Advanced search  
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 15   Go Down

Author Topic: 3 Problems with Niku hypothesis / inconsistencies  (Read 146969 times)

Adam Marsland

  • T2
  • **
  • Posts: 88
Re: 3 Problems with Nikumaroro hypothesis
« Reply #30 on: May 07, 2012, 12:31:12 AM »

Really good answers here, much better put than mine.

I'm still amused at how ready some folks are to dismiss the evidentiary value of the post-loss messages as being "vague" (which they certainly are from a content standpoint) without making the remotest attempt to give a plausible alternative explanation as to who was making them on a frequency that should not have been in use by anyone other than than AE and the Itasca, in a part of the world where there were few functioning radios to generate signals, and the remarkable coincidence of 5 different directional bearings (out of 7 taken, by different operators) on Gardner.  I think a lot of the skeptics, with all due respect, have done a surface reading of the evidence and drawn conclusions on that basis without having gone through the specifics of the case very carefully.

I'm with the poster above, that skeptics of the Niku hypothesis need to really grapple with the implications of the post-loss messages by constructing a plausible alternative explanation for them that fits the facts -- not just that "they came from somewhere".  I find the nature of the post-loss messages and the five bearings to be a clincher in terms of my evaluation of the evidence -- simply because the alternative explanations for same are so much more wildly improbable than that, simply, AE was transmitting from Gardner Island.

TIGHAR, to its credit, has anticipated most of the objections to its hypothesis and has laid out plausible answers to pretty much of all of them that I am aware of.  Plausible answers are not the same as proof, and should not be confused as such -- but they have addressed these questions head on and haven't swept them under the rug.  People who advance a hypothesis and think through the problems with them and try to answer those questions are much more credible in my view than people who do not -- which is one of the things I really like about TIGHAR.  Most of the problems and questions people have with the hypothesis have been addressed somewhere in this site -- though it may not be immediately obvious from a surface reading. 

But yeah, I did point this out in my original post, but it seemed to have been not been taken, so I'm glad it was restated...for the most part, we don't know WHAT they transmitted, since very little of the actual content of the messages was understood.
« Last Edit: May 07, 2012, 12:40:50 AM by Adam Marsland »
Logged

Malcolm McKay

  • Read-only
  • *
  • Posts: 551
Re: 3 Problems with Nikumaroro hypothesis
« Reply #31 on: May 07, 2012, 05:47:26 AM »


I'm still amused at how ready some folks are to dismiss the evidentiary value of the post-loss messages as being "vague" (which they certainly are from a content standpoint) without making the remotest attempt to give a plausible alternative explanation as to who was making them on a frequency that should not have been in use by anyone other than than AE and the Itasca, in a part of the world where there were few functioning radios to generate signals, and the remarkable coincidence of 5 different directional bearings (out of 7 taken, by different operators) on Gardner.  I think a lot of the skeptics, with all due respect, have done a surface reading of the evidence and drawn conclusions on that basis without having gone through the specifics of the case very carefully.
I'm with the poster above, that skeptics of the Niku hypothesis need to really grapple with the implications of the post-loss messages by constructing a plausible alternative explanation for them that fits the facts -- not just that "they came from somewhere".  I find the nature of the post-loss messages and the five bearings to be a clincher in terms of my evaluation of the evidence -- simply because the alternative explanations for same are so much more wildly improbable than that, simply, AE was transmitting from Gardner Island.

I am sceptical in the sense that while I am prepared to consider a couple as evidence of possible post-loss survival, I don't accept at present that they are from Nikumaroro, nor do I accept the rather imaginative reconstructions of post landing events. Given the amount of hoaxing and the general behaviour of the press at the time, I would think that anything other than a very cautious approach to them as evidence would not be wise. The events that follow the disappearance, except for the efforts of the Navy and Coast Guard, rapidly began to turn into a media circus.         
« Last Edit: May 07, 2012, 06:04:50 AM by Malcolm McKay »
Logged

Andrew M McKenna

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 692
  • Here I am during the Maid of Harlech Survey.
Re: 3 Problems with Nikumaroro hypothesis
« Reply #32 on: May 07, 2012, 07:45:49 AM »

Malcolm

I think that if you went though the post loss radio signals analysis http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/ResearchPapers/Brandenburg/signalcatalog.html, you would see that TIGHAR has pretty much discounted the likely hoaxers.  While there are a few interesting outliers on harmonic frequencies, what emerges is that the pattern of receptions is largely localized to professional and military radio operators in the Pacific.  That would argue that the transmitter was also in the Pacific somewhere transmitting on AE's frequency - a US civil aviation frequency - and sounding like her.  It also removes the "bad behavior of the press" factor as the operators in the Pacific were just doing their job, not reacting to the press. 

The important thing is that if only one of the 200+ transmissions was authentic, she had to be on land somewhere in a reasonably intact aircraft. 

The direction finding bearings converging in the vicinity of Nikumaroro only enhances the story as there is only so much land out there - Kiribati has probably less than 100 sq miles of land in a million sq miles of ocean - so to have the bearings converge anywhere near land instead of out in the open ocean would seem to be meaningful, would you not agree?

If you are willing to consider "a couple as evidence of possible post-loss survival" then you are essentially agreeing that there is evidence she successfully landed the aircraft on land and was able to transmit.  Where? is the question. 

If we agree there is evidence she made it to land, what kind of island are we looking for?  Shouldn't we be looking for an island within fuel range, with some sort of navigational logic as to how she would have gotten there, near the convergence of the DF bearings taken at the time, with a known history of a castaway who apparently had items with them such as a sextant box likely to have once been in the US Navy inventory and similar to one FN was known to use as a back up, an island with native myths of aircraft wreckage otherwise un-accounted for in the same location as a contemporaneous photo shows an unusual landing gear shaped object on the reef, one that has yielded aircraft parts that seem consistent with the Lockheed Electra i.e. the aircraft skin without zinc chromate, plexiglass, and dado, an island with archaeological artifacts who's origin seem consistent with a mid to late 1930's US female camping out, wearing shoes, and eating stuff in ways that pacific islanders don't? 

I think we've found one of those islands, but evidently you are not yet convinced Nikumaroro is a good place to look.  What else would you expect of an island she landed on?  How many other candidates are there?  If not Nikumaroro, then on what island would you start your search?  Based upon what thought process?

If the post loss signals, or at least one of them, indicate "evidence of possible post loss survival", doesn't the rest of the research we've done, taken as a body of evidence, take on additional relevance?  Still circumstantial until we find something better, but aren't most archaeological conclusions based upon a preponderance of circumstantial evidence rather than a single smoking gun?

Andrew
Logged

Jeff Victor Hayden

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1387
Re: 3 Problems with Nikumaroro hypothesis
« Reply #33 on: May 07, 2012, 09:32:35 AM »

Andrew
While being reasonably convinced of the logic begind the post loss transmissions, must be on land and signals eminating from vicnity of Gardner island. I didn't notice anything in the Lambrecht report that mentioned these 2 observations.
Were the search pilots not informed that there was a STRONG possibility that this was the area that they were most likely to find something based upon these 2 observations?
I am sure that if they were given this information they would have put a plane into the lagoon (is that possible?) and had a closer look around Gardner.
That's the only part of the post loss transmissions and the overflight that perplexes me.
Anyone else see my point?
This must be the place
 
Logged

Andrew M McKenna

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 692
  • Here I am during the Maid of Harlech Survey.
Re: 3 Problems with Nikumaroro hypothesis
« Reply #34 on: May 07, 2012, 11:34:39 AM »

Good question.

I don't know if the pilots and crew were briefed, but the reason the Colorado was sent to "search" the Phoenix islands first was because the post loss radio signals indicated that the aircraft was on land.  Lockheed told the Navy in no uncertain terms that there was no way it could transmit if ditched in the water.  So, if radio signals must be coming from land, let's go search the available and most likely land - the Phoenix Islands.  I'm pretty sure the DF bearings were part of that search management plan.

When the Colorado overflew the Phoenix Islands and reported that they had been thoroughly searched, the Navy pretty much declared that the radio signals must have all been hoaxes, and then set off on the open water search with the Lexington.  Thoroughly searching the islands and radio transmissions from an Electra on land became mutually exclusive, they had to pick one.

That is pretty much where it sat until TIGHAR embarked on analyzing the post loss radio signals some 10 years ago.

Andrew
Logged

Jeff Victor Hayden

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1387
Re: 3 Problems with Nikumaroro hypothesis
« Reply #35 on: May 07, 2012, 11:42:38 AM »

I guess it's the benefit of hindsight playing a major role in that question Andrew. I am sure the Lambrecht fliers did their best with whatever information they had to go on at the time.
This must be the place
 
Logged

Tom Swearengen

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 818
  • earhart monument, Hawaii
Re: 3 Problems with Nikumaroro hypothesis
« Reply #36 on: May 07, 2012, 05:37:39 PM »

From a bystanders view of this conversation, I propose that we show up in DC, and view for ourselves all of the data. I'm sure seeing things firsthand would answer some of these questions. I know that I am looking forward to seeing all of this firsthand, so I can draw my own conclusions. I have had my mind changed before, and probably will again. But, before I would object to someones opinion, I would first like to see how they came about it.
Gee---feel like I'm going back to school again. (YUK!) but alot more fun.
Tom
Tom Swearengen TIGHAR # 3297
 
Logged

Malcolm McKay

  • Read-only
  • *
  • Posts: 551
Re: 3 Problems with Nikumaroro hypothesis
« Reply #37 on: May 07, 2012, 07:06:07 PM »

Malcolm

I think that if you went though the post loss radio signals analysis ... etc.
Andrew

Thank you Andrew, I think you are confusing my not accepting with actually denying the veracity of the radio messages.

I find the Betty message to be quite interesting and lacking in elements of sensationalism which mark the obvious hoaxes. What I meant was that if it is genuine it still doesn't either confirm or deny that the sender was on Gardner Island. Now if the next trip turns up physical evidence in one form or another that demonstrates that Earhart and Noonan were on Gardner then that goes towards part confirmation of the message's veracity - but, and I hate to be tedious, it actually doesn't, if we are honest, confirm absolutely the message's veracity. It simply places the message in the group of events that can be postulated are part of what happened on the island in the few days they survived. A small point but vital given that the Nikumaroro hypothesis has a lot of detractors.
Logged

Irvine John Donald

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 597
Re: 3 Problems with Nikumaroro hypothesis
« Reply #38 on: May 07, 2012, 07:52:58 PM »

Interesting discussion.   The artifacts and post loss radio signals "support" the hypothesis but do not prove it. I don't think anyone has claimed they do. Finding the Electra with an ROV search will only prove that the Electra was found underwater at Nikumororo.  We can "infer" because the plane is there that AE and FN were also there.

Arguments can be made that this doesn't prove that AE and FN ended there lives there. Those arguments likely include photos of alien spacecraft abducting people.  However we have archaeological artifacts that suggest  a female of European descent was there at some point. Those artifacts don't prove it was AE.  So finding the Electra will support the hypothesis that the Electra ended its days on Nikumororo. And this, coupled with the artifacts, makes it a very compelling argument that AE and FN died there. But some people will argue this until AE's passport is found clutched in her skeletal remains under a tree on Nikumororo with a detailed minute by minute diary outlining everything that happened from the time she made the last radio call "We must be on you".   But reason shall prevail in the heads of reasonable men.
Respectfully Submitted;

Irv
 
Logged

Malcolm McKay

  • Read-only
  • *
  • Posts: 551
Re: 3 Problems with Nikumaroro hypothesis
« Reply #39 on: May 07, 2012, 08:42:56 PM »

But reason shall prevail in the heads of reasonable men.

You are not wrong - if something clear and undeniable is found at Nikumaroro that shows Earhart and Noonan were there then, as usual, only the folks in the lunatic theory fringe would deny it. As a former archaeologist in a profession noted for its reliance on the balance of probability I really hanker after clear undeniable evidence.
Logged

Gary LaPook

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1624
Re: 3 Problems with Nikumaroro hypothesis
« Reply #40 on: May 07, 2012, 10:15:26 PM »

Try this experiment with the next ten people you see (not Earhart afficianados), ask them if they will
participate in a little research. I have done this experiment already and I would like to see what results you get.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You can use this little script.

“Excuse me, can I ask you for two minutes of your time? I promise I am not trying to sell you
something or asking for any contribution, all right?”

“I would like to set up a little scenario and at the end ask you just one question, O.K?”

“Here we go. You are a pilot flying your plane across the ocean. There are many people waiting
for you at your destination island but you were not able to find that island because it is very small
so you went to a different island where you managed to land safely. You had attempted to
contact them by radio while you were in flight but, even though you heard them once, they never
acknowledged your transmissions so you are not sure that your radio was working while you were in
flight. You were not able to tell them of your diversion or what alternate island you were going to fly
to. You are now seriously overdue at the destination so you know the people waiting for you there recognize
that you must have come down somewhere else and you know that they will attempt to find you.
After landing you jiggled some wires and hope that you have been able to get the radio
transmitter  to work but you have no way to know for sure. Even if the radio will transmit you
don’t know how long it will continue to work, it might stop again after only a few seconds.
Because of the uncertainty about how long the radio will work you are thinking very carefully
about the message you should send. You want to make sure that the most critical and important
information is sent at the beginning of your transmission in case the radio fails again after only a
few seconds.”

“Do you understand the scenario?

“O.K. I am going to ask you one question but don’t answer immediately, think about you answer
for one minute before answering, O.K.?”

“Here is the question. What information would you transmit at the very beginning of your
transmission?”

gl

 
« Last Edit: May 08, 2012, 03:39:46 AM by Gary LaPook »
Logged

Malcolm McKay

  • Read-only
  • *
  • Posts: 551
Re: 3 Problems with Nikumaroro hypothesis
« Reply #41 on: May 07, 2012, 11:00:50 PM »


“Here is the question. What information would you transmit at the very beginning of your
transmission?”

gl

In my case it would be "(call sign) down at (position)" and keep repeating. Or if I was still a little discombobulated "HELP!!!!!! Fred's gone nuts"  ;D

I don't think I'd be too concerned about a suitcase unless Fred was trying to hit me with it for not repeating our position constantly. 
Logged

Gary LaPook

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1624
Re: 3 Problems with Nikumaroro hypothesis
« Reply #42 on: May 08, 2012, 12:10:42 PM »

Nice, but there's at least one problem with the 'answer' to that survey...

Ask ten people, and despite what I, Gary or Malcolm believes is rational, you may well get at least 7 different answers...

'We' can't know how AE or FN would have proceeded - especially if their conditions were worsening quickly for whatever set of reasons.

Worse, we can't even know for certain that they didn't send that information - we have a lot of scratchy bits and pieces from a troubled station.

Interesting to contemplate, but easy to over-simplify in our answers.

It's also only one aspect of the whole - the Niku hypothesis involves a great deal more than this point.

LTM -
If you do the experiment you will probably get results similar to what I got, eight out of the ten times I thought I was talking to a real estate agent, "location, location, location." If normal, off the street, people can figure that out it seams ludicrous (to me at least) that you can claim that two aviators couldn't figure that out. And, with your hypo, they had five days to give it a lot of thought. It just amazes me how far you guys will go to try to explain away anything that doesn't agree with your theory.

I was going to point this out on the older thread, Why wasn't Gardiner identified in the radio messages?  because the answer to that question was so obvious that, if it was a snake, it would have bit you! Because none of those messages came from Gardner, DUH! The Jacobson data base claims that there were 52 receptions that were "credible." Of these, 17 were in Mose code only, they were clearly heard, but contained no location information. So according to your excuse  then, she only sent her location in the messages that were not clearly heard. How did Earhart  manage to do that?

gl
« Last Edit: May 11, 2012, 12:08:30 AM by Gary LaPook »
Logged

richie conroy

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1412
Re: 3 Problems with Nikumaroro hypothesis
« Reply #43 on: May 08, 2012, 01:36:43 PM »

"Amelia Help Reef SE Howland"

u really dont wanna know what the others said  ;D
We are an echo of the past


Member# 416
 
Logged

Irvine John Donald

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 597
Re: 3 Problems with Nikumaroro hypothesis
« Reply #44 on: May 08, 2012, 04:02:01 PM »

I think Andrew made the best point on the post loss signals at the top of this page.  IF you believe that even one signal came from Gardiner then you believe that the aircraft was on land  and that the right hand engine could be fired up.  I personally believe in that "one signal" concept.  In fact you had 5 signals that triangulated onto Gardner that were received by trained professional radio operators in the Pacific.  All independent of each other. 

Now to Betty's notebook.  Betty had no idea what some of the words were that were being communicated.  She was hearing snippets across a great distance.  She did hear numbers and she did hear information that fits the scenario.  Well you ask, isn't that convenient?  Well not really.  Read Betty's notes.  You think she wrote those notes all those years ago so they would someday conveniently dovetail into a hypothesis someone might put together?  Her notes and information came first.  TIGHAR's hypothesis came after.  Its the same with Bob Brandenburg's post loss signal analysis.  He has taken historical information and analyzed it.  the information from both Betty's notes and the post loss radio signals came within days of AE disappearing.  TIGHAR has analyzed the data.  TIGHAR didn't create it.

The skeptics ask why there was no information about location given in the messages?  The absence of location information suggests to the skeptics that the messages were therefore ALL hoaxes.  Let me ask this question.  If you were going to play a hoax and report hearing a message on something like this then would you not want it to be believed?  Wouldn't you really include a location report as part of the false message just so it would sound authentic? 

Of course I am ignoring many good points made about the post loss signals that can be read in this thread along with the other threads on this subject matter.  But let me also ask the skeptics another question.  Why would Betty make false notes?  If she made false notes, and some people did make false reports, then why wouldn't Betty, a young girl at the time with no known motive, have created a hoax using "New York City"?  What possible value could that have in a false note? 

Someone who creates a hoax wants some attention.  Otherwise why create the lie? (Thats what a hoax is)  They give just enough to "sound" credible while not giving enough to get pinned to the mat.  What attention did Betty and the radio operators get?  What gain did they get from creating these lies?  How did these hoaxers manage to create information that so tantalizingly fits into the TIGHAR hypothesis? 

Skeptics have the right to be skeptical.  The problem is proving who told the truth and who lied. 
Respectfully Submitted;

Irv
 
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 15   Go Up
 

Copyright 2023 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