Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 14 15 [16] 17 18 ... 28   Go Down

Author Topic: After the Landing  (Read 279491 times)

Andrew M McKenna

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 645
  • Here I am during the Maid of Harlech Survey.
Re: After the Landing
« Reply #225 on: June 15, 2012, 07:39:05 AM »

Jeff

That is a great point.  Open terrain, 4 mile search visibility, 1000 ft altitude,

Gary would give it better than 50% probability of detection for a single pass, even up to 85% probability - YET - they were not seen out there in the wide open.

It just isn't so easy, even when the target is out in the wide open.  Gives perspective on trying to see someone in dense bush.

Andrew
Logged

Jeff Victor Hayden

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1387
Re: After the Landing
« Reply #226 on: June 15, 2012, 07:47:59 AM »

Another point to note Andrew was that the ditched crews could see the search planes but, they themselves could not be seen. So the altitude of the search planes allowed visual contact to be made but, only by the ditched crews not the SAR planes crews.
This must be the place
 
Logged

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 2951
Re: After the Landing
« Reply #227 on: June 15, 2012, 09:55:33 AM »

Sorry Marty but once again your point by point dismissal is as usual not coming even close to answering my comment that "Call me difficult (go ahead, I don't mind, I have a broad back) but I find it amusing that it can be argued that the undeniable fact that Earhart and Noonan were not seen is undeniable proof that they were there to be seen. It has chutzpah I admit.  :)  "

This is called a "straw man."  It is one of the logical fallacies identified and condemned in Carl Sagan's book, The Demon-Haunted World.  Demolishing an argument that no one has made is not a respectable scientific method.

Quote
And given the level of fruitless circular discussion on this particular issue I think that I have pretty much got that right.

I don't doubt your confidence in your judgments.

I doubt the quality of your judgments.

I question your authority.

Quote
As for the belief in the capability of Naval observers it is I who is arguing that they were performing well within their remit while it is you who believes that they were not simply because you just see them as shell splash spotters. You claim I haven't backed my claim, which I think I have, ...

The question in need of evidence is the nature of their training.

You have the burden of proof.

You have offered nothing outside of your own belief system.  No artifacts, no primary sources. 

Quote
... while equally I can assert that you haven't backed your claim that they were incapable of seeing a couple of stranded people.

Another straw man.  I have never said they were "incapable of seeing a couple of stranded people."  What I have said is that there is no indication that their education prepared them for that kind of search and that, therefore, those who claim that they were fully equipped to do such a search have gone beyond the evidence available.

Quote
Once again it becomes circular and such arguments are silly.

A circular argument presumes what it attempts to prove.  While I agree that circular arguments are silly, this is not one: If you have no evidence for the assertion you have made about the education of the six Navy men, then you do not have objective grounds for asserting that they were well-prepared to do an aerial search of Niku.

If by "circular argument," you mean that each one of us is repeating what we have said before, that may well be the case. 

Quote
Also this failure to sight them relies as I have continued to point out on a string of unproven assertions -

You have not stated my position fairly.  I make none of the assertions you listed.  I noted that the fact that the naval personnel did not see them may be accounted for on two different grounds: if they were on the island, then something kept them from being see; if they were not on the island, then that explains why they were not seen.

Quote
The list goes on so when I say half tongue in cheek that it would seem "that it can be argued that the undeniable fact that Earhart and Noonan were not seen is undeniable proof that they were there to be seen." I think I have pretty much summed up that component of the Nikumaroro hypothesis at present.

I think your "summary" imputes things to TIGHAR that TIGHAR has never said.  It is not a summary at all, but a misrepresentation of TIGHAR's position.
LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
Logged

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 2951
Re: After the Landing
« Reply #228 on: June 15, 2012, 10:14:09 AM »

Aerial observation techniques were highly developed during the "Great War" and there is no reason to think that the Army kept these techniques secret from their brothers in the Navy. Navy aviators did not just spot shell splashes they also scouted for other ships such as "the enemy."

I don't doubt that some of the aviators were good at seeing big objects at long range.

Quote
And this was not the first search for lost airmen conducted from planes. In 1927 planes were use to search for the missing pilots of the planes competing in the Dole Derby so search and rescue techniques were already developed ten years prior to the Earhart search.

The question is whether those techniques (if one search did, in fact, develop S.A.R. techniques comparable to those taught today) for doing a regular visual search for small objects were taught to the Navy personnel who were over Niku. 

Quote
Whatever disparagement of the skills of the Navy aviators the defenders of the Gardner hypothesis feel compelled to make, the commanders of the Colorado and the Lexington felt otherwise and they had current knowledge of the skill and training that the aviators possessed. If the commanders did not believe that the aviators had the necessary skill to spot Earhart then there would have been no reason to launch the search planes.

The commanders were commanded to go search.  They used the resources they had on board.  I don't deny their conviction that it would be easy to spot folks on tropical islands from the air.  I question whether that is a reasonable conviction, since they hadn't had any practice at doing so in the Great War and the Little War hadn't yet begun to produce wrecks and survivors in the Pacific Theater.
 
Quote
Any time a piece of evidence points away from the TIGHAR hypothesis, the defenders of the faith jump up to disparage it.

And believers in a different faith jump up to state their creed.

Strange things do happen.

An improbability is not the same thing as an impossibility.

A probability is not the same thing as a certainty.

You credit the six men (like Malcolm, without providing evidence of S.A.R. training) with so much skill that you conclude it is highly unlikely that AE and FN were on the island.  I do not give the men or their training that much credit, and rate the odds of them missing AE and FN (if they were on the island) higher than you do.

This is something about which reasonable people may reasonably disagree.

No more faith is involved on one side than the other.

Quote
I have never claimed that the failure to spot them on the island proved that they were not on the island. Even with a high probability of detection, it is just that, a probability, and it is never a certainty.

OK.  I made the same point above before reading these lines.

Quote
But it does provide one more piece of evidence on the not TIGHAR end of the scale, it doesn't prove it.

That sentence is a train wreck, and it doesn't quite follow from the concession you have just made about probabilities and certainties.

Quote
The TIGHAR enthusiasts pile everything they can find on the island (unless it has a clear date on it of 1938 or later) on their end of the scale as additional evidence of Earhart being on the island so it is certainly fair for me to bring up evidence pointing in the other direction.

Let's use parallel construction: you are also an enthusiast making judgments for which you are responsible.  If you call the material you are using "evidence," then you should also call the material used by your opponents "evidence."  If the proper description is "bringing up evidence" for what you do, then you should use that same neutral language for what your opponents do.

Otherwise, you are slanting the playing field rhetorically.   You say either view could be right, but portray those who view things differently from you as merely "piling up stuff on the scale," while you, the reasonable man, are "bringing up evidence."
LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
Logged

Tom Bryant

  • T1
  • *
  • Posts: 25
Re: After the Landing
« Reply #229 on: June 15, 2012, 02:21:53 PM »

While I agree that it is important for those of us in the discussion to establish what we base our assumptions on I find it equally important to remember that some people assume that because an assumption is made that the person making the assumption is presenting it as "proof" of their argument. Perhaps the strength and passion that some bring to their assumptive argument can give that impression but in fact I do not see that from either "side" of the discussion. Debates of this nature can quickly get skewed and/or misinterpreted from "my point proves my assumption to my assumption proves my point" so its good that we do not hesitate to challenge or seek clarification.
As I wander around this excellent site I do see some spirited sacred cow poking and perhaps a certain amount of that is to try to help each other maintain perspective and to a certain extent (recognizing the often passionate defense and offence that can be mustered at the drop of a hat) the poking is just to make somebody squeal.
Many of the arguments presented are Schrodinger's Cat-like.
Arguing probabilities is a good part of what this site is about and the polarization down the dead cat/live cat/both dead and alive cat keeps everybody in fighting trim and on their toes so I say bully for us. LOL
Were AE and FN on the island? Did the fliers miss them? Did the plane come down elsewhere?
Did anybody else just hear a cat meow?


"Well... it seemed like a good idea at the time"
 
Logged

richie conroy

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1412
Re: After the Landing
« Reply #230 on: June 15, 2012, 04:14:45 PM »

I base mine on fact for a couple reason's

1) Tighar has done the leg work, searched the archives, done the ground work literally, and have gone on the documented evidence available to highlight the reason's to exhaust the Niku Hypothesis, The July expedition has of this time, got the best chance of producing the smoking gun...

for me the wire and rope video, produce's enough evidence to search the reef than any other evidence found on Niku

so me personally it's just a formality the fourth coming expedition

2) the other search partys Hypothesis, just don't have the evidence at this time to proceed with a now or ever valued search no matter what they are...     

As for  u Malcolm to dismiss the Niku Hypothesis before all options have been exhausted is just bizarre, considering your a DR e.t.c

I However admire your timing of joining the site an disproving the Tighar Hypothesis when

1) Tighar are in the news

2) The One person who would put you straight (apart from Marty  :) ) is busy else were

Based on evidence none come close to Tighar's

 :)

 
We are an echo of the past


Member# 416
 
Logged

richie conroy

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1412
Re: After the Landing
« Reply #231 on: June 15, 2012, 04:19:25 PM »

until the Niku Hypothesis is proved wrong, it still the best out there  :)

We are an echo of the past


Member# 416
 
Logged

Jeff Victor Hayden

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1387
Re: After the Landing
« Reply #232 on: June 15, 2012, 06:19:28 PM »

The examples I gave in my previous post in this thread were based on what actually happened as opposed to what should have happened according to a training manual/book/set of tables/theory/choice of crew/experience etc...

Some 70 feet down, Zamperini finally forced his way out of the sinking plane, scraping the skin off his back as he squeezed through a hole in the fuselage. He surfaced and caught his breath only to see fire, smoke, and debris on the water. “Swallowing a nauseous saltwater mixed with gasoline, oil, hydraulic fluid, and blood, I somehow managed to inflate my Mae West—my life jacket,” he says. “Then I noticed two crewmen about 20 feet away clinging to the side of a gas-tank float. I managed to grab onto a portion of a nylon parachute cord that was attached to an inflatable life raft. I climbed in, unhooked the oars, and rowed over to pick up our pilot, Russell Phillips, who was badly injured, and pulled him up into the raft. Then Francis McNamara, our tail-gunner, made it in. We were the only three survivors of the eleven-man crew.

“The next two days we saw B-25s searching for us, but they did not notice our flares or dye markers.

http://www.americainwwii.com/stories/luckylouie.html

Peering intently into the distance, all seven men strained their eyes against the dark clouds.  Then they saw it, a single-engine pontoon boat flying low through the squall about five miles away.  Bartek stood up in the raft he now shared with Rickenbacker and Adamson, Rick steadying him against the crash of the ocean swells, to wave his shirt.  All seven men, including Adamson, yelled at the top of their voices.  Then the dark clouds obscured the small plane in the distance and it disappeared.  The men had gone unseen on the dark waters.

Still, for the first time in nineteen days the doomed men saw signs of life beyond the rims of their raft.  A new optimism began to grow.

 
 
Day 19

The rain that had refreshed the seven survivors intermittently became more steady with the dawn.   By early afternoon the waves had become large, white-capped swells.  Water had been collected that might last for several more days.  Suddenly Captain Cherry yelled above the howl of the winds:

"I hear a plane.  Listen!"


 

Day 20 & 21

Two more similar airplanes appeared in the distant skies the following day.  The men had no way of knowing if they were American or Japanese aircraft, but by this time it mattered little.  Besides, neither pilot noticed the three small rafts that floated on the wide expanse of the Pacific Ocean.

Four more airplanes appeared on the distant horizon early the following day, but again the men in the rafts went unseen.  During the afternoon the survivors were able to scoop up several small minnows that swarmed around the raft, a most welcome meal at a time when hopes began once again to sag.  As the day wore on, no more aircraft were spotted.  Rick feared that perhaps the rafts had been near an island base, then floated on past.


http://www.homeofheroes.com/wings/part1/8_newwar.html


This must be the place
 
Logged

john a delsing

  • T2
  • **
  • Posts: 66
  • Minnesota Johnny D.
Re: After the Landing
« Reply #233 on: June 15, 2012, 07:43:35 PM »

I happen to be a believer, but I think malcum is pointing out that after 23 years of searching, thousand of man hours working on this hypothesis, and millions of dollars, we still have zero proof, and he is right.
The Earth is Full
 
Logged

Malcolm McKay

  • Read-only
  • *
  • Posts: 551
Re: After the Landing
« Reply #234 on: June 15, 2012, 08:41:50 PM »


As for  u Malcolm to dismiss the Niku Hypothesis before all options have been exhausted is just bizarre, considering your a DR e.t.c

I However admire your timing of joining the site an disproving the Tighar Hypothesis when

1) Tighar are in the news

2) The One person who would put you straight (apart from Marty  :) ) is busy else were

Based on evidence none come close to Tighar's

 :)

 

And Richie I admire your demonstrated ability to discern aircraft components in amorphous blobs of coral debris.   ;)

You appear to forget the meanings of "hypothesis" and "proof". So far not even the management of TIGHAR have produced proof positive that Earhart and Noonan were on Nikumaroro. If they had we wouldn't be debating the value of the evidence offered to support the hypothesis.
Logged

Malcolm McKay

  • Read-only
  • *
  • Posts: 551
Re: After the Landing
« Reply #235 on: June 15, 2012, 08:58:26 PM »


Quote
Also this failure to sight them relies as I have continued to point out on a string of unproven assertions -

You have not stated my position fairly.  I make none of the assertions you listed.  I noted that the fact that the naval personnel did not see them may be accounted for on two different grounds: if they were on the island, then something kept them from being see; if they were not on the island, then that explains why they were not seen.


I have deleted the parts not germane to the argument.

Gary has summarised the objections to the disparagement of the Naval aviators observational skills quite well, as have I in my humble way. The point remains that they did not see Earhart and Noonan, they were not untrained amateurs and there is a certain air of convenience in the excuses offered to explain the failure to sight the missing pair. None of which however rules out completely their presence at any time on the island, but nevertheless disparaging the aviators' skills and positing unproven scenarios to explain this are not evidence of any acceptable kind.

Further I will state again that there is a tacit intent in the arguments of those who support the Nikumaroro hypothesis to denigrate the capacity of the Naval aviators in order to strengthen their arguments. You might also note Marty that nowhere have I accused the TIGHAR organization of this, only some of the supporters - a very different thing. In fact throughout the discussion of the evidence offered in support of the Nikumaroro hypothesis I have been at pains to state that I find no fault in the presentation of the evidence offered be it documentary or artifacts. At all times I have restricted my analysis to the evidence itself without any gratuitous comments that might be construed otherwise.

I find much of the evidence to be circumstantial and very thin - I do not retreat from that position, however I will accept evidence that clearly and unambiguously can be connected to Earhart and Noonan. So far that has not been forthcoming and I would say given the persistence of TIGHAR in this matter they also recognise that weakness.
Logged

Malcolm McKay

  • Read-only
  • *
  • Posts: 551
Re: After the Landing
« Reply #236 on: June 15, 2012, 09:00:59 PM »

I happen to be a believer, but I think malcum is pointing out that after 23 years of searching, thousand of man hours working on this hypothesis, and millions of dollars, we still have zero proof, and he is right.

Thanks John.
Logged

Jeff Victor Hayden

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1387
Re: After the Landing
« Reply #237 on: June 15, 2012, 09:10:31 PM »

I happen to be a believer, but I think malcum is pointing out that after 23 years of searching, thousand of man hours working on this hypothesis, and millions of dollars, we still have zero proof, and he is right.

Thanks John.
I agree but, later this year there will be something which will either support or, cast doubt upon the Gardner Island theory. Time will tell.
This must be the place
 
Logged

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 2951
Re: After the Landing
« Reply #238 on: June 15, 2012, 11:48:05 PM »


The point remains that they did not see Earhart and Noonan, they were not untrained amateurs and there is a certain air of convenience in the excuses offered to explain the failure to sight the missing pair. None of which however rules out completely their presence at any time on the island, but nevertheless disparaging the aviators' skills and positing unproven scenarios to explain this are not evidence of any acceptable kind.

I'm waiting for you to produce evidence of "any acceptable kind" as to the nature of the training received.

It was your assertion.

You have the burden of providing evidence for your assertion.

My job is simply to examine what you've submitted objectively and to notice when you've left some blanks in your argument.

It's a lot like saying, "Nothing TIGHAR has found proves its case."

Nothing you have submitted (because you have submitted nothing) proves your case about the kind of training given the six people who were over Niku.

Quote
Further I will state again that there is a tacit intent in the arguments of those who support the Nikumaroro hypothesis to denigrate the capacity of the Naval aviators in order to strengthen their arguments.

"Tacit" means "silent."

In this case, it would mean "unwritten."

So now you're doing mind-reading instead of archaeology.

You've gone from creating straw men to imputing motives to others.  Neither is good form.

Quote
I find much of the evidence to be circumstantial and very thin ...

I find the evidence you've submitted to back up your theory about the training of the Navy personnel non-existent.  That's a whole lot less than "circumstantial."
LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
Logged

Malcolm McKay

  • Read-only
  • *
  • Posts: 551
Re: After the Landing
« Reply #239 on: June 16, 2012, 12:51:06 AM »


I'm waiting for you to produce evidence of "any acceptable kind" as to the nature of the training received.


And I, Marty, am waiting for you to produce any form of acceptable evidence that the Navy airman were incapable of spotting Earhart and Noonan if indeed they were on the island. So far you have failed to do so, and as the question of the competence of the Naval aviators has been alluded to by implication, and in some cases directly, in discussions of why in the days following their disappearance Earhart and Noonan were not spotted by the Navy on Nikumaroro then during the fly over, I suggest that you prove conclusively that the Navy personnel were professionally incapable of doing so.

If you aren't aware by now the TIGHAR hypothesis rests on rather shaky ground in regard to the material and documentary evidence then adding to that flimsy case by imputing that the Navy search personnel were incompetent is an element of special pleading which actually weakens rather than strengthens the case. In view of that if it was my hypothesis that Earhart and Noonan met their end on Nikumaroro I would simply accept that they were missed by the Navy and leave it at that. The failure of the Navy to find the missing pair on the island is not proof positive that they weren't there, but that is all it is. Equally however it cannot be turned into proof positive, by adding a frisson of supposed Navy incompetence, that they were. 
« Last Edit: June 16, 2012, 01:08:50 AM by Malcolm McKay »
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 14 15 [16] 17 18 ... 28   Go Up
 

Copyright 2019 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 2.0.15 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines Powered by PHP