Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 11 12 [13] 14 15   Go Down

Author Topic: 3 Problems with Niku hypothesis / inconsistencies  (Read 163695 times)

Irvine John Donald

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 597
Re: 3 Problems with Nikumaroro hypothesis
« Reply #180 on: May 21, 2012, 10:41:29 AM »

Thanks Marty. Excellent reasons to attend the symposium this year!
Respectfully Submitted;

Irv
 
Logged

Tom Swearengen

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 818
  • earhart monument, Hawaii
Re: 3 Problems with Nikumaroro hypothesis
« Reply #181 on: May 21, 2012, 12:32:04 PM »

marty---you summerized this better than I could. TIGHAR 'may' find something, but even then, there are still odds that it wont be the Electra. i'm pretty certain they will find something, and then we can see what it is. I think this is the point we've been trying to make to DR Malcolm. We dont know what is down there, although 5000 tons of ship did go somewhere as Marty expertly put it. And yes, if the Electra is there, we may not be able to find it, but not because of lack of effort, but because of the 5000 tons of steamer laying on it.
Just saying---
Tom
Tom Swearengen TIGHAR # 3297
 
Logged

richie conroy

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1412
Re: 3 Problems with Nikumaroro hypothesis
« Reply #182 on: May 21, 2012, 06:45:51 PM »


my point is Tighar through finding actual documented stuff, in archives have found evidence, that support the hypothesis that the flight could have ended at Gardner

Tighar are just adding pieces to the puzzle with supported evidence

 :)

Indeed, but it is still simply a hypothesis, and that is what the discussion is about.


yes it is, and it's a hypothesis based on documented evidence, which gives reason to search Gardner island for evidence

i think if there was any credible evidence of the flight ending else were ? Tighar would be searching that area an not Gardner

whether someone else's hypothesis or not...

lets be honest other hypothesis, new Britain, sapien are both based on army personnel recollection's with no supporting evidence,

so until the artifacts on Gardner are proved not to be that of the lost fliers, they are still possible evidence 

We are an echo of the past


Member# 416
 
Logged

Malcolm McKay

  • Read-only
  • *
  • Posts: 551
Re: 3 Problems with Nikumaroro hypothesis
« Reply #183 on: May 21, 2012, 07:08:07 PM »


yes it is, and it's a hypothesis based on documented evidence, which gives reason to search Gardner island for evidence

i think if there was any credible evidence of the flight ending else were ? Tighar would be searching that area an not Gardner

whether someone else's hypothesis or not...

lets be honest other hypothesis, new Britain, sapien are both based on army personnel recollection's with no supporting evidence,

so until the artifacts on Gardner are proved not to be that of the lost fliers, they are still possible evidence

Well we seem to be in furious agreement here - but do let's get our facts right first, as far as I can see I have never said that TIGHAR should not be searching on and around Nikumaroro. My only interest has been in examining the individual bits of evidence put forward to support the hypothesis. Others have also done so and for the small group of us here, not completely swayed by the miraculous vision being offered, some of those bits of evidence are less than satisfactory.

That can mean a number of things. If for example the work this July confirms the Earhart presence it does not automatically confirm that every bit of the material evidence offered in the hypothesis is related to Earhart, only individual testing of each can do that. But if the Earhart presence is not confirmed by the July work then that simply returns the hypothesis to the status quo.

You must also agree that if in the end the Nikumaroro hypothesis proves to be unresolved then the other hypotheses will still be in contention. At present the TIGHAR Nikumaroro solution depends on what the cleaned up and enhanced photo of Nessie shows and what will be revealed following the upcoming ROV work off the reef. I sometimes wonder about the capacity of people to confuse discussion of evidence with heresy. Is it because people want to believe rather than be led to an understanding by what the data reveals. 
Logged

Tom Swearengen

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 818
  • earhart monument, Hawaii
Re: 3 Problems with Nikumaroro hypothesis
« Reply #184 on: May 22, 2012, 07:30:35 AM »

Gee---I thought we WERE examining evidence. I thought that was the reason for the symposium, and the expedition to Niku. To examine evidence, gather new evidence, and unravel hypothesis, and perhaps make new ones.
Guess thats why I'm not a scientist--this is driving me nuts.
See you in DC---I'll be the 'confused' one walking around looking lost among all you smart guys!
Tom Swearengen TIGHAR # 3297
 
Logged

Malcolm McKay

  • Read-only
  • *
  • Posts: 551
Re: 3 Problems with Nikumaroro hypothesis
« Reply #185 on: May 22, 2012, 06:11:02 PM »

Malcolm wrote -
Quote
...if in the end the Nikumaroro hypothesis proves to be unresolved then the other hypotheses will still be in contention.

When is "the end", Malcolm, and who decides what "other hypotheses" are still "in contention", and for what reasons better than TIGHAR has for Niku?

Most of what I've seen is attempted detractions of the Niku theory, not much convincing to take me elsewhere to search.  Therefore I still see more problems with the "other hypotheses" than with Niku - despite many of those having been examined and written of exhaustively.

The end? It will be if TIGHAR find something at Nikumaroro to prove their hypothesis correct or they find that there is simply no evidence and accept it. I'm easy with either outcome.
Logged

Tom Swearengen

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 818
  • earhart monument, Hawaii
Re: 3 Problems with Nikumaroro hypothesis
« Reply #186 on: May 22, 2012, 08:23:18 PM »

no no---its not the end---its a new beginning!
Tom Swearengen TIGHAR # 3297
 
Logged

Malcolm McKay

  • Read-only
  • *
  • Posts: 551
Re: 3 Problems with Nikumaroro hypothesis
« Reply #187 on: May 22, 2012, 09:40:11 PM »

no no---its not the end---its a new beginning!

As I said  in regard to the question about the end. It will be if TIGHAR find something at Nikumaroro to prove their hypothesis correct or they find that there is simply no evidence and accept it. I'm easy with either outcome.

If TIGHAR then decide to devote resources to look elsewhere I'm happy with that.

I cannot see what there is to argue about, in fact that is the only logical outcome unless people start giving away to zealotry which is simply not healthy in any sense.
Logged

Malcolm McKay

  • Read-only
  • *
  • Posts: 551
Re: 3 Problems with Nikumaroro hypothesis
« Reply #188 on: May 22, 2012, 10:12:46 PM »

So we know where 'your' end is then.

I'm 'easy' with TIGHAR continuing to look at Niku.

LTM -

Why? Waste of time and resources if it is discounted.

You clearly didn't understand what I wrote "It will be if TIGHAR find something at Nikumaroro to prove their hypothesis correct or they find that there is simply no evidence and accept it.". I don't think TIGHAR would continue after the second option.

You appear strangely wedded to the idea that I am against the Nikumaroro hypothesis, yet I have never said I was. Oh well some people always interpret any question as opposition and there is nothing anyone can do about that.
« Last Edit: May 22, 2012, 10:17:51 PM by Malcolm McKay »
Logged

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 3006
Re: 3 Problems with Nikumaroro hypothesis
« Reply #189 on: May 22, 2012, 10:13:11 PM »

As I said  in regard to the question about the end. It will be if TIGHAR find something at Nikumaroro to prove their hypothesis correct or they find that there is simply no evidence and accept it.

...

I cannot see what there is to argue about, in fact that is the only logical outcome unless people start giving away to zealotry which is simply not healthy in any sense.

Your analysis of the "logical outcome" is incorrect.

1. TIGHAR may find the Any-Idiot Artifact (AIA), which could support the hypothesis.
2. TIGHAR might finishing searching all searchable areas, without finding the AIA.  In that case, there are two logical possibilities, not just one:
  • The Niku hypothesis is true, but all evidence of AE and FN's presence on the island has been consumed or hidden by natural processes.
  • The Niku hypothesis is false.
Of course, figuring out logical hypotheses is a rational activity.  It is not determined by the data.  No amount of "looking at the data" with an empty head will supply the necessary analytic logic to come to a correct conclusion.
LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
Logged

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 3006
Re: 3 Problems with Nikumaroro hypothesis
« Reply #190 on: May 22, 2012, 10:15:34 PM »

I'm 'easy' with TIGHAR continuing to look at Niku.
Why? Waste of time and resources if it is discounted. I don't think TIGHAR would do that.

TIGHAR hasn't exhausted the search space on Niku by any means.

We won't know how much of the deep water around Niku can be searched until the search is complete this summer.
LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
Logged

Malcolm McKay

  • Read-only
  • *
  • Posts: 551
Re: 3 Problems with Nikumaroro hypothesis
« Reply #191 on: May 22, 2012, 10:29:47 PM »

I'm 'easy' with TIGHAR continuing to look at Niku.
Why? Waste of time and resources if it is discounted. I don't think TIGHAR would do that.

TIGHAR hasn't exhausted the search space on Niku by any means.

We won't know how much of the deep water around Niku can be searched until the search is complete this summer.

So? If you bother to read what I said which was, and I will rephrase it so that it is clear, that if the search fails to find anything and it is deemed useless to continue then any further searching would be a waste of time and resources which I would think is quite irrefutably obvious and because of that I doubt that TIGHAR would disagree. They may well want to try another hypothesis - who knows. I have no problems with idea - remember that the objective is finding Earhart's Electra not proving that it landed on Nikumaroro, if somehow the first has segued into the second then I suggest that TIGHAR has a problem.

Asking questions Martin is not opposition it is simply asking questions - rather like Freud's cigar which is apocryphal anyway.

Now I'll bet you take each word in that reply and offer every possible alternative interpretation of what it could really mean but what it means is what I said. Sometimes a cigar is a cigar however apocryphal.
Logged

Malcolm McKay

  • Read-only
  • *
  • Posts: 551
Re: 3 Problems with Nikumaroro hypothesis
« Reply #192 on: May 23, 2012, 12:59:09 AM »

Apparently then a cigar isn't a cigar.   ;D
Logged

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 3006
Re: 3 Problems with Nikumaroro hypothesis
« Reply #193 on: May 23, 2012, 07:54:12 AM »

So? If you bother to read what I said ...

Yes, I bothered.

Quote
... which was, and I will rephrase it so that it is clear, that if the search fails to find anything and it is deemed useless to continue ...

Here I read a sentence in the passive voice.

The person or persons doing the "deeming" are not identified.

It is not a precise sentence, and so it is susceptible to various interpretations.

Of course, it is a tautology that if TIGHAR "deems" (judges) that it has exhausted both the search space and methods of searching, it would be "useless to continue."

I presumed that you were not speaking tautologically.

Quote
... then any further searching would be a waste of time and resources which I would think is quite irrefutably obvious and because of that I doubt that TIGHAR would disagree.

Here is the person who seems to be doing the deeming: "any further searching would be a waste of time and resources, which I would think is quite irrefutably obvious."

So it is not TIGHAR coming to that conclusion in your hypothetical situation; it is yourself ("I would think ... quite irrefutably obvious").  You can't be imagining that TIGHAR has made the decision, because you are indicating that TIGHAR ought to see reality the same way you see reality.  You announce that what is obvious to you (a subjective judgment) should be "irrefutably obvious" to TIGHAR.

I don't know whether anything "irrefutably obvious" will come out of this year's expedition.  I'm keeping an open mind.  I do believe it will be interesting to see what the deep water search will find out about the area around Niku.

Quote
... remember that the objective is finding Earhart's Electra not proving that it landed on Nikumaroro, if somehow the first has segued into the second then I suggest that TIGHAR has a problem.

It's too early to tell whether that transition has taken place.

If TIGHAR decides that it has explored all explorable areas by all financially possible means, it does not follow that its only choice is to expend time and money on another hypothesis.  TIGHAR's purpose is not to find Amelia's Electra; its purpose is "historic aircraft recovery."  There are lots of other historic aircraft to pursue.  TIGHAR's opinion (judgment) could well be that the Niku hypothesis is true, but not provable.  The failure to find evidence does not prove the Niku hypothesis false; it may only prove that all evidence has disappeared from TIGHAR's view.  You may be familiar with the saying of Carl Sagan that "absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence."  Even if we imagine that all of TIGHAR's searches fail to find "irrefutably obvious" evidence that the Niku hypothesis is true, it does not follow that the failure of the search proves the Niku hypothesis false.

There are two and only two possibilities about the Niku hypothesis: it is true or false.  There are two and only two possibilities about evidence of where NR16020 came down: it exists or it does not exist at the present time.

You seem to be reducing the logical possibilities to the top line: search Niku or search elsewhere.  But TIGHAR has the option of giving up on Niku without having to make a commitment to search elsewhere.

Quote
Asking questions Martin is not opposition it is simply asking questions - rather like Freud's cigar which is apocryphal anyway.

I didn't see any questions in your post.  And yes, I did read it.  Every part of it was in declarative sentences, some more revealing than others.

Quote
Now I'll bet you take each word in that reply and offer every possible alternative interpretation of what it could really mean but what it means is what I said. Sometimes a cigar is a cigar however apocryphal.

Yes, I offer alternative interpretations of what you wrote because what you wrote was ambiguous, at best.  And yes, I offer alternative interpretations of what is and is not "irrefutably obvious" because I do not share your philosophical standards for deciding what is "irrefutably obvious."

I'm pretty sure that this is what you were trying to say:

If the next trip finds conclusive evidence, which it now must, that Earhart and Noonan met their deaths on the island then good. If it doesn't then I would say that it is time to consider other options. As for my preferences as to their fate - I admit I have no idea, if I did and had the proof we wouldn't be having this discussion. But questioning evidence claims is what people like myself do, that isn't negativity it is simply working through the data. Oh and it isn't Mr McKay it is actually Dr McKay but you can call me Malcolm. 

So, Malcolm, I disagree with your personal opinion that "the next trip" must find "conclusive evidence."

I disagree that if the next trip does not find "conclusive evidence" that the only alternative is to investigate elsewhere.

These two propositions are not logically or existentially the same:

"TIGHAR has not yet found conclusive evidence that the Niku hypothesis is true."

"TIGHAR's failure to find conclusive evidence for the Niku hypothesis proves conclusively that the Niku hypothesis is false."

I'm very encouraged by the fact that you don't mind people challenging your evidence claims. 
LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
Logged

Tom Swearengen

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 818
  • earhart monument, Hawaii
Re: 3 Problems with Nikumaroro hypothesis
« Reply #194 on: May 23, 2012, 08:56:30 AM »

OHHHHHHHHHHH I get it now---how stupid of me. Ok DR. Malcolm---you just found artifacts of Atlantis. So stop there? How intelligent is that?
Tom Swearengen TIGHAR # 3297
 
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 11 12 [13] 14 15   Go Up
 

Copyright 2024 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