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

Author Topic: 3 Problems with Niku hypothesis / inconsistencies  (Read 171248 times)

Malcolm McKay

  • Read-only
  • *
  • Posts: 551
Re: 3 Problems with Nikumaroro hypothesis
« Reply #195 on: May 23, 2012, 06:54:38 PM »

Damn and I was hoping to keep those Atlantean artifacts a secret  ;)

Now over to Martin who will use this post to demonstrate that a cigar is actually a UFO  ;D
Logged

richie conroy

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1412
Re: 3 Problems with Nikumaroro hypothesis
« Reply #196 on: May 23, 2012, 07:10:00 PM »

Malcolm

i understand the way u think, and analyze evidence given your field of expertise ye

but shouldn't you wait for Tighar to announce the results of investigation on Gardner

before u be so critical of there work..

maybe artifacts so far ain't provided smoking gun evidence but tantalizing ..

but they ain't finished searching yet ?

so due to your field of work your the last person i would suspect of being so critical before investigation is completed ye

We are an echo of the past


Member# 416
 
Logged

Tom Swearengen

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 818
  • earhart monument, Hawaii
Re: 3 Problems with Nikumaroro hypothesis
« Reply #197 on: May 23, 2012, 07:41:50 PM »

was that off Paradise Island, or Santorini? Just kidding--
probably not your line of expertise
Tom Swearengen TIGHAR # 3297
 
Logged

Malcolm McKay

  • Read-only
  • *
  • Posts: 551
Re: 3 Problems with Nikumaroro hypothesis
« Reply #198 on: May 23, 2012, 09:36:59 PM »

was that off Paradise Island, or Santorini? Just kidding--
probably not your line of expertise

Supposed to be Santorini. Certainly that was destroyed in a massive eruption.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santorini

However whether it is the Atlantis of legend is moot. But I won't go into the arguments either for or against because my knowledge and expertise of the later phases of the Bronze Age in the Mediterranean is at best that of a humble graduate, while tying legends and archaeology together is always very subjective. On the one hand you have people like myself who like our artifact associations to be clear cut while on the other hand there are people who will bend everything to fit the story. Atlantis is a good story for the people who like their archaeology free of the ever present doubts that real archaeologists have to deal with.
Logged
Re: 3 Problems with Nikumaroro hypothesis
« Reply #199 on: May 24, 2012, 12:08:12 AM »

So it wasn't Niku. It wasn't Mili or Saipan, it wasn't new Britain and it wasn't even the deep, deep Pacific. It was Atlantis. The mystery solved!
 ;D  ;D  ;D  ;)
Logged

Tom Swearengen

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 818
  • earhart monument, Hawaii
Re: 3 Problems with Nikumaroro hypothesis
« Reply #200 on: May 24, 2012, 08:18:32 AM »

Dr. Malcolm---can you please explain to me ---so I can understand--- the archaeological theory of Amelia Earhart having lived and possibly perished on Nikumaroro? not say she did , or didnt, but from an archaeologist standpoint---how would YOU proceed?
Tom
Tom Swearengen TIGHAR # 3297
 
Logged

Malcolm McKay

  • Read-only
  • *
  • Posts: 551
Re: 3 Problems with Nikumaroro hypothesis
« Reply #201 on: May 24, 2012, 06:47:56 PM »

Dr. Malcolm---can you please explain to me ---so I can understand--- the archaeological theory of Amelia Earhart having lived and possibly perished on Nikumaroro? not say she did , or didnt, but from an archaeologist standpoint---how would YOU proceed?
Tom

Well from their published material it is clear that TIGHAR have done done a pretty good job of searching the island. The artifacts they have found have been appropriately documented and the whole process is open and quite first class. The discussions have been open and where appropriate cautionary in terms of any associations that might be construed. I would also assume that they have filtered out objects that clearly from their nature are of types that could not be related to the particular time period in which the proposed Earhart presence occurred which is in 1937.

The problem is, as many have pointed out, a quite simple one which is that no one particular artifact can be clearly and undoubtedly shown to have been associated solely with Earhart or Noonan. Because of that problem the associations have become circumstantial rather than certain. Now it is not TIGHAR's fault that some of the artifacts have had their circumstantial value distorted  by people eager to argue for associations with the pair. As I said TIGHAR have been pretty upfront with their reporting.

From a purely archaeological viewpoint, as an archaeologist, I would say that for an association of an artifact with either Earhart or Noonan to be made then you need some form of clear evidence to show the association. Purely hypothetically this could be a name tag, a personal item known absolutely to have been carried by either etc., or the prize which is the location of the Electra wreck. Anything firm like that will do. Now that is the ideal, but failing that and failing the proof of any of the other hypothesised variations of Earhart's fate then the Nikumaroro hypothesis remains as valid as the others, but simply not proven.

The proof if any lies in the finding of some artifact that can demonstrate conclusively either Earhart's or Noonan's presence. TIGHAR are looking for that and after all the work I hope they succeed. What is not helpful to the overall perceived validity of the search is the tendency for some items that have so far been found to be claimed as proof, by some people, when in fact they aren't as yet demonstrated to be so by TIGHAR. Now that is my archaeological take on it, and I will repeat that unlike some in the wider aviation historical interest group I cannot fault TIGHAR's approach so far in terms of the way they have published what they have found. I suspect that some of the criticism comes from people who have managed only to read headlines but not the actual published material.

Certainly as anyone is aware I have expressed my reservations about peripherals like the radio messages and the accounts of Emily Sikuli and her fellow Nikumaroroans but then I would be remiss if I hadn't. There are many problems with the peripheral and non-artifact evidence and anyone who did not recognise these is in my opinion not examining them closely enough. I have done so also with some of the artifacts because too often the alternate ways these could have come to Nikumaroro have not been examined in depth and it is important that alternatives are considered rather than just the desired one. That is what archaeologists do because artifacts alone are at times very ambiguous things.
« Last Edit: May 24, 2012, 08:24:19 PM by Malcolm McKay »
Logged

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 3007
Re: 3 Problems with Nikumaroro hypothesis
« Reply #202 on: May 24, 2012, 11:03:59 PM »

... What is not helpful to the overall perceived validity of the search is the tendency for some items that have so far been found to be claimed as proof, by some people, when in fact they aren't as yet demonstrated to be so by TIGHAR. ...

This is a discussion forum.

It is open to all who are willing to meet a few very simple requirements.

Not everyone who posts on the Forum represents TIGHAR, even though they may be wildly enthusiastic for TIGHAR's view. 
LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
Logged

Tom Swearengen

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 818
  • earhart monument, Hawaii
Re: 3 Problems with Nikumaroro hypothesis
« Reply #203 on: May 25, 2012, 05:48:24 AM »

Thanks Dr. Malcolm. I do agree that I havent seen any artifact that positively identifies it with AE. I dont think anyone here has stated that, although we alll hope so. Postive identification separated fact from fiction, or hopes, of beliefs. I thonk TIGHAR will find some personal artifacts of AE to prove she was there. Niku is a pretty big island, and the searches havent covered it yet.

As far as the Electra goes, some of us think the wreckage is her, but nothing has been positively identified. All the good work by Richie and Jeff Hayden has opened eyes, but unfortuneately, havent proved anything. BUT---we all asked for a deatiled expedition to Niku for an underwater search with the assets needed for a good job. The assets are available now, thanks to the State Dept, Ric, and in my belief, the work of Richie and Jeff. Perhaps the Nessie photo got things moving, but Richie's photo breakdown of the ROV video raised awareness. And---with any luck, we will be able to compare Richie's pics to new ones taken by ROV's and submirsibles up close and personal. Perhaps even artifacts of the wreckage brought up for analysis.
My view is that TIGHAR is doing this the right way. IF we find the positive evidence of the Electra, I'll bet a major archaeological expedition will follow.
   
Tom Swearengen TIGHAR # 3297
 
Logged

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 3007
Re: 3 Problems with Nikumaroro hypothesis
« Reply #204 on: May 25, 2012, 08:33:42 AM »

... The assets are available now, thanks to the State Dept ...

No State Department funds have been or will be invested in TIGHAR's work.

The State Department provided some personnel, staff support, and a space for a press conference, all of which is consistent with the kind of diplomatic work done by the State Department.

There is no doubt that the press coverage is helpful in fundraising, but we should be clear about what is and is not financed by the government.
LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
Logged

Tom Swearengen

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 818
  • earhart monument, Hawaii
Re: 3 Problems with Nikumaroro hypothesis
« Reply #205 on: May 25, 2012, 08:44:44 AM »

Oh Yeah Marty---thats what I meant. Really. They opened some closed doors I'm sure. some phone calls with some 'suggestions'. Maybe even some diplomacy for getting Dr Ballard, the Kiribati govt to help with the expedition. I didnt mean financially for sure.
You guys know the behind the scenes stuff alot more than I do of course. But, I would guess that State was about to get some things done---for which we are grateful!
Tom Swearengen TIGHAR # 3297
 
Logged

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 3007
Re: 3 Problems with Nikumaroro hypothesis
« Reply #206 on: May 25, 2012, 10:11:49 AM »

Oh Yeah Marty---thats what I meant. Really. They opened some closed doors I'm sure. some phone calls with some 'suggestions'. Maybe even some diplomacy for getting Dr Ballard, the Kiribati govt to help with the expedition. I didnt mean financially for sure.

You guys know the behind the scenes stuff alot more than I do of course. But, I would guess that State was about to get some things done---for which we are grateful!

Yes, there is no doubt that having the press conference under the auspices of the State Department provided great publicity, which is essential for fundraising.  We are indebted to them for that.

I just want to squelch the rumor, if possible, that the government is funding TIGHAR in any way.  People are, on average, ungovernable, and they will say the darndest things.  But we should try to keep the record straight here on this website, at least.   :)
LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
Logged

Tom Swearengen

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 818
  • earhart monument, Hawaii
Re: 3 Problems with Nikumaroro hypothesis
« Reply #207 on: May 25, 2012, 11:31:39 AM »

For sure, and if I gave that impression it certainly was NOT intended that way. But opening doors isnt financial help for the govt.
All is good, and looking forward to DC!
Tom Swearengen TIGHAR # 3297
 
Logged

Jeff Victor Hayden

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1387
Re: 3 Problems with Nikumaroro hypothesis
« Reply #208 on: May 28, 2012, 06:34:40 AM »

Just thinking out aloud. Does anyone know if any of the post 1938 visitors to Gardner island knew that there was already a suspicion that this island was the suspected place of AE and FN's demise?
This must be the place
 
Logged

richie conroy

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1412
Re: 3 Problems with Nikumaroro hypothesis
« Reply #209 on: May 28, 2012, 05:36:59 PM »

Just thinking out aloud. Does anyone know if any of the post 1938 visitors to Gardner island knew that there was already a suspicion that this island was the suspected place of AE and FN's demise?

here is the link to October 1937 exploration of Gardner

well a previous discussion topic https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,164.0.html
We are an echo of the past


Member# 416
 
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 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