Advanced search  
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 10   Go Down

Author Topic: Odds of Spotting Survivors from the Air  (Read 123216 times)

Bruce Burton

  • T1
  • *
  • Posts: 19
Re: Odds of Spotting Survivors from the Air
« Reply #45 on: November 16, 2011, 11:42:28 AM »

... I have not read anything put forward by TIGHAR on these matters that I cannot see as other than rationally based on hard-nosed observations.  I am also not very taken by efforts to debunk such rational observations on nothing more than speculation about what the weaknesses may be - especially in the absence of any stronger theory about what probably could have happened....

This statement sums up nicely my feelings about this particular thread's topic . . . and several other topics which have been similarly hashed over and over by some in recent months.  Early in the discussion, a skeptic's position versus TIGHAR's becomes established and clear; at that point some profit for understanding the issue has been gained for the reader.  Further belaboring and long-winded nit-picking, however, result in diminishing returns for the reader, accompanied by an increasing desire to just "move on." 

My two cents - and worth every penny of it.  ;)
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 5879
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: Odds of Spotting Survivors from the Air
« Reply #46 on: November 16, 2011, 12:02:20 PM »

Further belaboring and long-winded nit-picking, however, result in diminishing returns for the reader, accompanied by an increasing desire to just "move on." 

This is valuable input.  Thank you.  I'm always reluctant to cut off skeptics and critics for fear that we're trying to stifle dissent - but there are limits.
Logged

Harry Howe, Jr.

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 576
  • Nuclear Physicist(Ret) Pilot(Ret) Scuba(Ret)
Re: Odds of Spotting Survivors from the Air
« Reply #47 on: November 16, 2011, 01:16:40 PM »


Chris
We do know something about how the search was conducted and the key word in Lambrecht's report is "Sibsequent".  From that I deduce that prior to the "bird problem" at McKean the search circling was at an altitude of 50 feet and increased to 400 feet at and after McKean, including Gardner.  All we can say is that the search did not uncover anything related to the AE/FN disappearance.  Unfortunately, we know nothing about what Lambrecht meant by "signs of recent habitation"  Sie La Vie, Aci Es La Vida, That's the wAY THE COOKIE CRUMBLES.
No Worries Mates
LTM   Harry (TIGHAR #3244R)
 
Logged

Mona Kendrick

  • T2
  • **
  • Posts: 71
Re: Odds of Spotting Survivors from the Air
« Reply #48 on: November 16, 2011, 01:37:03 PM »



  All we can say is that the search did not uncover anything related to the AE/FN disappearance. 


     Or at least, nothing that was recognized as such at the time.
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 5879
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: Odds of Spotting Survivors from the Air
« Reply #49 on: November 16, 2011, 01:40:31 PM »

Unfortunately, we know nothing about what Lambrecht meant by "signs of recent habitation"

In a 1970-something interview with Fred Goerner, Lambrecht recalled that the signs of recent habitation at Gardner were "markers of some kind."  Not very helpful.
Logged

Friend Weller

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 152
Re: Odds of Spotting Survivors from the Air
« Reply #50 on: November 16, 2011, 01:57:10 PM »

From that I deduce that prior to the "bird problem" at McKean the search circling was at an altitude of 50 feet and increased to 400 feet at and after McKean, including Gardner.

If the number of birds on McKean were the roughly same in 1937 as they are estimated to be now (http://oceandots.com/pacific/rawaki/mckean.php), I wonder how the outcome of the search might have been different if Lambrecht, et al, had commenced recon at Gardner.  Would a lower-number bird population at Gardner (as was encountered during the 2001 Niku overflight) allowed the searchers to fly lower increasing the chance of discovery rather than "OK gents, here's Gardner; let's not risk scaring up the birds like we did over on McKean - stick to 400 feet."

Thoughts?

LTM,
Friend
Friend
TIGHAR 3086V
 
Logged

richie conroy

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1412
Re: Odds of Spotting Survivors from the Air
« Reply #51 on: November 16, 2011, 02:01:04 PM »

is it possible he meant campfires, as there would have been a trail from norwich city to seven site over the course of a week
We are an echo of the past


Member# 416
 
Logged

Colin Philip Cobb

  • T1
  • *
  • Posts: 16
Re: Odds of Spotting Survivors from the Air
« Reply #52 on: November 16, 2011, 03:53:12 PM »

Hello to all.

My first post here. 
I'm curious to know realistically what signs of inhabitation could of been left by Earhart and noonan in just 7 days. The signs that the pilots seen must of been dismissed as unimportant hence no real follow up.
Thanks

Colin
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 5879
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: Odds of Spotting Survivors from the Air
« Reply #53 on: November 16, 2011, 06:52:45 PM »


I'm curious to know realistically what signs of inhabitation could of been left by Earhart and noonan in just 7 days. The signs that the pilots seen must of been dismissed as unimportant hence no real follow up.

The Colorado pilots were under the impression that all of the islands had native populations, so we might be justified in assuming that whatever Lambrecht saw did not strike him as being uniquely non-native.  We might also ask what it was about whatever he saw that caused him to believe it was "recent."  So - what might Lambrecht have seen that was not necessarily non-native, would not be expected to survive for very long ("recent"), and might later be described as "markers of some kind" (plural).  If he saw a campfire why didn't he say he saw a campfire?  Or did he see several campfires and didn't recognize them as such and called them "markers of some kind?" 
What were the "markers" made of?    He may have recognized the "markers" as something that would be washed away if waves washed over the beach in a storm - hence they must be "recent."  Were the "markers" simply marks tramped out in the sand?  Cut vegetation laid out in a pattern?  If you're going to do that, why not spell out words?
HELP or even just AE.  It has always puzzled me.
Logged

richie conroy

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1412
Re: Odds of Spotting Survivors from the Air
« Reply #54 on: November 16, 2011, 07:15:31 PM »

they may have put the stones down to build fire on, if floor was damp or dig a small hole an mound cobbles\stones rnd to keep wind from blowing it out  :)
We are an echo of the past


Member# 416
 
Logged

Albert Durrell

  • T1
  • *
  • Posts: 28
Re: Odds of Spotting Survivors from the Air
« Reply #55 on: November 17, 2011, 06:25:33 AM »

The comment about signs of recent habitation "here" comes right after mention of a grove of coconut palms.  Could mean the signs were close to one of the groves.  Where were the groves in relation to the seven site?
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 5879
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: Odds of Spotting Survivors from the Air
« Reply #56 on: November 17, 2011, 06:49:03 AM »

Nice analysis Chris.

The comment about signs of recent habitation "here" comes right after mention of a grove of coconut palms.  Could mean the signs were close to one of the groves.  Where were the groves in relation to the seven site?

There were five groves of coconut palms on the island at that time - survivors of the Arundel planting in 1892.  Their locations were plotted by the 1938/39 New Zealand Survey and included on the map created from that survey.  As you see, they were a long way (roughly two miles) from the Seven Site.  I personally don't think AE and FN were yet anywhere near the Seven Site on July 9.

Logged

Colin Philip Cobb

  • T1
  • *
  • Posts: 16
Re: Odds of Spotting Survivors from the Air
« Reply #57 on: November 17, 2011, 11:59:01 AM »

The report is a frustrating one,
The lagoon at Gardner looked sufficiently deep and certainly large enough so that a seaplane or even an airboat could have landed or taken off in any direction with little if any difficulty. Given a chance, it is believed that Miss Earhart could have landed her plane in this lagoon and swam or waded ashore. In fact, on any of these islands it is not hard to believe that a forced landing could have been accomplished with no more damage than a good barrier crash or a good wetting.

So what we are saying here is " yes she could of landed in that lagoon" but we ain't going to investigate any further on it.  With this type of observation you would of thought Putnam would of read it and maybe sent out a landing party just to be sure.
It would be interesting to know if after the island search did anyone inform the pilots that "hey no one has lived on gardener since the 1890,s"
Did Putnam know this?.  Doesn't make any sense.

Regards
Colin

Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 5879
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: Odds of Spotting Survivors from the Air
« Reply #58 on: November 17, 2011, 12:42:44 PM »

With this type of observation you would of thought Putnam would of read it and maybe sent out a landing party just to be sure.

Putnam probably never saw what Lambrecht wrote.  Lambrecht was not writing an official report.  It was an article for the weekly newsletter of the Navy's Bureau of Aeronautics - not available to the public.  Nonetheless, Putnam did try to mount a private expedition but was never able to raise the money.  See Finding Amelia, page 238
 
It would be interesting to know if after the island search did anyone inform the pilots that "hey no one has lived on gardener since the 1890,s"
Did Putnam know this?.  Doesn't make any sense.

Who would inform them?  No one associated with the search had any information about the Phoenix Group.  We didn't know until we dug the information out of British archives.
Logged

Ted G Campbell

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 344
Re: Odds of Spotting Survivors from the Air
« Reply #59 on: November 17, 2011, 12:55:47 PM »

All,

Another interesting point that Lambert makes is that he doesn’t see the broad reef flat adjacent to the Norwich City as a possible landing site.  Does this imply the high tide was in and ruling out the flats and that left the lagoon as the only possible land site?

Ted Campbell
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 10   Go Up
 

Copyright 2021 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