Print

[Tim Collins]

As has been mentioned before in this thread, this is all speculation and as such shouldn't be taken as Gospel truth.
...

Thanks Jeff, sometimes people need to be reminded of that. And in the case of this thread I'll offer a quote from the first post (emphasis added) as a reminder:

...  It's just for fun so lets see your idea of what happened!

Question: On the assumption that Nessie is indeed what we all hope it is, at what point did it come to be? On landing? In which case the probability that one or both AE & FN had been severely injured as a result would seem exceedingly high (depending, of course, on how fast the Electra was going when it encountered the fissure). Or is it more likely that the gear became stuck as the Electra washed around in the surf?  I would tend to go with the latter

[Jeff Victor Hayden]

Would it make sense to say that it must have been the left gear that went pot-holing? The right engine needed to be above water and the prop not in contact with the reef to run the battery charging circuit?

[Adam Marsland]

I think it's totally subjective, and I told you why.  Your detailed response, which I think displayed a bit of confusion about some of the facts of the case, rather reinforced that impression.  But hey, man, that's great.  We're all here to kick around ideas and valid criticism is a part of that.  But you have to be able to take it as well as dish it out -- if someone takes the logical basis of your criticisms apart, that's just what you should expect.  If you're not used to having that done, I am sorry.  But it is a two-way street.
LTM, as they say...

Hello Adam

Nowhere have I seen where you have taken the logical basis of my comments apart. All you said was that I discounted some of the evidence without much comment. Some things are so vague in their material associations with the hypothesis or provide so little diagnostic evidence that comment is unnecessary. I commend TIGHAR for noting these limitations in its discussion of the items - it is a pity that some of their supporters appear unable to do the same.

Initially I was asked what my hypothesis was concerning the fate of Earhart and Noonan, which I answered by providing a brief synopsis of the four main hypotheses and which I qualified by saying honestly that I felt that there was insufficient evidence available for me to make a choice of any of them. To support my concerns I briefly mentioned the problem of the archaeology of the finds on Nikumaroro, as archaeology is the specific discipline in which I have some experience - Masters, Ph.D, fieldwork in various parts of the world etc.

My main fault it appears, is that I have not unequivocally accepted the Gardner Island hypothesis although as I recall I have never said that I don't accept it. All I have ever said is that it, like the others, remains unproven. If you find that hard to understand then there is no more I can say to make it clearer to you.

Um, no, Malcolm.  Again you confuse evidence with proof, equal consideration of evidence with blind acceptance...which is exactly the basis by which I did, indeed, question the scientific basis for your conclusions...as opposed to having an opinion or a theory you like, which everyone has a right to.

The issue is simply that you discard, or attach must less evidentiary weight to, compelling data points that support the TIGHAR hypothesis, for no objective reason.  You continue to talk about conclusive data, but evidence, as I continue to point out to you, need not be conclusive.  It's just information to be weighed.  I think it would be fair to say in the matter of the bones, that you elevate the first-hand examination of the bones to a very low standard of proof, despite questions about the doctor's qualifications, whereas you hold the information that TIGHAR has contributed to the question to a much higher standard of proof.  I've already stated, from the beginning, that there is conflicting data, so to suggest that I am advocating for accepting TIGHAR's theory blindly is intellectually dishonest to suggest.  I am merely pointing out that you are choosing to accept certain evidence as reliable and reject other evidence as questionable for totally arbitrary reasons.

That's fine; that's your right.  But it IS a bias in your thinking from my perspective.  And I've pointed it out repeatedly, and given you examples.  You just did it again, in the posts above, by affecting to make it about "unequivocally" accepting TIGHAR's  evidence as opposed to considering it fairly and equally with other data points at hand.

Perhaps if I restate the bones question in another way you will take my point:  the identification of the bones as a male native rests ONLY on Hoodless' evaluation.  Other than perhaps the physical location of the island, which also may have been suggestive to Hoodless, all of the evidence uncovered to my understanding points to a European female.  I am not suggesting that we throw out Hoodless' examination.  I agree that as the only first person examination of the bones, it carries considerable evidentiary weight.  I am saying that as one otherwise unsubstantiated data point, there is plenty of reason to call it into question.  The evidence is more than sufficient to ask whether Hoodless may have been wrong.  It is not the same as proving him wrong.  It doesn't need to be.  It's a question of weighing evidence equally and fairly.

[Adam Marsland]

Jeff -- Just so we're clear, I was suggesting that Gary's little scenario was totally nonsensical on day one, when we believe they had a working radio and gas and a battery and a plane that was likely to go over the reef at any moment.  It makes absolutely no sense that Amelia would abandon the radio and an injured navigator on the off chance there might be someone around, particularly if she was moving slowly.  She'd also probably hope that if someone was on the island, they would hear the crash and come to investigate. 

Once the plane was over the edge and/or the radio no longer worked, though, yeah -- no problem with Gary's scenario.  My issue was with his repeated assertion that that was something they would plausibly do as soon as they landed.  No.  Way.  Plus, not supported by the evidence we have, but that's another issue.

[Adam Marsland]

Very probably. I think there's a distinction here that maybe I'm not making clear enough.

Day one -- odds are there's no one on the island for the reasons you just said, and the radio is our best bet.  Stay put.

Day five -- no radio, no likely prospect of rescue, crappy location for survival, we don't know for absolute certainty no one else is here, or that there isn't some other human facility on the island (e.g. a bivouac).  Our best bet now is to go see what's here.

To me it's all about timing, and weighing the odds for survival of a particular course of action at a given point on the curve.

[Chris Johnson]

Day one is all about staying put, you have shelter, food, water and a means of communication.

Day 5 and yes you cut loose and look for shelter, water and food.

[Adam Marsland]

Day one is all about staying put, you have shelter, food, water and a means of communication.

Day 5 and yes you cut loose and look for shelter, water and food.

Exactly. 

[Oskar Erich Heinrich Haberlandt]

Scenario: After the landing, A.E. has one thought in her mind: "I hope there will be a search and they will find us!" Therefore she stays NEAR the plane, because the plane would be seen first from above. But then the plane is covered with water, and A.E. knows: "They won't see the Electra, so I must show them I AM HERE!" So she makes a big sign at the beach that could be seen clearly from above. She knows, that is the only way to save her life. SHE MUST BE SEEN!
And what found Lambrecht? No Electra, no S.O.S on the beach, no sign that would show him that A.E. and F.N were there. Nothing at all. And so I ask: WHY?

[Chris Johnson]

Because they were in tne forset looking for deadwood to make a sign when the planes flew other?

They wrote an SOS in the sand and no one saw it?

[Chris Johnson]

OK the bird lands and the left peg gets stuck somehow.  AE can still send radio etc for a few days.  Then at least one of them decamps to start a new survival thread??

[Jeff Victor Hayden]

Not so clear is when it might have sheared off the airplane, if that was the case.  The airplane could have been pinned to that spot in the early few days by the gear, and later separated - damaged trunnion mounts, etc. finally yielding to forces from the sea and wind. 

If the gear was wedged in pretty good Jeff and, I suspect it would have been as the Electra weighs quite a bit even on empty. Then it wouldn't take long for the wave, wind and tide action to tear the gear off because the whole plane, still bouyant at this stage, would be pivoting around the left gear trunnion mounts when the water was deep enough to float it, IMHO

[Jeff Victor Hayden]

Day 5 and yes you cut loose and look for shelter, water and food.

Chris, did they have 5 days supply of water onboard the Electra or 24 hours supply? If 5 days then OK if 24 hours then 4 days without water not good IMHO

You fly to an island, possibly circle it and then put down.  If it was inhabitated wouldn't the islanders come and look for you? Especialy if you can walk around the island in less than a day?

Good thinking Chris, easily overlooked point well made.

[Malcolm McKay]

Um, no, Malcolm.  Again you confuse evidence with proof, equal consideration of evidence with blind acceptance...which is exactly the basis by which I did, indeed, question the scientific basis for your conclusions...as opposed to having an opinion or a theory you like, which everyone has a right to.

The issue is simply that you discard, or attach must less evidentiary weight to, compelling data points that support the TIGHAR hypothesis, for no objective reason.  You continue to talk about conclusive data, but evidence, as I continue to point out to you, need not be conclusive.  It's just information to be weighed.

Hello Adam.

Tell me which compelling evidence it is that I have dismissed without proper discussion which in your opinion supports the TIGHAR hypothesis. As you will have read in my discussion of the skeletal data reexamination my main concern was the tendency for people to confuse the notion of probable with certainty so your comments regarding my concerns about it show an inability on your part to catch the subtle but vital distinction I was making.

[Malcolm McKay]

Scenario: After the landing, A.E. has one thought in her mind: "I hope there will be a search and they will find us!" Therefore she stays NEAR the plane, because the plane would be seen first from above. But then the plane is covered with water, and A.E. knows: "They won't see the Electra, so I must show them I AM HERE!" So she makes a big sign at the beach that could be seen clearly from above. She knows, that is the only way to save her life. SHE MUST BE SEEN!
And what found Lambrecht? No Electra, no S.O.S on the beach, no sign that would show him that A.E. and F.N were there. Nothing at all. And so I ask: WHY?

A very good question. I have always thought that staying on the shore near the Norwich City wreck to be preferable to going elsewhere on the island in that short period before lack of food and more importantly water overtook them. The wreck was the most naturally visible feature on the island and anybody flying there would be drawn to it as a starting point for a search. So staying near it is logical.

The largest land mass of Nikumaroro is at the north west corner of the island, it has coconuts and would be a place one could reasonably expect to dig a well with some hope of success. I am not suggesting that they dug a well - it is a possibility they might have briefly considered but the reality is that it would be hard work given their deteriorating physical condition and lack of appropriate tools. Not like in movies where the explorers expiring from dehydration dig frantically with their hands in a nice dry sandy river bottom and are rewarded with a muddy trickle. It would also serve as a good base for exploratory treks around the island - if the bones are Earhart's, something that I remain to be convinced of, then perhaps they are there because she simply collapsed and could go no further while searching for food or water after a rain squall, on a walk, a few days or a week or so after the landing. Why her purported shoe is on the other side of the lagoon is strange - carried there by a crab attracted to the leather? dropped as she succumbed to delirium? Not hers at all? Who knows but I would suggest that walking in bare feet would be both painful and very debilitating so perhaps when that happened both she and Noonan were at the end of their rope.

Noonan could have been with her, after all we are only extrapolating from a garbled and badly recalled radio message that he was injured, and he moved on, preferring not to remain in the vicinity of a rapidly decomposing and hurriedly covered body that was becoming a crab magnet and died somewhere else. All very tragic and good stuff for a reenactment in a TV special but there isn't much real evidence to support it. Just like any other reconstruction of their last days if they made it to Nikumaroro.   

[Gary LaPook]

Your only reason to believe that Noonan was injured is the message that Betty claimed to have heard. See Brandenberg's original analysis of the probability of Betty hearing Earhart. This shows only a one chance in 878 and that only existed for the first half hour. In the next hour the probability of Betty actually hearing Earhart dropped off to only 1 chance in 344,827!  For the last 15 minute period the probability increased to 1 chance in 50,000. The current listing for the Betty reception doesn't break it down into these three periods but it makes sense that the periods mentioned in the first Brandenberg table also hold true for the current listing, so after the first half hour the chance of Betty continuing to hear Earhart dropped off to Brandenberg's new estimate contained in the new listing of one chance in one-million-four-hundred-ninty-two- thousand-five-hundred and thirty seven (1/0.00000067 = 1,492,537) yet the claim is that Betty heard Earhart for an hour and 45 minutes. Or to put it another way, even Brandenberg, using all of his electronics acumen, ends up showing  that the odds against Betty being able to hear Earhart for the period that she claimed is 1,492,536 to 1.


gl

I just realized that I should not have said, based on Brandenberg's investigation, that there was only one chance in one-million-four-hundred-ninty-two- thousand-five-hundred and thirty seven that the signal would be received in Florida, where Betty lived, strong enough for her to hear it for the period of time she claimed. I calculated this by using Brandenberg's probability of reception, 0.00000067, and taking the inverse of it, 1/0.00000067 which produced the number I listed showing that there was only one chance in one-million-four-hundred-ninty-two- thousand-five-hundred and thirty seven that Betty could receive a signal from Gardner. The reason that I should not have said that there was only one chance in one-million-four-hundred-ninty-two- thousand-five-hundred and thirty seven (1,492,537) is because Brandenberg only gave his probability value, 0.00000067, to a precision of only two digits, two significant figures. Since he showed only two digits it is not correct to show the inverse of that number, one-million-four-hundred-ninty-two- thousand-five-hundred and thirty seven (1,492,537), to a precision of 7 digits even though taking the inverse of 0.00000067 produces exactly one-million-four-hundred-ninty-two- thousand-five-hundred and thirty seven (1,492,537.) So I want to correct my prior statement and instead of stating it to an unwarranted precision of 7 digits, only 1 chance in 1,492,537, I will state it instead to the warranted precision of two digits, 1,500,000 to one or 1.5 million to one. I hope I haven't confused anyone by my use of 1,492,537 to one instead of the more proper 1.5 million to one.

gl