Did Earhart carry parachutes on the flight to Howland

[Gary LaPook]

Could the parachute explain the white arrowhead feature that was never resolved?

We think we located the area in 2007 and searched it with metal deterctors.  Nothing there.

Nothing there in 2007.  But how about 1938.  Is there anything to exclude the white arrowhead as possibly two parachutes 'stitched' together to form what was seen in the photo?

Metal detectors - for cloth parachute?  If it was dismantled or taken away by natural forces, I doubt any detector would find something that is simply not there.

If it was a parachute and it eventually found its way downwind, I suppose the area to search would be further towards the lagoon, and not at the exact location seen in the photo anyway?

For metal harness fittings.

gl

[Gary LaPook]

Well of course the "I win" was in jest, lighten up. ;)

gl

N.B.: Excessive quoting eliminated.  MXM.

[Gary LaPook]

I didn't realize the Japanese were gunning for NR16020...

I didn't realize that either but there are those that believe the Japanese executed Earhart.

I was just giving a cogent example of a case were having a parachute available to deal with any kind of in-flight emergency over water ended up saving a life.

gl

N.B. Excessive quotations eliminated. MXM

[Gary LaPook]

I have written what Noonan did while approaching Howland (including using the "Landfall procedure" of offsetting to the north-northwest) and you always complain that this is just speculation. You complain that I have no evidence of what Noonan did but you are wrong, I have admissible evidence that would stand up in a court of law.

But this is not a court of law.  The objective of a lawyer in a court of law is not to discover truth - it is to win the case.  A good lawyer can argue either side of any given case.  You win by convincing the judge, or jury, that your representation of events is correct.  The rules of evidence define and limit what tools you can use to make your case but essentially it's a sales job.  Many an innocent man has gone to jail, or worse, because the prosecution "proved" he was guilty.  Many a felon has gone free because the defense "proved" there wasn't sufficient evidence to convict.  OJ walked.

I don't think that is a fair description of our legal system, Ric. Court procedures, rules of evidence, jury instructions, courtroom  control by the judge are all designed to place a discipline on the truth finding process and to help jurors think clearly when evaluating conflicting evidence and theories so that there is the highest probability that they will arrive at the truth about what actually happened. I recommend this as a useful way to consider the competing Earhart theories and evidence.

But, of course, this could be overcome by direct evidence that he was not acting in conformity with his training or with the customary practices in his field so this puts the burden on you, Ric, to come up with admissible evidence that Noonan was NOT doing that.

If this was merely a court of law I would cite your exhaustive testimony describing all the ways Noonan should have been able to find Howland and argue that the fact that he clearly didn't is direct evidence that he was not acting in conformity with his training or with the customary practices in his field.  I would then produce evidence that experienced naval aviators at Pearl Harbor in 1937 believed that Noonan would probably run southeastward down the LOP

That is technically known as "jumping to conclusions." It is certainly an easy conclusion to "jump to," the plane is missing and the line they said they were on extended on the chart does go to the Phoenix group, "Shazam, just follow that line." And in the back of the room a nervous Lieutenant j.g., sitting with a plotting board in his lap, the Nautical Almanac on top of it along with H.O. 211 navigational tables and papers and pencils says "Sir, I've done some calculations"...... and he then wilts away under the stare of Captain Fridell. "X.O. inform engineering to to light off the boilers and get steam up, I want to be underway in six hours." YES SIR! 

Any Navy Navigator that took the time to do the celestial computations would have told Fridell that you can't follow the LOP to Gardner (see a complete explanation here) and you have agreed that this is the case Ric.

; that experienced aerial navigators (Willi and Gannon) later agreed with that assessment

I certainly am not disparaging the competence or sincerity of these two gentlemen, I wish I had had the opportunity to meet them and talk to them about this navigation. But, in order to evaluate their theories, and to make sure you get the complete basis for their theories, you must ask the correct questions and, no offense Ric, I think we know from our extensive conversation that you do not have a very complete knowledge of celestial navigation so couldn't ask the necessary questions to flesh out their opinions, their reasoning and their compuations. This is what I have done for a living for many years, cross-examining opposing expert witnesses at trial and at deposition so that the jurors could evaluate the bases and reasoning of those experts so that they could decide whether or not to accept the theories being espoused by those experts.

;  that the post-loss radio signals show that plane was on land and sending distress calls for nearly a week; that the Colorado pilots saw signs of recent habitation on Gardner Island; that a photograph taken three months after the disappearance shows debris on the reef that is consistent with the landing gear of a Lockheed 10; that three years after the disappearance the bones of an otherwise unexplained castaway were found on Gardner Island, etc., etc., etc.

I'll get to this other stuff later.

The "jury" of this forum is a lot tougher than any jury you'd ever face in court. Many of them have expertise and experience that would never survive voir dire.

"If you have a logged radio transmission in which Earhart said "Noonan told me to pass on that he will not use the normal procedures for finding an island but will do something different this time" then you win but without that logged message, I win."

Gary, it's not about winning.

You're right, we both want to find out what actually happened.

gl

[Irvine John Donald]

Gary. I understand what you are saying about the court system. Presenting a case, either for prosecution or defense means you must use court rules to keep the process fair, reasoned and balanced. Then the judge or jury can make a decision on which side is correct in a fair proceeding.

Let me just ask you one question at this time. Do you believe some of the post loss radio signals were credible?  I believe that's a yes or no answer just like in the court system. I await your reply. Thank you.

[Erik]

For metal harness fittings.

I forgot about that - oops - duh~!  Even still, if the 'chute were not there anymore there would be nothing to detect anyhow.  Say it blew away, was salvaged, or removed.  My original question was whether or not the photo had anything that could dismiss the white object as parachute material?  It's dimensions fit within the dimensions of two 'chutes stitched together.

N.B. Excessive quoting eliminated.  MXM

[Gary LaPook]

Gary. I understand what you are saying about the court system. Presenting a case, either for prosecution or defense means you must use court rules to keep the process fair, reasoned and balanced. Then the judge or jury can make a decision on which side is correct in a fair proceeding.

Let me just ask you one question at this time. Do you believe some of the post loss radio signals were credible?  I believe that's a yes or no answer just like in the court system. I await your reply. Thank you.

To answer your question directly, no, I don't believe any of the radio signals were credible. I have been delaying saying this while I studied the Brandenberg analysis of them and I am close to the being finished.
When I am finished I will explain why I have come to that conclusion so please save the howls of derision until I have done so.

gl

[Harry Howe, Jr.]

Gary
Fair enough M'Man.  Be assurred that we wait with baited breath, or is it "bated), (I've always wondered what that meant) and pawing the earth with our hooves like the thoroughbreds that we all are. 8)

[Tom Swearengen]

Ok---another dumb question for those believing the Japaneese exucuted AE. How did they capture her? I would think that the lexingon and colorado search teams 'might' have seen any ships in the area----considering they were searching a large part of the south pacific. I think the Japaneese Navy would hav elot of explaining to do if they were that far south of the Marshall Islands.
I dont suppose anyone has some ships logs show any Japaneese vessels anywhere near Niku in 1937-1938. HUM----maybe they did fly a seaplane or 2 there, and thats how they did it. One landed on the reef, wheels up like on water, except the water wasnt deep enough, and it ripped the bottom out. Its remains are what is in the still pic that Richie and Jeff have been laboring over. The second planes crews were smarter--they landed in the lagoon, found AE and took her away.

Ok ---its nonsense----or maybe---
Stranger things have happened

[Gary LaPook]

Ok---another dumb question for those believing the Japaneese exucuted AE. How did they capture her? I would think that the lexingon and colorado search teams 'might' have seen any ships in the area----considering they were searching a large part of the south pacific. I think the Japaneese Navy would hav elot of explaining to do if they were that far south of the Marshall Islands.
I dont suppose anyone has some ships logs show any Japaneese vessels anywhere near Niku in 1937-1938. HUM----maybe they did fly a seaplane or 2 there, and thats how they did it. One landed on the reef, wheels up like on water, except the water wasnt deep enough, and it ripped the bottom out. Its remains are what is in the still pic that Richie and Jeff have been laboring over. The second planes crews were smarter--they landed in the lagoon, found AE and took her away.

Ok ---its nonsense----or maybe---
Stranger things have happened

Look at my prior post here.

gl

[richie conroy]

u only av to think about it to know truth !!!

if japan government claimed it, then wud be worth investigating but it was a solider on duty an ov u.s decent i think , electra's were rare them days so if u see 1 u wud immediatly think it the same one

also in Lae take off footage, amelia aint wearing jewelry so why wud she, then decide to put any on to be taken hostage

1 of the witnesses to execution on sapian, said they took them to lane in outback, they seen white woman get jewelry removed then executed

also the time it wud take to load electra onto a ship wud be days in 1937  :)

[Irvine John Donald]

Gary. I understand what you are saying about the court system. Presenting a case, either for prosecution or defense means you must use court rules to keep the process fair, reasoned and balanced. Then the judge or jury can make a decision on which side is correct in a fair proceeding.

Let me just ask you one question at this time. Do you believe some of the post loss radio signals were credible?  I believe that's a yes or no answer just like in the court system. I await your reply. Thank you.

To answer your question directly, no, I don't believe any of the radio signals were credible. I have been delaying saying this while I studied the Brandenberg analysis of them and I am close to the being finished.
When I am finished I will explain why I have come to that conclusion so please save the howls of derision until I have done so.

gl

Okay. Asking us to delay commenting on your statement above until you explain is fair. I await your explanation. However I think it's important to point out that Bob Brandenberg didn't make the radio calls. He analyzed the reported signals.  My question to you was "Do you believe some of the post loss radio signals were credible".  Not "do you believe Brandenberg's analysis of the post loss radio signals was correct.".  I'm asking if "you" believed any of the post loss radio messages were credible. There were many reports of these signals back in 1937. Those reports are not made up by Brandenberg or TIGHAR but by the people and media of the day.

My question comes down to the evidence of the day. Not the analysis done after. If your suggesting in your response that you don't believe the post loss radio signals were credible then I hope your awaited explanation is why you think all of the people who reported them were wrong or not credible and why. NOT why Brandenberg is right or wrong.

[Irvine John Donald]

Gary. In your reply 123 of this thread you say "What facts do I have to prove at trial and what admissible evidence to I have to prove them with.".

If you look at ALL of the different hypothesis out there on what happened to AE and FN and lay out the admissible evidence then which hypothesis is the most believable?  In your opinion.

You say in this thread that normal patterns of behaviour should be accepted and that allowances should be made for "What was likely to have happened?". Based on those principles which theory is the most "likely" based on what evidence there is. Not just TIGHAR evidence but based on evidence for the other hypothesis out there.

[Gary LaPook]

Post removed due to excessive quoting.

[Irvine John Donald]

Thanks Gary. That's perfectly clear. Do you believe they made a boxed search when near Howland?  How long do you think they had to do this search?