Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10 ... 28   Go Down

Author Topic: After the Landing  (Read 388652 times)

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 3006
Re: After the Landing
« Reply #105 on: May 15, 2012, 05:24:12 AM »

Earhart may have been a bit ditzy on the technical side but all her messages tend to be workmanlike.

Evidence?

How many of her transmissions on the fatal flight gave a fix for her position?
LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
Logged

Tom Swearengen

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 818
  • earhart monument, Hawaii
Re: After the Landing
« Reply #106 on: May 15, 2012, 07:41:41 AM »

best of my recollection, fixes, only approximations
Tom Swearengen TIGHAR # 3297
 
Logged

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 3006
Re: After the Landing
« Reply #107 on: May 15, 2012, 09:27:35 AM »

best of my recollection, fixes, only approximations

Here is a transcript of all messages received from AE's aircraft during the fatal flight.

It shows that people heard transmissions from her aircraft at times she was supposed to be transmitting, but could not make out what was transmitted (0418, 1410, 1415), which is related to the question of whether presumably legitimate transmissions from the plane might be unintelligible.

I suggest that this page represents the data that could and should be used to evaluate the claim that AE handled her radio transmissions in a professional fashion.  I will leave it to the professionals to make that assessment.
LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
Logged

Malcolm McKay

  • Read-only
  • *
  • Posts: 551
Re: After the Landing
« Reply #108 on: May 15, 2012, 07:10:19 PM »

And not a mention of suitcases in closets.  ;)
« Last Edit: May 15, 2012, 07:32:38 PM by Malcolm McKay »
Logged

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 3006
Re: After the Landing
« Reply #109 on: May 15, 2012, 07:48:05 PM »

And not a mention of suitcases in closets.  ;)

How many of her messages give a reliable indication of her position?
LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
Logged

John Ousterhout

  • T4
  • ****
  • Posts: 487
Re: After the Landing
« Reply #110 on: May 15, 2012, 08:58:16 PM »

"...How many of her messages give a reliable indication of her position?"
I'd say ZERO, but only if we include the Atlantic portion of her flight ???.  I'm not willing to rule out the unintelligible post-loss signals received  as not containing "reliable indication of her position", since there appears to be no "recording" of what those transmissions contained.  That is not to say those transmissions contained no information - the method of recording those transmissions includes a triangulated location for the transmission location, and a specific frequency.  I'm not an expert in the dynamics of sunspot activity as it relates to voice transmission frequencies and interpretation, but the idea that sunspot activity could somehow mimic a specific frequency (3105) transmission from a single apparent location that happens to coincide with an island group in the middle of the Pacific boggles my mind.  Perhaps I'm just easily boggled?
Cheers,
JohnO
 
Logged

Malcolm McKay

  • Read-only
  • *
  • Posts: 551
Re: After the Landing
« Reply #111 on: May 15, 2012, 09:48:55 PM »

And not a mention of suitcases in closets.  ;)

How many of her messages give a reliable indication of her position?

So in effect you arguing that the post-loss messages are genuine because they don't give a reliable indication of her position. Well that's one way of looking at it I'll grant you.  :)

For now I will stay with what I said in post #136 above which is a far more reasonable assessment of the place of the radio traffic in the hypothesis. 
Logged

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 3006
Re: After the Landing
« Reply #112 on: May 15, 2012, 10:14:33 PM »

So in effect you arguing that the post-loss messages are genuine because they don't give a reliable indication of her position. Well that's one way of looking at it I'll grant you.  :)

You were the one who claimed that her messages were "workmanlike."

You did so in this post, which is #120 in this thread if you prefer to find it by hand.

Since you like to argue from evidence, I asked you to provide the evidence for your opinion.

Whatever AE was doing, it did not conform to the kind of pattern others proposed as the standard for professional pilots.

Quote
For now I will stay with what I said in post #136 above which is a far more reasonable assessment of the place of the radio traffic in the hypothesis.

OK, so I take it you're abandoning your defense of AE's radio work as "workmanlike."

The post to which I am replying is #128.  Where is #136?
LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
Logged

Malcolm McKay

  • Read-only
  • *
  • Posts: 551
Re: After the Landing
« Reply #113 on: May 15, 2012, 10:55:17 PM »

So in effect you arguing that the post-loss messages are genuine because they don't give a reliable indication of her position. Well that's one way of looking at it I'll grant you.  :)

The post to which I am replying is #128.  Where is #136?

Whoops I was jumping to another thread entirely, #136 is here

http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,674.135.html

in the 3 Problems with Nikumaroro hypothesis

 
Logged

john a delsing

  • T2
  • **
  • Posts: 66
  • Minnesota Johnny D.
Re: After the Landing
« Reply #114 on: May 16, 2012, 09:36:44 PM »

One mistake I believe that most of you are making is that AE, and/or FN spent time at the 7 site. I believe that if AE did land at Gardner, both she and FN were dead by the time of the Lambrecht flight. Neither AE or FN ever visited the 7 site, let alone ever settled it. The 7 site was 'settled' by A) the Norwich city crew, B) the coast guard, C) the settlers, D) some other group, E) some or all the above. The 7 site has been a terribile distraction in finding AE; in terms of time, money resoures, and the uncountable false leads that it has generated. Many of you are a lot more knowledgeable than I am and I hope someone will pick up on this idea. If this line of reasoning is correct, it answers many of our questions.
The Earth is Full
 
Logged

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 3006
Re: After the Landing
« Reply #115 on: May 16, 2012, 10:12:19 PM »

One mistake I believe that most of you are making is that AE, and/or FN spent time at the 7 site. I believe that if AE did land at Gardner, both she and FN were dead by the time of the Lambrecht flight. Neither AE or FN ever visited the 7 site, let alone ever settled it. The 7 site was 'settled' by A) the Norwich city crew, B) the coast guard, C) the settlers, D) some other group, E) some or all the above. The 7 site has been a terribile distraction in finding AE; in terms of time, money resoures, and the uncountable false leads that it has generated. Many of you are a lot more knowledgeable than I am and I hope someone will pick up on this idea. If this line of reasoning is correct, it answers many of our questions.

What made--and makes--the Seven Site attractive is the thought that it might have been where Gallagher found the bones, sextant box, parts of a man's shoe, parts of a woman's shoe, corks on brass chains, and a Benedictine bottle half-filled with water, near "remains of a fire" with bird bones, clams, and a turtle shell near by.

Of course, we can get all of that material somewhere on the island by imagining cross-dressing navigators from the Norwich City who survived but didn't get rescued with the other men.  Or any number of other scenarios involving love triangles and stormy weather.

I doubt very much whether TIGHAR would have built up a reputation for doing good work if the Seven Site hadn't been studied so carefully.  I am sure that the Angel of Doubt will show up shortly to remind me that nothing from the Seven Site is the Any Idiot Artifact that we all desire.  The question of whether TIGHAR's work there has been or will be fruitful is something about which reasonable people may reasonably disagree.  I've placed my money on TIGHAR, and TIGHAR judged that the Seven Site was worth exploring.  The site has not been completely mapped yet; if it happens to be where the bones of the castaway were found, there may still be the odd tooth lying around somewhere.
LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
Logged

Malcolm McKay

  • Read-only
  • *
  • Posts: 551
Re: After the Landing
« Reply #116 on: May 16, 2012, 10:20:15 PM »

One mistake I believe that most of you are making is that AE, and/or FN spent time at the 7 site. I believe that if AE did land at Gardner, both she and FN were dead by the time of the Lambrecht flight. Neither AE or FN ever visited the 7 site, let alone ever settled it. The 7 site was 'settled' by A) the Norwich city crew, B) the coast guard, C) the settlers, D) some other group, E) some or all the above. The 7 site has been a terribile distraction in finding AE; in terms of time, money resoures, and the uncountable false leads that it has generated. Many of you are a lot more knowledgeable than I am and I hope someone will pick up on this idea. If this line of reasoning is correct, it answers many of our questions.

I think that you have a strong case regarding the 7 site.

The other problem it has, is that from an archaeological viewpoint it has too much background clutter created by artifacts from other equally possible sources deposited around the same approximate time period. There is no significant change in European material culture during the period 1937 through to the arrival of the Coast Guard personnel that allows any differentiation from what could be left by the aviators or the PISS surveyors and colonists. Any specific Coast Guard items can be differentiated but then the occupation debris reverts to its previous nature. This is something that as an archaeologist, I have remarked on before when I said in the thread on the Norwich City survivors and the 7 site that between 1937 and 1965 you have the presence of a meager but pretty continuous stream of general European detritus. -

"A. The short lived Arundel occupation in 1892.

B. The wreck of the Norwich City and the camp sites of the survivors, and

C. The PISS settlement from its initial reconnaissance in 1937 through to its evacuation in 1965 and which contains a short lived phase (C1) limited to the southern end of the island - the wartime US Coast Guard LORAN base.

All of these occupation phases are distinguished by the dominance of European artifacts so it is not surprising that a very brief (if it occurred) occupation by Earhart and Noonan is yet to be distinguished from the other three phases."


The fireplaces and faunal deposits really don't have much diagnostic value other than they could be from any time right through from 1929 to the abandonment of the island in 1965 (possibly even from the Arundel period). Basically the archaeology of Nikumaroro is a single cultural phase in which Earhart and Noonan's presence, if they were there, is ephemeral.
« Last Edit: May 17, 2012, 01:16:13 AM by Malcolm McKay »
Logged

Heath Smith

  • T4
  • ****
  • Posts: 391
Re: After the Landing
« Reply #117 on: May 17, 2012, 04:23:13 AM »


As mentioned on the other thread it is very odd that if the Seven Site is the Bones Site, Gallagher did not find other camp fires in the vicinity that would have suggested a larger group was in the area otherwise he surely would have reported it. I believe at least 7 fire features were discovered by TIGHAR at the Seven Site.
Logged

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 3006
Re: After the Landing
« Reply #118 on: May 17, 2012, 06:22:27 AM »


As mentioned on the other thread it is very odd that if the Seven Site is the Bones Site, Gallagher did not find other camp fires in the vicinity that would have suggested a larger group was in the area otherwise he surely would have reported it. I believe at least 7 fire features were discovered by TIGHAR at the Seven Site.

Yes, the count of fire features has gone up with every visit.

The phrase used by Gallagher is "remains of fire, turtle, and birds."

Complete skeleton not found only skull, lower jaw, one thoracic vertebra, half pelvis, part scapula, humerus, radius, two femurs, tibia and fibula. Skull discovered by working party six months ago — report reached me early September. Working party buried skull but made no further search.

Bones were found on South East corner of island about 100 feet above ordinary high water springs. Body had obviously been lying under a "ren" tree and remains of fire, turtle and dead birds appear to indicate life. All small bones have been removed by giant coconut crabs which have also damaged larger ones. Difficult to estimate age bones owing to activities of crabs but am quite certain they are not less than four years old and probably much older.

Only experienced man could state sex from available bones; my conclusion based on sole of shoe which is almost certainly a woman's.

Dental condition appears to have been good but only five teeth now remain. Evidence dental work on jaw not apparent.

We have searched carefully for rings, money and keys with no result. No clothing was found. Organized search of area for remaining bones would take several weeks as crabs move considerable distances and this part of island is not yet cleared.

Regret it is not possible to measure length of skeleton. No hair found.

Bones at present in locked chest in office pending construction coffin.

Gallagher 


If Gallagher had wanted to specify that there was only one fire, he could have said, "remains of a fire."

If he had wanted to specify a plurality, he could have used words to do so: "remains of seven fires" or "remains of fires" (as he did with "birds").

It is possible that he (or the radio man) left out "a" because that is common practice in telegraphy.

I don't think it is a knockdown argument to say that because TIGHAR has found seven or more fire features, none of them were the same as what Gallagher saw.  Nor do I think that I am obliged by the language of the telegram to imagine that there was one and only one fire site visible when Gallagher searched the area.  For me, it's an open question.  I understand that you take a different approach to language and will use your own principles of interpretation (known in my trade as "hermeneutics") to come to a different conclusion.
LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
Logged

Tom Swearengen

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 818
  • earhart monument, Hawaii
Re: After the Landing
« Reply #119 on: May 17, 2012, 08:37:20 AM »

Perhaps DR. Malcolm should have a visit to Nikumaroro.
Tom Swearengen TIGHAR # 3297
 
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10 ... 28   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