Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 18 19 [20] 21 22 ... 28   Go Down

Author Topic: After the Landing  (Read 279455 times)

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 2951
Re: After the Landing
« Reply #285 on: June 18, 2012, 07:30:39 AM »

Looking at the list it appears to me that the other factors militate towards more effective searching in the Earhart case that may make up up for the speculated lack of specific search training.

Anyone who wishes to provide evidence of specific search training will annihilate the assumption that naval personnel were aboard the Colorado to spot ships and direct gunfire, not search for people on the ground.

This is not a dogma; just an opinion.

Quote
Position = clear view from open cockpit, no reflections from windows, etc.

Large parts of the field of view blocked by the engine and wings.




Quote
Put em all together, I'd say decent search.

Yes, but not infallible.  Strange things do happen.  "Improbable" does not mean "impossible."  I am, of course, alluding to Sherlock Holmes:

"You will not apply my precept," he said, shaking his head.  "How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth? We know that he did not come through the door, the window, or the chimney. We also know that he could not have been concealed in the room, as there is no concealment possible.  When, then, did he come?" ([size=-1]The Sign of the Four, ch. 6 (1890)).

[/size]
LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
Logged

Gary LaPook

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1624
Re: After the Landing
« Reply #286 on: June 18, 2012, 11:29:37 AM »

would do a better job.  You have a different set of beliefs and draw a different set of conclusions from the assumptions you make.  But it is a conflict of belief against belief, not a conflict of belief against evidence.
I agree with you on this, but until someone comes up with a complete syllabus for all the training given to naval aviators in the 1930's, it is just speculation on both sides of this discussion. We know that one of the tasks that these aviators were given was to spot shell splashes and we are assuming that they got training for this but it is possible that they were not, that they were just sent out and told to use their best judgement. Not too plausible? Then is it any more plausible that they were sent out to search for Earhart if they hadn't received some training for that task?
But again, it is just speculation on both sides of this question.

gl

« Last Edit: June 18, 2012, 03:16:02 PM by Gary LaPook »
Logged

George Pachulski

  • T1
  • *
  • Posts: 26
Re: After the Landing
« Reply #287 on: June 18, 2012, 03:18:10 PM »

 I was a FOO in the forces , Canadian ( Forward observation officer ) for correcting and hitting enemy targets and it involves a great deal of training to properly judge the fall of shot and correct. On the sea this is compounded by the earths rotation and the type of projectile, gun and charge size used. If they trained them to fly without crashing they had to train them to hit enemy targets ... :o

Likewise the first thing I would have thought after landing on Gardner, after seeing a ship on its west coast waiting for me. From 1000 ft everything looks alive, kinda. That I was in the twilight zone till I figured out that im actually on the wrong island, with a shipwreck and there are no people to greet me or resupply my craft. The shock of that would have been enough after 20 hours of flight.  How many islands in the middle Pacific have ships on their west coast ?

But, I do have a question , why did they not state clearly in a distrest call  Have landed on island with a shipwreck on the west coast cannot liftoff need assistance?

This is location , situation , possibilities , criticality assesment...
« Last Edit: June 18, 2012, 03:27:37 PM by George Pachulski »
Logged

Malcolm McKay

  • Read-only
  • *
  • Posts: 551
Re: After the Landing
« Reply #288 on: June 18, 2012, 06:32:02 PM »


To judge, as you do, that this is an exercise that is "required" by the anecdote is to neglect the laws of aerodynamics, thermodynamics, and radio propagation. ...  I judge that the New Britain hypothesis is well and truly falsified; of course, your faith differs from mine.

Once again Marty you are allowing your predilection for the Nikumaroro hypothesis dominate your capacity to read and understand what I posted. What part of  "I have not as far as I can recall accepted the New Britain hypothesis as anything other than a hypothesis that requires testing." is unclear.

As for the rest of your attempt at criticism I cannot see why you would say "If it is valuable to spend money testing hypotheses, put some money where your mouth is (as TIGHAR has) and get up an expedition to New Britain.  That would be the archeological thing to do." when in fact all I said was that so far TIGHAR have not found the smoking gun that they themselves admit they need. Is it that you claim that they have found the smoking gun? if so, what is it? and you better enlighten TIGHAR management - that will save them a lot of money. 
Logged

Malcolm McKay

  • Read-only
  • *
  • Posts: 551
Re: After the Landing
« Reply #289 on: June 18, 2012, 06:36:07 PM »


But, I do have a question , why did they not state clearly in a distrest call  Have landed on island with a shipwreck on the west coast cannot liftoff need assistance?

This is location , situation , possibilities , criticality assesment...

Well in the more imaginative reconstructions of the Betty notebook it is claimed that the reference to New York is in fact a reference to Norwich City and that the disparity is due to Betty being an easily confused teenage girl. However I must admit to a frisson of unease about rewriting other people's notes to suit my hypothesis.
Logged

Greg Daspit

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 735
Re: After the Landing
« Reply #290 on: June 18, 2012, 07:01:56 PM »

I was a FOO in the forces , Canadian ( Forward observation officer ) for correcting and hitting enemy targets and it involves a great deal of training to properly judge the fall of shot and correct. On the sea this is compounded by the earths rotation and the type of projectile, gun and charge size used. If they trained them to fly without crashing they had to train them to hit enemy targets ... :o

Likewise the first thing I would have thought after landing on Gardner, after seeing a ship on its west coast waiting for me. From 1000 ft everything looks alive, kinda. That I was in the twilight zone till I figured out that im actually on the wrong island, with a shipwreck and there are no people to greet me or resupply my craft. The shock of that would have been enough after 20 hours of flight.  How many islands in the middle Pacific have ships on their west coast ?

But, I do have a question , why did they not state clearly in a distrest call  Have landed on island with a shipwreck on the west coast cannot liftoff need assistance?

This is location , situation , possibilities , criticality assesment...
See link below. Dana Randolf said he heard "ship is on a reef south of the equator" on the radio. This was documented in the local newspaper at the time. He later said she ALSO said the plane was on a reef SE of Howland.
http://tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/2005Vol_21/onreef.pdf
3971R
 
« Last Edit: June 18, 2012, 07:14:53 PM by Gregory Lee Daspit »
Logged

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 2951
Re: After the Landing
« Reply #291 on: June 18, 2012, 07:06:49 PM »

would do a better job.  You have a different set of beliefs and draw a different set of conclusions from the assumptions you make.  But it is a conflict of belief against belief, not a conflict of belief against evidence.
I agree with you on this ...

Great!

Quote
... but until someone comes up with a complete syllabus for all the training given to naval aviators in the 1930's, it is just speculation on both sides of this discussion.

I'm content with that. 

Quote
We know that one of the tasks that these aviators were given was to spot shell splashes and we are assuming that they got training for this but it is possible that they were not, that they were just sent out and told to use their best judgement.

Let's distinguish, if we may.

The three pilots almost certainly had target-recognition training.  Four eyes are better than two in identifying friend or foe.  I don't know whether the pilot could direct gunfire, given that he had to fly the plane.  I don't know whether they had voice or CW communications with the Colorado.

Then there are the three Cadets:

"On page 7 of the Colorado Lookout, the aviators who took part in the search are listed.  “Aviators who took part in the search in addition to Lieut. Lambrecht, were Lieuts. (jg)  L. O. Fox and W. B. Short, and Aviation Cadets J. A. Wilson, W. Jordan and R. A. Leake.”

They were on board for some kind of training; I don't think it unreasonable to think it had something to do with finding targets and directing gunfire, along with other tasks necessary to get the planes in and out of the water and the air.

Quote
Not too plausible? Then is it any more plausible that they were sent out to search for Earhart if they hadn't received some training for that task?

The Colorado was not a S.A.R. vessel.  It was a warship getting ready for war.  It was pressed into service because it was available, not too far away from where it was needed, and had three aircraft that could (and did) cover a lot of ground.  I don't think it all unreasonable to suppose that 1) no one with S.A.R. experience was on board; 2) no one gave them any specific instructions before takeoff, other than to look for an Electra with 36" wheels (if the wheels were 28", then it was manifestly the wrong Electra) and a man and a woman in the vicinity.  I doubt that anyone on board would have thought that more than that was necessary to see what there was to be seen.

Since you advanced the theory that they would have been informed of the wisdom gained in the 1927 aerial search (if wisdom was gained), it's up to you to provide the evidence that that wisdom was available and transmitted to them before takeoff.  Your hypothesis, your burden of proof.
LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
Logged

Jeff Victor Hayden

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1387
Re: After the Landing
« Reply #292 on: June 18, 2012, 07:11:22 PM »


But, I do have a question , why did they not state clearly in a distrest call  Have landed on island with a shipwreck on the west coast cannot liftoff need assistance?

This is location , situation , possibilities , criticality assesment...

Well in the more imaginative reconstructions of the Betty notebook it is claimed that the reference to New York is in fact a reference to Norwich City and that the disparity is due to Betty being an easily confused teenage girl. However I must admit to a frisson of unease about rewriting other people's notes to suit my hypothesis.

George it would have been a good idea to transmit the message of there being a ship on the reef, that would have been a great help to any SAR teams. There was a thread regarding 'could AE have known it was called the Norwich city'. Not sure of the outcome of that though, I think the wreck had been picked clean by 1937 so any reference to the name Norwich City gone.

http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,331.0.html

 So, ship on reef would have been the most logical message to send. Even if AE could determine the name Norwich City it wouldn't have helped the SAR teams, they would have to know what and where Norwich city is to locate it, might have ended up in Norfolk, England. No, ship on reef would have been the best message to send (apart from the ACTUAL location of where they thought they were)...(if they were there) ;)
This must be the place
 
Logged

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 2951
Re: After the Landing
« Reply #293 on: June 18, 2012, 07:15:56 PM »

Once again Marty you are allowing your predilection for the Nikumaroro hypothesis dominate your capacity to read and understand what I posted. What part of  "I have not as far as I can recall accepted the New Britain hypothesis as anything other than a hypothesis that requires testing." is unclear.

I understand your sentence.

I disagree with your beliefs.

A hypothesis that depends on magic does not require testing.  It requires abandonment.

Quote
As for the rest of your attempt at criticism I cannot see why you would say "If it is valuable to spend money testing hypotheses, put some money where your mouth is (as TIGHAR has) and get up an expedition to New Britain.  That would be the archeological thing to do."

I'm pretty sure I said it because I believe it.  Is there a better reason to say things than that?

Quote
When in fact all I said was that so far TIGHAR have not found the smoking gun that they themselves admit they need.

No, you also said that the New Britain hypothesis requires testing.  If you believe that, go test it.  If you don't believe it, you may continue to do mental archaeology instead.

Quote
Is it that you claim that they have found the smoking gun? if so, what is it? and you better enlighten TIGHAR management - that will save them a lot of money.

Uh, no, I have not made that claim.  My claim is that the New Britain hypothesis is not worth investigating.  Your questioning me about whether there is a smoking gun for Niku hypothesis is a total non sequitur.  That is Latin for "it does not follow," and what that means is that there is no logical connection what I said about the New Britain hypothesis and the TIGHAR hypothesis.  The fact that TIGHAR does not have an artifact that any idiot will recognize as coming from NR16020 does not mean that the New Britain hypothesis is viable.  They are two independent trains of thought.
LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
Logged

Jeff Victor Hayden

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1387
Re: After the Landing
« Reply #294 on: June 18, 2012, 07:48:19 PM »

I understand that Gary did the math for the return to New Britain from '100 miles out, we must be on you but can't see you' vicinity of Howland which made 2 outcomes possible...
1. They were nowhere near Howland, short by 569 NM - 809NM, in which case they could have returned to New Britain.
2. They were in the vicinity of howland, in which case a return to New britain was impossible.
http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,651.0.html
This must be the place
 
Logged

Gary LaPook

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1624
Re: After the Landing
« Reply #295 on: June 18, 2012, 08:20:35 PM »

I was a FOO in the forces , Canadian ( Forward observation officer ) for correcting and hitting enemy targets and it involves a great deal of training to properly judge the fall of shot and correct. On the sea this is compounded by the earths rotation and the type of projectile, gun and charge size used. If they trained them to fly without crashing they had to train them to hit enemy targets ... :o

Likewise the first thing I would have thought after landing on Gardner, after seeing a ship on its west coast waiting for me. From 1000 ft everything looks alive, kinda. That I was in the twilight zone till I figured out that im actually on the wrong island, with a shipwreck and there are no people to greet me or resupply my craft. The shock of that would have been enough after 20 hours of flight.  How many islands in the middle Pacific have ships on their west coast ?

But, I do have a question , why did they not state clearly in a distrest call  Have landed on island with a shipwreck on the west coast cannot liftoff need assistance?

This is location , situation , possibilities , criticality assesment...
"BRAVO TWO ZERO THIS IS BRAVO TWO SIX
DIRECTION, ONE SEVEN ZERO ZERO
RIGHT, TWO ZERO, DROP FOUR HUNDRED, OVER"
So, how much training do you need for this? Did you ever adjust fire from an airplane?

gl
Logged

Malcolm McKay

  • Read-only
  • *
  • Posts: 551
Re: After the Landing
« Reply #296 on: June 18, 2012, 09:33:56 PM »

Once again Marty you are allowing your predilection for the Nikumaroro hypothesis dominate your capacity to read and understand what I posted. What part of  "I have not as far as I can recall accepted the New Britain hypothesis as anything other than a hypothesis that requires testing." is unclear.

I understand your sentence.

I disagree with your beliefs.

A hypothesis that depends on magic does not require testing.  It requires abandonment.

etc....

Clearly Marty either you do not understand what I posted, or you are deliberately misconstruing it to create a debate bordering on farce. If we are going to follow your lead into farce then perhaps you should create a new subject dedicated to that form of theatre.
Logged

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 2951
Re: After the Landing
« Reply #297 on: June 18, 2012, 11:17:07 PM »

Clearly Marty either you do not understand what I posted, or you are deliberately misconstruing it to create a debate bordering on farce.

There is a difference between understanding and agreement.

I understand Hitler's view of the Jews.  As a committed Darwinian, he thought that he was improving the human species by eliminating unwanted specimens.  I don't agree with that view of human beings or of the Jews.

I understand that you think the New Britain hypothesis "requires investigation."  I do not agree with that assessment.  It is not a viable hypothesis, given what we know about the range of the aircraft and the physics of radio transmissions.

I understand that you have a different belief system from mine.  I don't agree with your beliefs, and I understand that you do not agree with mine.
LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
Logged

Gary LaPook

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1624
Re: After the Landing
« Reply #298 on: June 18, 2012, 11:48:06 PM »

I understand that Gary did the math for the return to New Britain from '100 miles out, we must be on you but can't see you' vicinity of Howland which made 2 outcomes possible...
1. They were nowhere near Howland, short by 569 NM - 809NM, in which case they could have returned to New Britain.
2. They were in the vicinity of howland, in which case a return to New britain was impossible.
http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,651.0.html
See my prior posts:
https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,651.msg12321.html#msg12321

https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,651.msg12322.html#msg12322

https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,651.msg12374.html#msg12374

gl
Logged

Gary LaPook

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1624
Re: After the Landing
« Reply #299 on: June 18, 2012, 11:56:14 PM »


The three pilots almost certainly had target-recognition training.  Four eyes are better than two in identifying friend or foe.  I don't know whether the pilot could direct gunfire, given that he had to fly the plane.  I don't know whether they had voice or CW communications with the Colorado.

Then there are the three Cadets:

"On page 7 of the Colorado Lookout, the aviators who took part in the search are listed.  “Aviators who took part in the search in addition to Lieut. Lambrecht, were Lieuts. (jg)  L. O. Fox and W. B. Short, and Aviation Cadets J. A. Wilson, W. Jordan and R. A. Leake.”

They were on board for some kind of training; I don't think it unreasonable to think it had something to do with finding targets and directing gunfire, along with other tasks necessary to get the planes in and out of the water and the air.



The Colorado was not a S.A.R. vessel.  It was a warship getting ready for war.  It was pressed into service because it was available, not too far away from where it was needed, and had three aircraft that could (and did) cover a lot of ground.  I don't think it all unreasonable to suppose that 1) no one with S.A.R. experience was on board; 2) no one gave them any specific instructions before takeoff, other than to look for an Electra with 36" wheels (if the wheels were 28", then it was manifestly the wrong Electra) and a man and a woman in the vicinity.  I doubt that anyone on board would have thought that more than that was necessary to see what there was to be seen.

Since you advanced the theory that they would have been informed of the wisdom gained in the 1927 aerial search (if wisdom was gained), it's up to you to provide the evidence that that wisdom was available and transmitted to them before takeoff.  Your hypothesis, your burden of proof.
What about the pilots from Lexington? The Lexington was not an SAR vessel either. Their job was not to spot the fall of shells from the great guns because Lexington had no great guns. Do you think that the pilots that would eventually be assigned to Lexington had different training at Pensacola than the pilots that eventually were assigned to Colorado? I think it more likely that all went through a standard naval aviator training program. Only after they received their assignments would they have gotten specific training for the type of plane that they would be flying. As for the cadets, don't you think they got some training on the way south from Hawaii on how to search and the pilots got the same training as a refresher from their prior training at Pensacola? Doens't this seem reasonable, and what we lawyers call, the standard of care?

Again, until someone comes with the complete syllabus of naval aviator training during the '30s, we are both just speculating.
gl
« Last Edit: June 19, 2012, 12:03:50 AM by Gary LaPook »
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 18 19 [20] 21 22 ... 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