Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 ... 28   Go Down

Author Topic: After the Landing  (Read 323296 times)

Adam Marsland

  • T2
  • **
  • Posts: 88
Re: After the Landing
« Reply #90 on: April 14, 2012, 08:27:20 PM »

My answer to that would be the radio would still be far and away their best shot.  But I think you are right that they could not be sure that it was working, though if the belly antenna theory was right and they fixed the problem, then they at least would know they had probably fixed the problem that had hampered them before and it should work. But it's a fair question and I'm glad you brought it up.  Though living in Los Angeles as I do, I'd suggest not embarking on a screenwriting career.  Though the sextant bash is kind of a nice touch.

There's evidence that they heard the KGMB broadcast.

If they discovered the belly antenna missing after the landing on the reef, splashing through the water, etc, how would they know that I was missing prior to the landing? Which brings up another thing, what antenna did they use for hearing KGMB?
You're in L.A., too bad, I met Jeff Neville at the Proud Bird restaurant for dinner a couple of weeks ago,


My understanding is they had a functioning second antenna (it was called a loop antenna, right, Marty?) that they were using for DF finding, and on which they heard the Itasca transmitting at 7500 kcs, and which, had they thought of it, they could possibly have used for receiving the Itasca's transmissions when things went critical and communication was not established.

As far as the belly antenna being gone...well, they wouldn't know, but since they hadn't picked up any messages from anybody, and there was a proximate cause for that discovered at landing, I don't think it would have been that big of a deductive stretch, do you? 

Anybody in L.A. can meet me over at Brennan's in Marina Del Rey tomorrow or any Sunday this month...I do a darn good Elton John tribute.  :)
Logged

Malcolm McKay

  • Read-only
  • *
  • Posts: 551
Re: After the Landing
« Reply #91 on: April 14, 2012, 10:02:20 PM »


So once again -- fourth time now, right?  It's about demanding evidence be conclusive or demonstrably vital to you -- which is both a subjective bar to clear AND misunderstanding what the function of "evidence" is.  I don't think the point I've been making, or my effort to make it clear, has really changed since the first time I've posted, and you haven't really struck me is grasping the distinction for whatever reason.  So anyhows, I'm tired of talking about it, cool?  Or more accurately, I'm tired with taking up thread space with it.  These tit for tats get boring for those not titting or tatting.

Adam clearly you have never worked in the sciences - "probability" is good enough in law courts if a jury will accept it. In science, which is where the Nikumaroro hypothesis is being tested, it is certainty (through replication) which seals the deal.

I could go on but I think you would rather be told what you want to know rather than what you need to know. I agree one can build a hypothesis on probability but in the end it will stand or fall on how the evidence pans out in the scientific analysis. So far I see an interesting hypothesis with a lot of work still needing to be done before it can be taken any further. I think that is how TIGHAR sees it also - why else are they still going back to Nikumaroro.
« Last Edit: April 14, 2012, 10:09:29 PM by Malcolm McKay »
Logged

Adam Marsland

  • T2
  • **
  • Posts: 88
Re: After the Landing
« Reply #92 on: April 15, 2012, 03:54:19 AM »

GAAAAHHHH....and round we go again.

Malcolm, "probability" is more than enough for a hypothesis.  Once again:  No one is saying the hypothesis is proven.  You originally said TIGHAR has uncovered "scant" evidence.  Bunk.  They've uncovered a ton of evidence.  Some of it is more compelling than others.  You may choose to accept it or not.  But it exists.  The evidentiary standard in law is also irrelevant.  We're talking about what evidence is by definition.  Any piece of information that bears on a hypothesis is evidence.  They are facts to be considered and weighed.  My background is in music and journalism but I do know enough about science to know that the bedrock of scientific inquiry is having an objective means of evaluating the evidence.  It doesn't mean rejecting any piece of evidence that isn't conclusive.  It means having a standard of weighting and evaluating the evidence other than "I like this fact and I choose to ignore this other fact."  TIGHAR has played by these rules.  It's the reason I respect their work so much.

"I think you would rather be told what you want to know rather than what you need to know."  Bunk.  I simply ask that people with strong opinions be able to defend them without resorting to circular logic and subjective assumptions.  I welcome being proven wrong when people can play by the rules and defend their opinions.  I don't mind being shown my logic is faulty.  I like it.  I learn something.  When people just make up their own rules, reach their own conclusions, and then imply intellectual superiority, it grates on me just a bit.  Particularly since I've now had to explain this same, to me fairly simple, concept five times.

I think we agree that it is an interesting hypothesis and more work needs to be done.  I never said, nor implied, that it is a proven hypothesis -- simply that you seem to ignore or discard a large part of the supporting evidence without much basis or other explanation, and that your skepticism is selective (e.g. Hoodless).  You keep responding to my posts as if I am insisting that TIGHAR is right and that I'm beating you up for not being a "true believer".  That's a convenient moving of the goalposts, because that's never what I said, and I ain't that guy.  I said your comments about the progress of the investigation betrayed to me a subjective, and thus unscientific, reading and measuring of the available facts.  And I told you why.  Specifically and repeatedly.  Put another way:  the logical basis for your skepticism of TIGHAR's hypothesis is much less convincing to me than that for the hypothesis itself.  TIGHAR's means of sorting through this stuff makes objective sense to me; there's no inconsistency in terms of their methodology; it's totally transparent to me why they weight this fact heavily and this one not so much, and why certain sources are trusted and others less so.  With yours, not so much.  That's all I'm sayin'.

If you choose to continue to pretend that I'm berating you for not accepting the hypothesis hook, line and sinker, and that I've been asserting that TIGHAR has proven their case, I have to conclude you're being wilfully intellectually dishonest, since I never said anything of the kind.  And was, I think, quite clear in that regard.

So we can perhaps move on:  how about you just say "I now understand that you feel that my evaluation of the evidence is purely subjective, and I disagree."  Simple, and refreshingly on point. 
« Last Edit: April 15, 2012, 04:27:33 AM by Adam Marsland »
Logged

Malcolm McKay

  • Read-only
  • *
  • Posts: 551
Re: After the Landing
« Reply #93 on: April 15, 2012, 07:19:09 AM »

GAAAAHHHH....and round we go again.


So we can perhaps move on:  how about you just say "I now understand that you feel that my evaluation of the evidence is purely subjective, and I disagree."  Simple, and refreshingly on point.

Adam, how about I simply say that sometimes I forget that I, a trained archaeologist (Masters, Ph.D) now long retired, approaches the analysis of artifacts at a site from a very different perspective to people who aren't. I can accept that you find some of the evidence compelling whereas I don't so I am happy to leave it at that. Anyway that is moot anyway because in the end it will be whether TIGHAR finds the confirmation that Nikumaroro is where Earhart and Noonan landed that will decide the matter - not you or I arguing.  :)
Logged

Greg Daspit

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 784
Re: After the Landing
« Reply #94 on: May 12, 2012, 10:50:07 PM »

Assuming Betty's radio signal, nessie photo, etc are true. 1st thing is they check the outside of the plane, see belly antenna is gone. Is it possible at some point she would taxi back to the shipwreck and try to run an antenna wire up the mast of the shipwreck if the plane could even taxi?(Im not sure if this is possible). At least get closer to the big visual point that is the shipwreck. Or at least taxi as far away from the reef if possible. Anyway they run into Nessie's pot hole and get stuck. They stay with plane while the radio can still send.
Fred sees to it that Amelia gets most of the available water and eventually his gets headaches from dehydration, eventuyally he dies first from heat exhaustion and dehydration.(another explanation of "complains of his head" from Betty)
After plane gets swept off the reef or destroyed. Amelia searches for water, food and shelter.
 Amelia finds a good spot but returns to the shipwreck to leave a marker or maybe try to write a message on the big billboard that is the ships hull before returning to her shady camp to wait for rescue. Unfortunately the writing she wrote on the hull gets covered or obscured by high tide waves when the planes flew over. If the image of the hull in the NZ survey picture was better quality it might be interesting to see if the white marks on near the bottom of the hull were once words.
3971R
 
Logged

Irvine John Donald

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 597
Re: After the Landing
« Reply #95 on: May 12, 2012, 11:16:14 PM »

Interesting Greg

What are you assuming she would use to mark the side of the ship with?  How would she get up the side of the ship to make the markings?  The ships side would be a big billboard but would AE be able to make large enough letters to be seen by plane or ship?
Respectfully Submitted;

Irv
 
Logged

Greg Daspit

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 784
Re: After the Landing
« Reply #96 on: May 12, 2012, 11:36:28 PM »

She would have to leave a marker, flag or banner close to what she could write on the hull to draw attention to the writing. It would not likely be readable from the air but the flag with something that was close that looked like writing could cause someone in a plane to take a closer look. She could probably wade out and only scrape off paint or rust with a rock, or chalky white rock. Maybe only 3 foot letters above the rising tide by then. The main thing is to leave a message for someone investigating the flag or marker. Like "AMELIA HERE - camped SE" next to a flag or banner.
3971R
 
Logged

Irvine John Donald

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 597
Re: After the Landing
« Reply #97 on: May 12, 2012, 11:53:19 PM »

You may very well be right. There is still a lot of the island that has not been examined as thoroughly as TIGHAR would like.  Wouldn't it have been really helpful of AE to leave a survivors diary? 
Respectfully Submitted;

Irv
 
Logged

Tom Swearengen

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 818
  • earhart monument, Hawaii
Re: After the Landing
« Reply #98 on: May 13, 2012, 07:19:33 AM »

Greg---the radio antenna is an interesting thought. If Fred were able, he might have seen the significance of trying to repair it. I'm not sure if Amelia would have.
The Norwich City billboard is also interesting.
But from Lambrechets overflight, I dont recall that he noted anything on the shipwreck indicating 'recent' activity, like a banner, a 'SOS' written on the side, or anything else. But at 400 feet , probably would not have. Gee---if there was, and he had seen it, the search would have been over 75 years ago.
Tom Swearengen TIGHAR # 3297
 
Logged

Greg Daspit

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 784
Re: After the Landing
« Reply #99 on: May 13, 2012, 11:11:41 AM »

Look at the white marks just left and below the anchor in the picture from the NZ survey from the Norwich City page.
I don't want to be one who sees what he wants but does it sort of of look like "SOS"?
I was thinking bird droppings might be a good pigment for paint
3971R
 
Logged

Brad Beeching

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 158
Re: After the Landing
« Reply #100 on: May 13, 2012, 11:26:46 AM »

I agree with Tom, the antenna gig is an interesting thought, but I don't think the plane was moveable after she put it down. I say this because the earliest reported radio receptions mentions Fred being seriously injured (Mrs. Larrimore)and one report (deemed not credible) even mentions that a wing was broken. There are also reports that said she was injured as well. Now I realize that all of this is just supposition, but think about it a minute, if it's possible, however slim though it may be, that maybe the report may have a basis in fact and the report may be true? If we accept that, I believe neither Amelia nor Fred would have been capable of doing that much activity on the beach at Niku. From what I've read here and elsewhere, the beach and reef during daylight is not a pleasant place to be, especially in a bare aluminum, poorly ventilated fuselage. I just don't know, we all fall into the trap of what would we do if, instead of what they may have done...

sorry if I ramble..

Brad   
Brad

#4327R
 
Logged

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 2982
Re: After the Landing
« Reply #101 on: May 13, 2012, 01:33:32 PM »

I don't want to be one who sees what he wants but does it sort of of look like "SOS"?

Well, sort of, I suppose.

Quote
I was thinking bird droppings might be a good pigment for paint

That's a lot of bird droppings.

It's high up on the ship's bow.

You'd need ropes to hand down to where the putative "SOS" has been "painted."

The first good rain would wash it away, mostly.

I don't find it very likely myself.  YMMV.
LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
Logged

Irvine John Donald

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 597
Re: After the Landing
« Reply #102 on: May 13, 2012, 08:28:49 PM »

Brad.....  Your point about everyone thinking what we would do versus what THEY would do is right on the money for me. For example, Malcolm and Gary have imposed the content rule for radio messages. "If there is no position indicated then it must be a hoax".  Why?  Because that's what they would do. It's what most people would do but why does the military have a training manual that tells you what to say in situations like this?  Why do we need nifty acronyms for reporting position?  To train you to remember!!  Because sometimes, not all the time, people forget the obvious. AND in this case you also assume they know where they are.

Respectfully Submitted;

Irv
 
« Last Edit: May 13, 2012, 08:30:46 PM by Irvine John Donald »
Logged

Malcolm McKay

  • Read-only
  • *
  • Posts: 551
Re: After the Landing
« Reply #103 on: May 15, 2012, 04:41:14 AM »

Brad.....  Your point about everyone thinking what we would do versus what THEY would do is right on the money for me. For example, Malcolm and Gary have imposed the content rule for radio messages. "If there is no position indicated then it must be a hoax".  Why?  Because that's what they would do. It's what most people would do but why does the military have a training manual that tells you what to say in situations like this?  Why do we need nifty acronyms for reporting position?  To train you to remember!!  Because sometimes, not all the time, people forget the obvious. AND in this case you also assume they know where they are.

My experience is that the military has training manuals because they want everyone to do the same thing, not necessarily the best thing  ;) , but that aside. However you must admit that if indeed those messages came from Amelia and Fred then they appear to come from a pair of idiots. Now while Earhart's flight is a bit of a publicity stunt rather than a serious attempt at furthering aeronautical science I doubt that either she or Noonan are idiots. In fact Noonan is recognised as a very competent navigator and I doubt very much if he would have needed a manual to tell him what to say in an important radio broadcast if one's life depended on it. In those days radio messages tended to be short and succinct and stick to agreed terminology and detail - Earhart may have been a bit ditzy on the technical side but all her messages tend to be workmanlike. That is why I find the intercepted messages that are claimed to come from the pair to be so out of character, the stuff of hoaxes rather than fact.
Logged

Brad Beeching

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 158
Re: After the Landing
« Reply #104 on: May 15, 2012, 05:22:01 AM »

Having been in the US military, I was not aware of any manuals that quite cover the situation that our intrepid duo found themselves in. There are survival manuals to be sure, but none that I have seen were available in 1937. What people seem to ignore when discussing the content of the radio messages is that NONE seem to start from the begining of the messages. All the reported conversation seems to be fragments picked up in mid-broadcast, we don't know, and can't know what she had been saying before or after the signal faded in or faded out. I suspect that after the excitement of the initial landing on the reef and realizing the extent of damage/injuries she may have been less than the cool, calm and collected pilot we have all come to know. Who knows? I'll put my money on a bruised, scratched up, scared young woman who is trying to deal with a situation she has no experience with. That she may not have formatted her cries for help in a manner that meets our expectations 75 years later, I can give her the benifit of the doubt.

Brad
Brad

#4327R
 
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 ... 28   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