Advanced search  
Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Down

Author Topic: Provenance of TIGHAR's weather scales  (Read 46519 times)

Heath Smith

  • T4
  • ****
  • Posts: 391
Re: Provenance of TIGHAR's weather scales
« Reply #15 on: February 04, 2012, 08:43:22 AM »

As far as the box search goes since they were reporting being on the 157/337 line an hour after they had arrived they would have had to been flying a modified search pattern as Gary had previously suggested versus an expanding square search pattern.

Your logic escapes me.  How does the fact that Earhart reported being on the 157/337 line an hour after they seem to have arrived at the advanced LOP mean anything but that they were on the line at that time?  Why could they not simply have been doing what Earhart said they were doing - "running on line north and south."?  On what basis do you (and Gary) inject an entirely imagined "box search" or "modified search pattern" into the scenario?  If you're going to make up stuff for which there is no evidence you can put the plane anywhere you want.

As I recall Gary suggested the search pattern initially and I agreed with the theory and I still do. While Gary and I disagree in many areas, I think that he brings a lot of good ideas to the table and this would be one of them. He seems to have quite a background in the area of navigation so I would be cautious of kicking all of his ideas to the curb and labeling contrary theories as "making stuff up". There are certain areas that are not knowable, despite the claims, so we theorize as to what might have happened using rational deduction. This is one of those areas of discussion.

As to the idea of the origin of the search pattern theory, Gary had suggested that conducting a search pattern upon arrival would be the correct thing to do given the circumstances (lack of communications, etc). That is probably obvious to any modern aviator, I am not sure if FN would have had this knowledge or not, perhaps Gary can chime in on that since he is the expert in the history of navigation.

From 19:12 GMT to 20:13 GMT they must have been up to something other than just circling around an empty spot in the ocean right? What would you be doing? I know what I would be doing, attempting to find the island in a methodical approach keeping track of time and distances traveled, in other words performing an improvised search pattern. In the meantime I would be on the radio trying to get help from my destination. FN would be busy attempting to get a new fix one way or another by any means at his disposal while simultaneously trying to spot the island himself.

The search pattern theory also explains why they reported being on "the line" 157/337 an hour after arriving to where they thought Howland should be. If you do not know where you are, "the line" offset by 40 miles is still "the line" because you have no idea where the real advanced line of position that passes through Howland really is. If they were on a line of position that passed through Howland, they probably would have found Howland. This seems self evident that the projected advanced line of position did not match reality.

Another reason that I believe that this concept has merit is that it is my understanding that FN could also be taking observations of the Sun during this time which would be 90 degrees to your direction of travel if you were on a 157/337 heading. If successful, he would be able to determine where they were longitudinally on the Earth. In the meantime, AE could be traveling long N/S legs in a search, then performing a 2 times the visibility range offset. The could cover quite a large area in a very short amount of time using this method.

Is this suggestion of a search pattern far fetched? I do not think so. I believe to that to go back and forth on the same advanced line of position (a calculated projection, a completely abstract construct without a real physical reference), expecting to find Howland on each pass would be the very definition of insanity, doing the same thing over and over expecting different results. They must have been in the area at 20:13 GMT as their signal strength was 5.

If you strongly disagree with this line of reasoning I would like to hear the alternative. What is the rational for staying on the line going back and forth (North and South as stated by AE)?

I think the only point of contention here is whether they would have used an offset. Is this really a radical departure from your line of reasoning? I think not.
Logged

Irvine John Donald

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 597
Re: Provenance of TIGHAR's weather scales
« Reply #16 on: February 04, 2012, 09:48:24 AM »

When they radioed "we must be on you..." it's because they believed they had arrived "somewhere" very close to Howland. Is it likely they just looked down for a big X marking the spot and not immediately seeing it decided to head south to the Phoenix group?  Not likely. Any time spent in the area, before turning south, could be considered searching. What the pattern used, if any, won't be known without a written record being found. All the theories you want to think up can be explored but to what end?  As Ric said "If you're going to make up stuff for which there is no evidence then you can put the plane anywhere you want.". I believe they did some form of search. Likely continueing on the line going north until fuel reserves for a trip south to the Phoenix group dictated the turning point. But we don't know for sure.
Respectfully Submitted;

Irv
 
Logged

Heath Smith

  • T4
  • ****
  • Posts: 391
Re: Provenance of TIGHAR's weather scales
« Reply #17 on: February 04, 2012, 09:53:44 AM »

Quote
All the theories you want to think up can be explored but to what end?

It was my impression that this is the point of the entire forum. You kick around ideas to see if something makes sense. Is the point to repeat what is known over and over?

Maybe I am in the wrong place.
Logged

Irvine John Donald

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 597
Re: Provenance of TIGHAR's weather scales
« Reply #18 on: February 04, 2012, 10:13:29 AM »

Hi Heath. You're in the right place. But I believe we "kick" around ideas based on facts and known evidence.  I have trotted out ideas here in this forum but have been told the same thing as you were by Ric and Marty.  Keep it to the known facts and evidence. One OS the things I have noted is when someone posts an idea on this forum it can later be seen to be stated by someone else as fact. Thats not good because someone then posts an idea based on that non fact and off we go spinning a story that has no basis in real fact. Thus hurting the purity if TIGHAR's testing of the hypothesis. TIGHAR has a reputation for strong research practices and not speculating.  My choice of words with "to what end" is only in reference to non fact or evidence based ideas.  Poor choice of words on my part.
Respectfully Submitted;

Irv
 
Logged

Harry Howe, Jr.

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 576
  • Nuclear Physicist(Ret) Pilot(Ret) Scuba(Ret)
Re: Provenance of TIGHAR's weather scales
« Reply #19 on: February 04, 2012, 12:43:05 PM »


IRV
TIGHAR has adopted the Niku hypothesis and is testing it. 
If you look up "hypothesis" in your Roget you will find the words conjecture, speculation, and  others.
The Niku hypothesis is just that, until proved,and other ideas that might explian the known radio transmissions and logical  conjectures should be allowed and explored.  That's what  a forum is for.  Throwing people under the bus because their ideas don't correspond with some element of the Niku hypothesis is unnecessary and disrespectful.

We don't know what AE was doing during that approximately one hour's time period.  Logic and common sense tells us that she and FN weredoing their best to find Howland.  Sounds like "Searching" to me.
No Worries Mates
LTM   Harry (TIGHAR #3244R)
 
Logged

Harry Howe, Jr.

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 576
  • Nuclear Physicist(Ret) Pilot(Ret) Scuba(Ret)
Re: Provenance of TIGHAR's weather scales
« Reply #20 on: February 04, 2012, 02:43:43 PM »


IRV
My last post wasn't directed at yours, rather it was in support of what you and I believe is the purpose of a Forum.  Maybe Ric, Marty and others will get the idea that "their Hypothesis" has.m't been proved and there are  other ideas that can be explored to explain what AE/FN did and why.

Two things we know for sure:
1.  They took off from Lae.
2.  They didn;t land on Howland.

After that, all else is conjecture (hypothesis if you prefer).
No Worries Mates
LTM   Harry (TIGHAR #3244R)
 
Logged

Irvine John Donald

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 597
Re: Provenance of TIGHAR's weather scales
« Reply #21 on: February 04, 2012, 03:09:44 PM »

Harry, thanks for clearing that up.  I have said now several times in this thread alone, I believe there was some form of searching done by AE and FN.  You don't fly to your destination which is waiting specifically for you with support staff, supplies and a brand new airfield and, when you don't immediately see it, throw up your arms and fly off to the Phoenix islands.  So I believe you and I agree on that. 

6 posts back Ric says to Heath and Gary that he (Ric) doesn't see their logic on an imagined box search.  Ric makes the point that if you're going to make up stuff then the plane could be anywhere. I believe that's what you're referring to. Several other forum posters have been taken to task for also suggesting none fact based speculation. Including me. 

I believe testing the hypothesis means we should speculate on ideas.  It was speculation by two navigators that got tighar started in the AE search.  But in fairness TIGHAR has had lots of incidents where non fact based statements were later used as facts in other posts. While I believe free speculation is what should be going on here I think it should have some basis in the facts.  I could speculate, wildly, that a Japanese spy stowed away at Lae, knocked FN out (head injury he suffered) and forced AE to pretend not to see Howland, fly direct to Gardner, maintaining radio silence (nothing heard after she said "we are on the line..") then the spy got away on a secret sub after landing at Gardner.   I don't believe those kinds of ideas really merit any time.  Heath and Gary's box search discussion was (is) interesting. And you never know where it will lead. My point about "to what end" was me trying to say that the non fact based speculation, while interesting, is sometimes "just interesting". It doesn't test the hypothesis.

You and I Harry I believe are on the same page. I think Ric's comment wasn't intended to be disrespectful and could have been phrased a little different. But I'm not trying to speak for him.

BTW. Harry I loved your two facts stated as you did. Clean and simple. No BS.
Respectfully Submitted;

Irv
 
Logged

John Ousterhout

  • T4
  • ****
  • Posts: 487
Re: Provenance of TIGHAR's weather scales
« Reply #22 on: February 04, 2012, 07:49:03 PM »

I suspect that Heath got Ric's attention with this part of his comment: "... they would have had to been flying a modified search pattern as Gary had previously suggested versus an expanding square search pattern."  I might even go so far as to hypothesize that, in general, making a "Amelia would have had to..." statement will always get Ric's attention.
Cheers,
JohnO
 
Logged

Gary LaPook

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1624
Re: Provenance of TIGHAR's weather scales
« Reply #23 on: February 05, 2012, 12:57:45 AM »

I suspect that Heath got Ric's attention with this part of his comment: "... they would have had to been flying a modified search pattern as Gary had previously suggested versus an expanding square search pattern."  I might even go so far as to hypothesize that, in general, making a "Amelia would have had to..." statement will always get Ric's attention.
Take a look at the standard search pattern information available here.

gl
Logged

Irvine John Donald

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 597
Re: Provenance of TIGHAR's weather scales
« Reply #24 on: February 05, 2012, 06:18:55 AM »

I suspect that Heath got Ric's attention with this part of his comment: "... they would have had to been flying a modified search pattern as Gary had previously suggested versus an expanding square search pattern."  I might even go so far as to hypothesize that, in general, making a "Amelia would have had to..." statement will always get Ric's attention.
Take a look at the standard search pattern information available here.

gl

Your link points to your site where you list technical manuals for performing a search.  That doesn't mean they performed a search pattern. What evidence do you have Gary that says they performed a search?  A radio message?  A written record?   No. That's the problem here Gary. You are guessing at what an aviator might/should do based on technical manuals and procedures.  But there is no evidence to say they did.   Now in your defense I might say that we accept certain information regarding AE's piloting the aircraft.  For instance we accept in the TIGHAR hypothesis that she put her wheels down for landing at Gardner. But no witnesses or pictures to prove it.  That FN took sightings with his sextant but no witnesses or photos to prove it. We accept these two premises, without evidence, as normal standard procedures a pilot and navigator would do. So why not also accept, without evidence, that a search was performed?  We just won't know.
Respectfully Submitted;

Irv
 
Logged

Heath Smith

  • T4
  • ****
  • Posts: 391
Re: Provenance of TIGHAR's weather scales
« Reply #25 on: February 05, 2012, 06:26:29 AM »


Irvine,

I think we can all agree on that. What I was attempting to do was to run through possible scenarios if it were the case, running through a scenario where DR was used since spotting the Ontario, testing the extremes of the possible DR error. I was not attempting to push the search pattern concept as a fact rather as something interesting to look at if no one had done so previously. I think we can end the entire topic there. In the future I will be sure to label things for what they are although I do not think that it should be necessary to label every statement as I think most people can read between the lines to determine if someone is attempting to establish a fact or kick around a theory.

Thanks.
Logged

Irvine John Donald

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 597
Re: Provenance of TIGHAR's weather scales
« Reply #26 on: February 05, 2012, 06:47:40 AM »


Irvine,

I think we can all agree on that. What I was attempting to do was to run through possible scenarios if it were the case, running through a scenario where DR was used since spotting the Ontario, testing the extremes of the possible DR error. I was not attempting to push the search pattern concept as a fact rather as something interesting to look at if no one had done so previously. I think we can end the entire topic there. In the future I will be sure to label things for what they are although I do not think that it should be necessary to label every statement as I think most people can read between the lines to determine if someone is attempting to establish a fact or kick around a theory.

Thanks.

Heath. I personally think your exercise around the Ontario has been interesting.  I don't think you have to label everything either. The forum readers are, IMHO, looking for speculation in this forum. I believe as you do that the readers can read between the lines and will make up their own minds about such speculation. But I think if we wander too far from facts then we get reined in a bit by Ric and sometimes Marty.  That's their prerogative as the owners and administrators of this forum. They just want to keep the forum from evolving into a place where we don't use facts at all.  And that's not easy.  In my opinion they can be a little harsh in how they word things but that's just me.

I look forward to reading more of your ideas Heath. They are interesting for sure.
Respectfully Submitted;

Irv
 
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 6121
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: Provenance of TIGHAR's weather scales
« Reply #27 on: February 05, 2012, 06:19:45 PM »

I suspect that Heath got Ric's attention with this part of his comment: "... they would have had to been flying a modified search pattern as Gary had previously suggested versus an expanding square search pattern."  I might even go so far as to hypothesize that, in general, making a "Amelia would have had to..." statement will always get Ric's attention.

You're right John.  Whenever someone starts"would having" I know they have missed the point of what TIGHAR's Earhart Project and this forum are all about.  Amelia Earhart and Fred Noonan have been dead for many years.  Although we have a natural curiosity about how they got that way, the circumstances of their demise are not historically important.  What IS important is what we can learn from the investigative process we use to discover what is true.  The Earhart mystery is merely a convenient and popular vehicle for exploring that process. 

Marty and I can, on occasion, be a bit harsh but it has nothing to do with whether someone agrees with TIGHAR's hypotheses or conclusions. We welcome skepticism and dissent.  Our harshness is an expression of frustration for those who advance their arguments using invalid methodology. As I've said many times, "would have" is a guess masquerading as a fact.  No one knows what Earhart or Noonan "would have" done.  There is nothing wrong with speculation. Speculation is essential to the investigative process, but if you want us to take your speculation seriously you must play by the rules - the same rules we play by.

1. Start with a "did"  (in other words, a fact).  For example, at 07:42 the Itasca radio log DID record Earhart as saying "We must be on you but cannot see you."
2. Having established your "did" you can then suggest a "might have." For example, Earhart and Noonan might have then begun a search pattern.  Now you have a hypothesis to test.
3. If you can find another "did" that appears to support your hypothesis, you may be on the right track.  For example, an hour later the Itasca radio log DID record Earhart as saying, "We are on the line 157 337.  Running on line north and south."  This appears to be Earhart's description of what she was doing to try to find Howland.  In other words, a search pattern, i.e. flying first one way and then the other on the 157 337 line.
4. Now you can try another "might have." For example, flying the search pattern Earhart described might have led them to Gardner Island. A new hypothesis to test.
5.  Are there any "dids" that support the new hypothesis?  And so on.


Did - Might have - Did - Might have - Did

There is no room for "would have."
Logged

Harry Howe, Jr.

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 576
  • Nuclear Physicist(Ret) Pilot(Ret) Scuba(Ret)
Re: Provenance of TIGHAR's weather scales
« Reply #28 on: February 05, 2012, 09:09:41 PM »


Ric
With  all due respect,  The Radio Log is an inanimate object and as such couldn't "do" anything. A human being, a radio operator. wrote the words "we must be on you but cannot see you" and attributed those words to AE.  Whether he actually heard those words or heard them spoken by AE is unknowable to us. For example, he "might have" been distracted and heard something, asked someone nearby what it was that was said, and recorded in the Log what that person, or persons, told him. 
Kinda like the statement attributed to AE that she only had a half hour of fuel left .  Many variables involved in evaluating Logs when searching to find out what reallt happened.
No Worries Mates
LTM   Harry (TIGHAR #3244R)
 
Logged

Heath Smith

  • T4
  • ****
  • Posts: 391
Re: Provenance of TIGHAR's weather scales
« Reply #29 on: February 06, 2012, 04:43:48 AM »

Quote
Amelia Earhart and Fred Noonan have been dead for many years.

I am not trying to prolong this conversation as I think the rules have already been set but isn't what you just stated a presumption of fact?

Where is the proof they died that day? They might have been captured by a tribe and lived for decades. They might have floated to some remote island and lived for many years. Is your definitive facts or is it based on common sense and preponderance of evidence? I have seen no factual basis for that statement. Demanding absolute proof is a slippery slope isn't it?

 I agree that I should been more clear when presenting a theory but I am also quite sensitive to a pot calling a kettle black.
« Last Edit: February 06, 2012, 05:23:32 AM by Heath Smith »
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3   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