Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 9 10 [11] 12 13 ... 15   Go Down

Author Topic: 3 Problems with Niku hypothesis / inconsistencies  (Read 166112 times)

Malcolm McKay

  • Read-only
  • *
  • Posts: 551
Re: 3 Problems with Nikumaroro hypothesis
« Reply #150 on: May 15, 2012, 07:32:12 PM »


I am point out the illogic of saying that because the search flight didn't see anybody waving at them, we may (or must) conclude that the "signs of recent habitation" had nothing to do with the crew.  Search aircraft miss people waving at them all the time.

And one must also accept that in the absence of evidence to prove the point either way then the opposite is just as likely. But the fact remains that the Navy crew saw no actual human beings and what they did report was signs of recent habitation without actually suggesting how recent or where. While in 1940 Gallagher recovers parts of a skeleton which is thought to be a castaway's but which he also proposes might be Earhart's given the then recent disappearance, then that is identified as a stocky male which later is reevaluated (without benefit of the actual bones) to be a female.

Meanwhile the historical and ethnographic evidence shows that the Polynesians were probably the world's greatest seafarers and undertook regularly long voyages well into the last century. So I return to my first sentence and say both scenarios are, unless further evidence is found, are just as likely. So around in circles we go until something definite is found. 
Logged

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 3006
Re: 3 Problems with Nikumaroro hypothesis
« Reply #151 on: May 15, 2012, 07:58:07 PM »

And one must also accept that in the absence of evidence to prove the point either way then the opposite is just as likely. But the fact remains that the Navy crew saw no actual human beings and what they did report was signs of recent habitation without actually suggesting how recent or where.

That is an accurate statement of the case.

"The Navy crew saw nothing" is not.

Quote
While in 1940 Gallagher recovers parts of a skeleton which is thought to be a castaway's but which he also proposes might be Earhart's given the then recent disappearance, then that is identified as a stocky male which later is reevaluated (without benefit of the actual bones) to be a female.

The doctor took measurements.

As if he were a trained scientist, he wrote down those measurements.

He used those measurements in formulas derived from the study of fewer than 100 skeletons.

There is nothing unscientific or offensive to the good doctor in taking the data he left us and using it in calculations derived from the scientific study of thousands of skeletons.

That's what Dr. Kar Burns, a trained forensic anthropologist with a Ph.D. and years of experience in field work, did on behalf of TIGHAR.

Scientists often take data provided by other scientists and check the other scientists' interpretation of the data.  It is part of the tradition of "reproducible results."

Dr. Hoodless results are not reproducible, based on the improvements in osteology.

Yes, of course, it would be better to have the bones to study.  And the result of the FORDISC analysis is only a probability, not a certainty.  That, too, is fairly common in the world of science.

Quote
Meanwhile the historical and ethnographic evidence shows that the Polynesians were probably the world's greatest seafarers and undertook regularly long voyages well into the last century. So I return to my first sentence and say both scenarios are, unless further evidence is found, are just as likely. So around in circles we go until something definite is found.

FORDISC includes analysis of Polynesian features.  Of course, random mutations can and do happen, and a Polynesian might be born with European features, and vice-versa. 

No one is claiming certitude based on the FORDISC analysis.  TIGHAR has always talked in terms of probabilities, not certitudes.  That is why it has sent three teams to Fiji, myself to Auckland, and a team to Britain to try to find the bones.  We, too, would like to have them re-examined by professionals.
LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
Logged

Malcolm McKay

  • Read-only
  • *
  • Posts: 551
Re: 3 Problems with Nikumaroro hypothesis
« Reply #152 on: May 15, 2012, 10:50:11 PM »

And one must also accept that in the absence of evidence to prove the point either way then the opposite is just as likely. But the fact remains that the Navy crew saw no actual human beings and what they did report was signs of recent habitation without actually suggesting how recent or where.

That is an accurate statement of the case ... etc.

Oh I quite agree about the need for results to be reproducible - common problem in archaeology especially as scientific advances give new insights. But given the other possible alternatives which until, or if ever, additional skeletal material from that set of remains is recovered then we remain with the problem that whoever it was could be a gracile Polynesian, a late juvenile Polynesian, a woman of northern European descent or even the remains of a female castaway of mixed European/Polynesian descent. Complicated as ever by the presence of the bones from the Norwich City casualties who don't appear to be really accounted for, especially given the colourful saga of skeletons as recounted by Emily Sikuli, Pulekai Songivalu and Tapania Taiki.

I grant that the TIGHAR Nikumaroro hypothesis is well supported by circumstantial evidence - the reexamination of Hoodless's data, the final proven radio messages, the accounts of Emily Sikuli, and those of Pulekai Songivalu and Tapania Taiki regarding wreckage, the post-loss radio messages, artifacts found on the island that fit the time period, the size 9 shoe sole etc. But in the end none of those can stand alone without being given the major help of some purely imaginary theories regarding Earhart and Noonan's behaviour and their links to it, and that is the really big problem isn't it.

I know that the answer for some members of this forum is to argue that you construct a story and turn it into a hypothesis by trying to make pieces fit and that is how everything like this works, but that isn't really the way it works in science is it. In science or in any inquiry the individual pieces of data that are being used have each got to have their own integrity. If one or several of those has to have some help with achieving that integrity and its place in the hypothesis by fudging the edges a bit, or adding some conditions that are not present in the original data, then not only is that individual bit of data immediately rendered untrustworthy but the whole edifice is weakened.

Therein lies the whole problem with the data so far advanced to support the Nikumaroro hypothesis but I hasten to add that that is the problem with every other hypothesis advanced to answer the mystery of Earhart's disappearance. So far in many of the arguments about the data presented and its value I am reminded of what a friend of mine once wrote in a paper about ideas with similar tenuous links to reality "the thinner the ice the faster they skate". In the end this discussion has not proven that the Nikumaroro hypothesis has any more substance than when it was first advanced but that TIGHAR still has to find something solid and incontrovertible.               
Logged

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 3006
Re: 3 Problems with Nikumaroro hypothesis
« Reply #153 on: May 16, 2012, 03:14:20 AM »

I quite agree about the need for results to be reproducible

Great!

It had sounded as though you wanted to have it both ways: Dr. Hoodless was such a great expert that no one can question his methods or results, but such a buffoon that no one else can use the measurements that he used to generate his results.

Quote
I grant that the TIGHAR Nikumaroro hypothesis is well supported by circumstantial evidence - the reexamination of Hoodless's data, the final proven radio messages, the accounts of Emily Sikuli, and those of Pulekai Songivalu and Tapania Taiki regarding wreckage, the post-loss radio messages, artifacts found on the island that fit the time period, the size 9 shoe sole etc. But in the end none of those can stand alone ...

That's what is meant by a "circumstantial case."

No part of a suspension bridge "stands alone."

No part of an aircraft "flies alone."

If the parts aren't fitted together, there is no bridge or aircraft.

We agree that "none of those can stand alone."

Quote
without being given the major help of some purely imaginary theories regarding Earhart and Noonan's behaviour and their links to it, and that is the really big problem isn't it.

All experiments require "imaginary theories."  That's how scientists prepare an experiment.  They take an idea, imagine what the testable implications of that idea are, then construct the experiments before they know how the experiments will turn out.  If they are prohibited from using their imaginations to foresee what has not yet been observed, no experiment could ever be created.

In this case, the "experiment" being conducted is to "search the space toward which some circumstantial lines of reasoning point."  Tom King, who holds a Ph.D. in archaeology, explains why TIGHAR is searching Niku.

Quote
I know that the answer for some members of this forum is to argue that you construct a story and turn it into a hypothesis by trying to make pieces fit and that is how everything like this works, but that isn't really the way it works in science is it.

Asking the question of how the pieces fit together is not contrary to the methods of science.  If a theory doesn't cover all the facts, that may be grounds to reject the theory.  Fudging the data to make it fit the theory is bad, too.

Quote
In science or in any inquiry the individual pieces of data that are being used have each got to have their own integrity. If one or several of those has to have some help with achieving that integrity and its place in the hypothesis by fudging the edges a bit, or adding some conditions that are not present in the original data, then not only is that individual bit of data immediately rendered untrustworthy but the whole edifice is weakened.

You've brought back the "weak-link-in-the-chain" argument, dressed in a new metaphor.

You have expressed a philosophical view.  People have the right to philosophize.  Since your view is not a finding of physics, chemistry, biology, or archaeology, it is something freely chosen and advocated by you.

Quote
Therein lies the whole problem with the data so far advanced to support the Nikumaroro hypothesis but I hasten to add that that is the problem with every other hypothesis advanced to answer the mystery of Earhart's disappearance. So far in many of the arguments about the data presented and its value I am reminded of what a friend of mine once wrote in a paper about ideas with similar tenuous links to reality "the thinner the ice the faster they skate". In the end this discussion has not proven that the Nikumaroro hypothesis has any more substance than when it was first advanced but that TIGHAR still has to find something solid and incontrovertible.             

Yes, TIGHAR would love to find the "Any Idiot Artifact."  The organization has kind of noticed how useful it would be to clinch the case.  I think that is why it has spent so much time and money searching where it estimates the artifact is most likely to be found.
LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
Logged

Tom Swearengen

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 818
  • earhart monument, Hawaii
Re: 3 Problems with Nikumaroro hypothesis
« Reply #154 on: May 16, 2012, 05:51:09 AM »

Ok---Dr. Malcolm. Lets put it this way. TIGHAR is attempting to validate its 'circumstancial' evidence into hard facts----one way or the other.
I would think that archaeology is the same. some finds an old pot somewhere and thinks that it may be from a era that we need to know more about. So he or she convinces some freinds to g dig in the area and look for more. They think they have hit on Atlantis, but have not found the big energy station that propels the alien ships to Alfa Centari. But they find old wooden boat. Circumstancial to fit their theory? Maybe. So they dig and find a layers upon layers of ruins of a lost city with toilets, running water, a movie theater, and a gas station. NO cell phone towers, because they used telepathy. Did they find Atlantis? No, not at least to match their theory.
Just like TIGHAR------we all have theories. TIGHAR is going to prove, right or wrong, its land theory of the Electra, and in doing so, its theory of Amelia being on Nikumaroro.
So, IMHO and all due respect, this is archaeology.
Tom
Tom Swearengen TIGHAR # 3297
 
Logged

Malcolm McKay

  • Read-only
  • *
  • Posts: 551
Re: 3 Problems with Nikumaroro hypothesis
« Reply #155 on: May 16, 2012, 07:59:50 PM »

I quite agree about the need for results to be reproducible

Great! etc.



Strangely I also hold a Ph.D in archaeology, also a Masters, perhaps that is why I am interested in the archaeological aspects of the hypothesis and I understand quite clearly why you are searching Nikumaroro. There is nothing wrong about discussing possible scenarios but I learnt fairly early that all the discussion and chatter about possible situations lasts until something tangible is found.

I'll beg to differ about your definition of what constitutes circumstantial evidence, actually circumstantial evidence remains as such regardless of its multiplication. And I'll once more reiterate that when you use circumstantial evidence to build a hypothesis it is necessary for each of the pieces to be able to stand alone - if one is weak then anything coupled to it or built from it by combination is by definition weak. I see that you agree that none stand alone, but unfortunately the capacity for one or a number to stand alone is what is needed. That is why I posted as I did.

The Nikumaroro hypothesis is built on circumstantial evidence, some of it is interesting - the 157/337 message, that size 9 shoe, the reinterpretation of the Gallagher bones. Other parts are very weak - the post-loss radio messages and the highly imaginative reconstruction of Earhart and Noonan's brief sojourn on the island, the claims of  Emily Sikuli, Pulekai Songivalu and Tapania Taiki regarding wreckage and the relevance of the European artifacts. The requirement for TIGHAR is to find what it calls the smoking gun - something we would all like. If they do then perhaps some parts of the circumstantial chain will be proven.   
Logged

Bruce Burton

  • T1
  • *
  • Posts: 19
Re: 3 Problems with Nikumaroro hypothesis
« Reply #156 on: May 16, 2012, 10:16:57 PM »

And I'll once more reiterate that when you use circumstantial evidence to build a hypothesis it is necessary for each of the pieces to be able to stand alone - if one is weak then anything coupled to it or built from it by combination is by definition weak.

I'm not a lawyer nor a scholar/researcher, but what is the authority for your above claim? 

As a layperson, it seems to me that "circumstantial" evidence accumulates: more is better, and that although rock-solid proof is never achieved with such evidence, support for a particular hypothesis will grow until, at some point, the point of reasonable doubt has been left behind - even if there's no immediately apparent direct connection among the pieces of circumstantial evidence. Sort of like putting together a jigsaw puzzle.

Or, to put it another way: right now, if a reasonable person HAD TO select the best hypothesis for explaining AE's disappearance, since all the competing hypotheses merely consist of circumstantial evidence, would not a reasonable person select the hypothesis that had the largest accumulation of circumstantial evidence (no matter how unrelated the pieces may now seem to be to one another) and then conduct scientific research in an attempt to prove or disprove that hypothesis conclusively? 

IMO, this is TIGHAR's current mission. That's my 2 cents - and worth every penny.  ;)
« Last Edit: May 16, 2012, 10:19:08 PM by Bruce Burton »
Logged

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 3006
Re: 3 Problems with Nikumaroro hypothesis
« Reply #157 on: May 16, 2012, 10:22:31 PM »

Strangely I also hold a Ph.D in archaeology, also a Masters, ...

Yes, you've mentioned that before.  More than once.  I've noticed your claim to have credentials.

Quote
... perhaps that is why I am interested in the archaeological aspects of the hypothesis and I understand quite clearly why you are searching Nikumaroro. There is nothing wrong about discussing possible scenarios but I learnt fairly early that all the discussion and chatter about possible situations lasts until something tangible is found.

Ooooooh.  Did you publish that in a peer-reviewed archeological journal?  May we treat that as something reliable, Doctor?

Quote
I'll beg to differ about your definition of what constitutes circumstantial evidence, actually circumstantial evidence remains as such regardless of its multiplication.

You have my permission to differ from me. 

Quote
And I'll once more reiterate that when you use circumstantial evidence to build a hypothesis it is necessary for each of the pieces to be able to stand alone - if one is weak then anything coupled to it or built from it by combination is by definition weak.

That simply isn't true.  Strong things can be built out of weak components: ropes, bridges, skyscrapers.  Each part has to do the work of the part, not of the whole.

But I know you do not have an open mind on this question.  Yours is made up, just as mine is. 

Quote
I see that you agree that none stand alone, but unfortunately the capacity for one or a number to stand alone is what is needed. That is why I posted as I did.

Yes, I noted that you were returning to your assertion that the argument is like a chain, such that it is only as strong as its weakest link. 

Quote
The Nikumaroro hypothesis is built on circumstantial evidence, some of it is interesting - the 157/337 message, that size 9 shoe, the reinterpretation of the Gallagher bones. Other parts are very weak - the post-loss radio messages and the highly imaginative reconstruction of Earhart and Noonan's brief sojourn on the island, the claims of  Emily Sikuli, Pulekai Songivalu and Tapania Taiki regarding wreckage and the relevance of the European artifacts. The requirement for TIGHAR is to find what it calls the smoking gun - something we would all like. If they do then perhaps some parts of the circumstantial chain will be proven.

Yes, that is why TIGHAR is continuing the search this summer.
LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
Logged

Malcolm McKay

  • Read-only
  • *
  • Posts: 551
Re: 3 Problems with Nikumaroro hypothesis
« Reply #158 on: May 16, 2012, 10:30:26 PM »


I'm not a lawyer nor a scholar/researcher, but what is the authority for your above claim? 

As a layperson, it seems to me that "circumstantial" evidence accumulates: more is better, and that although rock-solid proof is never achieved with such evidence, support for a particular hypothesis will grow until, at some point, the point of reasonable doubt has been left behind ...

No, circumstantial remains circumstantial regardless of the quantity. It is when its apparent circumstantial nature is removed by proof of its relation to an event that it becomes proof. That's why in courts chains of circumstantial evidence tend to be avoided because they possess inherent weaknesses which can easily be exploited or refuted by defence counsels. That is what's happening in this discussion as the relevancy or reliability of the various contributing parts to the Nikumaroro hypothesis are examined - it is a bruising process but in the end well worth it. The secret is never to become emotionally attached to any hypothesis - that's when reason flies out the window.
« Last Edit: May 17, 2012, 01:12:54 AM by Malcolm McKay »
Logged

Malcolm McKay

  • Read-only
  • *
  • Posts: 551
Re: 3 Problems with Nikumaroro hypothesis
« Reply #159 on: May 16, 2012, 10:46:57 PM »

Strangely I also hold a Ph.D in archaeology, also a Masters, ...

Yes, you've mentioned that before.  More than once.  I've noticed your claim to have credentials.

Quote
... perhaps that is why I am interested in the archaeological aspects of the hypothesis and I understand quite clearly why you are searching Nikumaroro. There is nothing wrong about discussing possible scenarios but I learnt fairly early that all the discussion and chatter about possible situations lasts until something tangible is found.

Ooooooh.  Did you publish that in a peer-reviewed archeological journal?  May we treat that as something reliable, Doctor?

Quote
I'll beg to differ about your definition of what constitutes circumstantial evidence, actually circumstantial evidence remains as such regardless of its multiplication.

You have my permission to differ from me. 

Quote
And I'll once more reiterate that when you use circumstantial evidence to build a hypothesis it is necessary for each of the pieces to be able to stand alone - if one is weak then anything coupled to it or built from it by combination is by definition weak.

That simply isn't true.  Strong things can be built out of weak components: ropes, bridges, skyscrapers.  Each part has to do the work of the part, not of the whole.

But I know you do not have an open mind on this question.  Yours is made up, just as mine is. 

Quote
I see that you agree that none stand alone, but unfortunately the capacity for one or a number to stand alone is what is needed. That is why I posted as I did.

Yes, I noted that you were returning to your assertion that the argument is like a chain, such that it is only as strong as its weakest link. 

Quote
The Nikumaroro hypothesis is built on circumstantial evidence, some of it is interesting - the 157/337 message, that size 9 shoe, the reinterpretation of the Gallagher bones. Other parts are very weak - the post-loss radio messages and the highly imaginative reconstruction of Earhart and Noonan's brief sojourn on the island, the claims of  Emily Sikuli, Pulekai Songivalu and Tapania Taiki regarding wreckage and the relevance of the European artifacts. The requirement for TIGHAR is to find what it calls the smoking gun - something we would all like. If they do then perhaps some parts of the circumstantial chain will be proven.

Yes, that is why TIGHAR is continuing the search this summer.

Thank you Martin - I note some uncharacteristic snarkiness in your post.

The individually weaker materials in any engineering construction are used only where their applications don't compromise the load carrying capacity of the whole. But as you would be aware that in the far different world of scholarship the strength of an argument is no better than its weakest link because the whole is posited on the integrity of each part. A leads to B leads to C and so on. A wise scholar sticks to the strongest, least compromised, points. And I most certainly have an open mind about the Nikumaroro hypothesis, as I do about any other unproven hypothesis regarding Earhart's fate (apart of course from the kidnapped by aliens hypothesis, although if you have film of that I will quite genuinely be interested).
Logged

Adam Marsland

  • T2
  • **
  • Posts: 88
Re: 3 Problems with Nikumaroro hypothesis
« Reply #160 on: May 17, 2012, 02:59:01 AM »

Reading through posts in this thread, the one thing that elicited a repeated eye roll from me, again vis a vis the post loss messages, was the dimissal of them wholesale because of the lack of a particular type of content when, again, all of the post-loss messages, including Betty's Notebook, were garbled and partly or wholly unintelligible.

For all we know AE and FN gave lat/long on all of them, and it just wasn't among the very fragmentary parts of the messages that were picked up, or was misinterpreted.   To reach any kind of conclusion based on the content of the messages, when by and large, we really don't know what they were, is pretty silly.  And, in thus evaluating all the messages as "static", etc., the pesky coincidence of the multiple DF bearings on Gardner is swept under the rug once again.

I am pleased to see Malcolm acknowledge that TIGHAR has amassed a strong circumstantial case, which I think is a much fairer and, dare I say it, more objectively scientific assessment of the facts and theories at hand.

Don't have much to add otherwise.  Great thread!  :)
« Last Edit: May 17, 2012, 03:01:42 AM by Adam Marsland »
Logged

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 3006
Re: 3 Problems with Nikumaroro hypothesis
« Reply #161 on: May 17, 2012, 06:59:02 AM »

Thank you Martin - I note some uncharacteristic snarkiness in your post.

It's not the least bit uncharacteristic of me.  If you wish to claim respect because of your credentials, then you ought to respect the credentials of others (Dr. King and Dr. Burns, among others; even Dr. Hoodless, I suppose).

Quote
The individually weaker materials in any engineering construction are used only where their applications don't compromise the load carrying capacity of the whole. But as you would be aware that in the far different world of scholarship the strength of an argument is no better than its weakest link because the whole is posited on the integrity of each part. A leads to B leads to C and so on. A wise scholar sticks to the strongest, least compromised, points.

1) If you've done archaeology on "the far different world of scholarship," then your credentials apply.  If you haven't, then your claim must be evaluated on other grounds. 

2) You merely repeat your assertion that all argument is chain-like, and add the judgment (opinion) about what a "wise scholar" would do.

There is a tradition in the philosophy of science that one may question authority and doubt what others have proposed as true.  If I'm not mistaken, you may have mentioned that tradition once or twice in your meditations on the Niku hypothesis. 

With all due respect, I question your authority and doubt your assertions when it comes to questions about the nature of evidence and argument.  If this were an archaeological question, I would defer to your expertise in digging and dating.  But as it is a philosophical question, your credentials don't directly apply.

I've offered images (metaphors) by way of offering a different interpretation of how argument works.

Here is a brief discussion of the difference between direct and circumstantial evidence, picked pretty much at random from a Google search on the terms, but from the "Criminal Jury Instructions" for the State of Connecticut Judicial Branch.  Law is not the only field concerned with the nature of evidence and argument, but it is one with which many of us are familiar.

There are, generally speaking, two kinds of evidence, direct and circumstantial.  Direct evidence is testimony by a witness about what that witness personally saw or heard or did.  Circumstantial evidence is indirect evidence, that is, evidence from which you could find that another fact exists, even though it has not been proved directly.  There is no legal distinction between direct and circumstantial evidence as far as probative value; the law permits you to give equal weight to both, but it is for you to decide how much weight to give to any particular evidence.

Circumstantial evidence of an event is the testimony of witnesses as to the existence of certain facts or evidence or the happening of other events from which you may logically conclude that the event in question did happen.  By way of example, let us assume that it is a December night and you're preparing to retire for the evening.  You look out the window and you see it is snowing.  You wake up the next morning, come to court, and testify that the night before it was snowing in the area of your house. That is direct evidence of the fact that it snowed the night before.  You saw it and you came into court and testified to that fact.

Now assume that it is another December night, the weather is clear, there is no snow on the ground, and you retire for the evening.  You wake up the next morning, you look out the window and you see snow on the ground and footprints across your lawn.  You come into court and you testify to those facts.  The evidence that the night before there was no snow on the ground and the next morning there was snow on the ground and footprints across your lawn is direct evidence.  That direct evidence, however, is circumstantial evidence of the fact that some time during the night it snowed and that some time thereafter someone walked across your lawn.

The only practical difference between direct and circumstantial evidence is that when you have direct evidence of some fact, the main thing you have to do is determine the believability of the direct testimony given, the credibility of the witness.  With circumstantial evidence, you must first determine the credibility of the witness or witnesses and decide whether the facts testified to did exist.  Then you must decide whether the happenings of those events or the existence of those facts leads logically to the conclusion that other events occurred or other facts exist, and ultimately, whether the crime alleged was committed by the accused.

There is no reason to be prejudiced against evidence simply because it is circumstantial evidence. You make decisions on the basis of circumstantial evidence in the everyday affairs of life.  There is no reason why decisions based on circumstantial evidence should not be made in the courtroom.  In fact, proof by circumstantial evidence may be as conclusive as would be the testimony of witnesses speaking on the basis of their own observation.  Circumstantial evidence, therefore, is offered to prove a certain fact from which you are asked to infer the existence of another fact or set of facts.  Before you decide that a fact has been proved by circumstantial evidence, you must consider all of the evidence in light of reason, experience and common sense.


TIGHAR is not saying that it has conclusive proof of the Niki hypothesis--no need to attack that straw man again, Doctor.  Nor does it claim that there is no other possible explanation for the information found in its historical or archaeological research.  TIGHAR believes (without positive proof to back this belief) that the Niku hypothesis is the most reasonable fit with the data presently available and that, consequently, it is worthwhile to invest time and money to test the hypothesis.
LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
Logged

Tom Swearengen

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 818
  • earhart monument, Hawaii
Re: 3 Problems with Nikumaroro hypothesis
« Reply #162 on: May 17, 2012, 09:26:08 AM »

Well gentlemen--I dont hold a PHd, a masters, or any of those very important degrees. So, you guys are kinda out of my league. But-I can rationalize for myself. TIGHARS theory is alot better that Fred Goerners in the 1960's. Digging up bones on Saipan with very vague information and claiming to be possible AE remains, AND getting it right was pretty far fetched for me as a young man in the 60's, as is digging up bones at the 7 site and thinking they may be AE & FN. Sorry guys, I just havent gotten that one yet. Must be the digging that i havent come to grips with. So i appologize in advance for all the archaeologists on the forum. BUT-----the wreckage on the reef I guess interests me more. But----in reality for me its the JOURNEY---the intangibles that make up TIGHARS efforts. The theory, and the planning on how to test the theory. The searching for evidence to validate it. That's what sets this apart from all the others.
So, right or wrong isn't the question in my mind. Although I certainly want to find the Electra-to validate that AE was there. Then, Dr. Malcolm and the other archaeologists can do their thing, and dig in the back yard.
I do admire your work, as I do ALL of the contributors to this project.
Lets find the answers for we can look for another historical aircraft---the spacecraft lost at Atlantis---wherever that is.  See you all in DC---looking forward to it!
Tom
Tom Swearengen TIGHAR # 3297
 
Logged

Lisa Anne Hill

  • T1
  • *
  • Posts: 27
Re: 3 Problems with Nikumaroro hypothesis
« Reply #163 on: May 17, 2012, 05:35:11 PM »

Reading through posts in this thread, the one thing that elicited a repeated eye roll from me, again vis a vis the post loss messages, was the dimissal of them wholesale because of the lack of a particular type of content when, again, all of the post-loss messages, including Betty's Notebook, were garbled and partly or wholly unintelligible.

For all we know AE and FN gave lat/long on all of them, and it just wasn't among the very fragmentary parts of the messages that were picked up, or was misinterpreted.   To reach any kind of conclusion based on the content of the messages, when by and large, we really don't know what they were, is pretty silly.  And, in thus evaluating all the messages as "static", etc., the pesky coincidence of the multiple DF bearings on Gardner is swept under the rug once again.

Well said Adam!

Perhaps if Dana Randolph had heard the whole transmission that day he would have heard something like "we are down on an island with a large shipwreck - Norwich City - ship is on a reef south of the Equator" instead of only the last part of that sentence?
I know, I know...assumption on my part.  ;)
Logged

Malcolm McKay

  • Read-only
  • *
  • Posts: 551
Re: 3 Problems with Nikumaroro hypothesis
« Reply #164 on: May 17, 2012, 07:17:13 PM »


TIGHAR is not saying that it has conclusive proof of the Niki hypothesis--no need to attack that straw man again, Doctor.  Nor does it claim that there is no other possible explanation for the information found in its historical or archaeological research.  TIGHAR believes (without positive proof to back this belief) that the Niku hypothesis is the most reasonable fit with the data presently available and that, consequently, it is worthwhile to invest time and money to test the hypothesis.


I am very glad that TIGHAR like myself is open minded about the Nikumaroro hypothesis. However until what it calls the "smoking gun" is found then it remains simply hypothesis. My interest is in the  nature of the evidence and how much it can be relied on if examined in isolation. I understand your reference to the rules of evidence in a court case however I respectfully submit that in science those rules do not have much real force as in law there is also the room for mitigating circumstances and other factors such as illness, mental or otherwise, to allow room for a result that in itself will affect the final verdict. Additionally we have the reality that a jury can be swayed by circumstances which despite the evidence presented will go against what the evidence provides.  That verdict being the end product of that process. In science we attempt to reach conclusions free of extraneous issues such as mitigation etc. and only reflect what the data presented dictates. Courts of law allow for human frailty where they can - science doesn't.

But that aside, I cannot recall that I have called into question any of the qualifications of your team and in fact why should I. In any scientific endeavour, unless there was blatant and obvious manipulation of data, one trusts the capabilities of those who present their results. I certainly have never questioned Dr King's results and I cannot even imagine why I should. My assessment of the archaeology of Nikumaroro is based on his published material. Neither have I questioned the work of Dr Burns, again I have suggested that if the actual material was relocated then it would provide a surer basis for claims made about it. There is nothing unreasonable in that as far as I can see.

However none of that affects what is the primary purpose of this forum which is to discuss the Nikumaroro hypothesis and the evidence on which it is based.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 9 10 [11] 12 13 ... 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