr Gillespie where I pointed out that TIGHAR had been searching for 23 years and found nothing that is accepted as related to Earhart. Now for someone to criticise me for telling the truth and at the same time inferring that I am part of some conspiracy with David Billings borders on paranoia.

Now my personal opinion is that the Electra came down at sea and sank. That puts me in the crashed and sank group with Nauticos and probably the majority of people who have been diverted by this aviation mystery. My opinion of the evidence offered by TIGHAR is plain in my many posts and I don't think I need to repeat here. However being an open minded sort of chap I will happily accept the first of the current hypotheses as proven the moment someone posts the all important clear evidence that they have found the Electra or demonstrable traces of Earhart and Noonan.

Now can I ask you what is your relationship with Ric?

You see how silly that sort of question is. 

[richie conroy]

TIGHAR had been searching for 23 years and found nothing that is accepted as related to Earhart.

They have found artifacts that can not be ruled out, as belonging to Earhart or Fred either.

[Malcolm McKay]

They have found artifacts that can not be ruled out, as belonging to Earhart or Fred either.

I presume that's your question.

Richie the essential point is that they can't be incontrovertibly related to Earhart or Noonan - that is TIGHAR's problem. No amount of house of cards chains of hypotheses or romantic guesses can alter that single important fact. 

Once someone does that I'll accept the evidence - can't say fairer than that.

[pilotart]

Tell me Doug what is your relationship with Ric?

You see how silly that sort of question is. 


Malcom,

I agree with Doug and I don't think it's one bit silly.

Don't you? - you saw my reply to Mr Gillespie where I pointed out that TIGHAR had been searching for 23 years and found nothing that is accepted as related to Earhart. Now for someone to criticise me for telling the truth and at the same time inferring that I am part of some conspiracy with David Billings borders on paranoia.

Now my personal opinion is that the Electra came down at sea and sank. That puts me in the crashed and sank group with Nauticos and probably the majority of people who have been diverted by this aviation mystery. My opinion of the evidence offered by TIGHAR is plain in my many posts and I don't think I need to repeat here. However being an open minded sort of chap I will happily accept the first of the current hypotheses as proven the moment someone posts the all important clear evidence that they have found the Electra or demonstrable traces of Earhart and Noonan.

Now can I ask you what is your relationship with Ric?

You see how silly that sort of question is. 

Malcom,

Sure you can and I will answer you; I have never seen or communicated in any way with Ric (post, telephone, cable, PM or email) and I have even flown into Wilmington, Delaware (New Castle Airport and Old Bridge were so much more friendly than KPHL) many, many times without ever looking him up.  I have yet to even complete reading his excellent book, I had bought the 'Hard Copy' w/DVD shortly after I had read all the 'draft' chapters that he published in TIGHAR Tracks.  I receive a huge amount of Aviation/Navigation publications, more than I can ever read as it is and the TIGHAR Web Site has the most up-to-date material as well.

Now, What is your relationship with David Billings?   

Art

************************************************
________________________________________________
BTW when you replied to my last post:

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.

it was obvious that you still did not understand Radio Bearings.

Instead of replying to you, I went back, rewrote and added a paragraph to my original explanation to try and make it more understandable for you and everyone reading this FAQ.

_________________________________________________________
edit:-

Malcom, I certainly should have also included a 'quote' reply directed to you, perhaps I economize excessively (0.071 per day) with my postings.

In answer to you, Yes those bearings over two days would indicate a stationary transmitter, that 'splay' is due to that +/- factor of the Bearing's accuracy confidence and the actual location is just 'somewhere' within that 'box' computed from the crossing bearings adjusted for their +/- estimate and distance. 

We do know that the Electra Must have been on dry land, so that still limits your search to just a few islands.  The Navy initially encompassed all of the Phoenix Islands and that would have been their 'safe' estimate of the Bearing's accuracy.