Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 19 20 [21] 22 23 ... 28   Go Down

Author Topic: After the Landing  (Read 279317 times)

Malcolm McKay

  • Read-only
  • *
  • Posts: 551
Re: After the Landing
« Reply #300 on: June 19, 2012, 01:00:19 AM »

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

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.

And the C/N tag on the engine bearer, if true, is just a coincidence? The difference as I see it between you and I Marty is that you have a belief system that rules out all but Nikumaroro while I have yet to see anything in the Nikumaroro hypothesis that justifies such a leap of faith.
Logged

Tom Swearengen

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 818
  • earhart monument, Hawaii
Re: After the Landing
« Reply #301 on: June 19, 2012, 05:20:45 AM »

Malcolm---This wreck you are referring to is in the jungle in New Britian, with the engine, prop, engine mount with the ID tag there. We need postive proof of its exsistance, so go ahead and go find it. We'll wait to hear from you. Remember--POSITIVE IDENTIFICATION.

Oh --you have to know where to look, and you have to get there before you can look. Might be a good idea to formulate a plan, with SEVERAL options, just incase things dont go well. Might want to bring along some trained hikers, and survival trained guides. Just in case. Oh yeah---FUNDS to do the trip with.


You dont get it do you? What the hell do you think Ric & TIGHAR have been doing? Well they have been gathering funds, and the best that those funds can buy, to go to Niku, and TRY to find evidence that matches their theory. No one here is brainwashing you into believing anything, or trying to lure you over to the DARK SIDE. Although Julia might be--
My suggestion is to go to New Brittian and find the wreckage to prove your point.
Let us hear from you-
Tom Swearengen TIGHAR # 3297
 
Logged

Jeff Victor Hayden

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1387
Re: After the Landing
« Reply #302 on: June 19, 2012, 06:17:31 AM »

Interestingly enough there were aircraft flown in New Britain that ACTUALLY used the Pratt and Whitney Wasp 600 HP S3H engine, the Noorduyn Norseman, 1935-1960.
Might be worth looking into further?


This must be the place
 
Logged

Ingo Prangenberg

  • T2
  • **
  • Posts: 50
Re: After the Landing
« Reply #303 on: June 19, 2012, 07:51:09 AM »

Malcolm, what are you doing? Can't you step outside of yourself and view your arguments? You are on a forum, on a website, that at present is mainly focused on this particular hypothesis. It says so on the main page.

The fact that you spend so much time talking in circles and doing nothing in regards to being productive should have created a disinterest in you for this website a long time ago. Yet you can't let go. What is your ulterior motive here?

These guys are two weeks away from doing something they have spent years working towards, don't rain on their parade. It borders on rudeness and cannot be excused with "but we are just doing archaeology".

I for one would not join a website of enthusiasts of a particular topic and use it as a playground for my ego's entertainment. I sincerely recommend you continue using your education in this field, come out of retirement and start working on your own project, in this field. Make a website too, I'll join the forum.

And, yes, pardon my snarkiness.  ;)
Logged

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 2951
Re: After the Landing
« Reply #304 on: June 19, 2012, 08:45:28 AM »

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.

I presume that their job was naval reconnaissance, which involves looking for fairly big objects on the water at long distances.

Quote
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?

No.

Quote
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.

Agreed.

Quote
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? Doesn't this seem reasonable, and what we lawyers call, the standard of care?

Sure.  But there is another catch phrase, "state of the art."  What you are assuming, without proof, is that the common aviator education in 1937 would include the kind of training that we now call "search and rescue."  That is where your imaginative reconstruction of the past differs very much from mine.  I can't find any history of S.A.R. in the U.S. until the middle of WWII.  People learned by doing--both by finding survivors and failing to find survivors.  Eventually that experience became codified in maxims that could then be taught and refined over many iterations, leading to a vastly improved searches nowadays.

The state of the art in 1937 differed from that in 1943, which differs from that of 2012.  It is anachronistic to imagine that the kind of training given pilots today was part of the curriculum in 1937.

Quote
Again, until someone comes with the complete syllabus of naval aviator training during the '30s, we are both just speculating.

By the way, I have been corrected about who was on board the July 9 overflight.  "On July 9, the observers were:  Seaman 1st Class J. L. Marks with Lt. Lambrecht; Radioman 3rd Class Williamson with Lt. j.g. Fox; Lt. Charles F. Chillingworth with Lt. j.g. Short (Finding Amelia, p. 205, from the deck log of the Colorado for July 9)."  One might wonder whether Marks and Fox had S.A.R. training as part of their curriculum.  I don't know about Short's career.
LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
Logged

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 2951
Re: After the Landing
« Reply #305 on: June 19, 2012, 09:02:35 AM »

And the C/N tag on the engine bearer, if true, is just a coincidence?

Yes.

I doubt whether the testimony about the tag is true.

I doubt whether the testimony is verifiable (which is a separate issue).

I deny that you have made an objective case for either proposition.

If it is true and verifiable, then I would see it as a coincidence.  You have provided no evidence whatsoever that constructor numbers were used to identify engine bearers in the 1930s--or at any time in the history of aircraft production. 

Why would someone lie about seeing such a tag?  Perhaps because they were so strongly convinced that they had found AE's aircraft, they decided a little white lie wouldn't hurt their fundraising.  Alternatively, they may have looked up the C/N after the fact, then "remembered" that they had seen it on the tag. 

Quote
The difference as I see it between you and I Marty is that you have a belief system that rules out all but Nikumaroro while I have yet to see anything in the Nikumaroro hypothesis that justifies such a leap of faith.

"Between" is a preposition.  When pronouns are objects of the preposition, they take the objective case.  The proper grammatical expression is "between you and me."  This is an objective fact.  You may check grammar books to see that I am right and you are wrong.

I'm not sure how you have objectively examined my belief system.  There are no objective guides to the inside of my world.  So far as I can tell, I only consider the Niku hypothesis the most probable explanation for the post-loss radio signals.  I find that a very convincing case.  I know that I cannot make anyone else believe in that case against their will.  As I've noted elsewhere, if the remains of NR16020 are found in deep water near Howland, that means that I will have to accept that I was wrong about the Niku hypothesis.  Proving the splashed-and-sank hypothesis true would prove the Niku hypothesis false, and vice-versa.  That contest seems open to me.  I'm betting on one dog in that fight, but I don't know whether the outcome will ever be clear. 

Things are different with the New Britain hypothesis, the Japanese Capture theories, and the various sightings of a skinny white woman during and after WWII who bore an uncanny resemblance to AE.  I don't have an open mind about these hypotheses.  I don't think they require or merit investigation.   I don't have infinite time or money.  I'm spending my limited resources on the work that seems to me to be most likely to bear fruit.  So far as I can tell, you're doing armchair archaeology, declaring on a fairly regular basis that the TIGHAR hypothesis is "not proven."  While that is a true statement, it does not logically follow that every other Earhart theory is viable.  "Splashed-and-sank" is very viable, in my view; the New Britain theory is not.

I understand that you have a different belief system which inspires you to evaluate things differently from the way I do.
LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
Logged

Malcolm McKay

  • Read-only
  • *
  • Posts: 551
Re: After the Landing
« Reply #306 on: June 19, 2012, 08:30:48 PM »

Malcolm, what are you doing?
And, yes, pardon my snarkiness.  ;)

What am I doing? - why simply examining the data that has been advanced to support the Nikumaroro hypothesis. What else is this forum for? If you want it to be simply unquestioning then I would assume that you are allowed to hold that view.

As for "These guys are two weeks away from doing something they have spent years working towards, don't rain on their parade. It borders on rudeness and cannot be excused with "but we are just doing archaeology". " they've been at it since 1989 IIRC. Oh and you might note that nowhere have I suggested that they should give up - and I have always expressed the view that they should produce some evidence that provides the incontestable proof they seek. To date they haven't, so lets hope this trip turns that up.
Logged

Malcolm McKay

  • Read-only
  • *
  • Posts: 551
Re: After the Landing
« Reply #307 on: June 19, 2012, 08:37:13 PM »

And the C/N tag on the engine bearer, if true, is just a coincidence?

Yes.

I doubt whether the testimony about the tag is true.

I doubt whether the testimony is verifiable (which is a separate issue).

I deny that you have made an objective case for either proposition.

If it is true and verifiable, then I would see it as a coincidence.  You have provided no evidence whatsoever that constructor numbers were used to identify engine bearers in the 1930s--or at any time in the history of aircraft production.

Proof of construction numbers - I think you should read back on this thread http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,648.15.html .

The rest are your doubts and unsupported by anything that I can see. Best leave it there for your own sake.
Logged

john a delsing

  • T2
  • **
  • Posts: 66
  • Minnesota Johnny D.
Re: After the Landing
« Reply #308 on: June 19, 2012, 11:43:37 PM »

   I believe there are three major theories to why Lambrecht and crew did not see AE.
   1).   The Gary LaPook theory that AE and FN were never on Gardner island, that they crashed and sank some where else.
   2).    The TIGHAR theory that AE landed at Gardner, transmitted from Gardner, a storm, or high winds, or tidal actions, blew the plane off the beach or reef, AE ( and possibly FN ) were inland in thick ‘jungle like woods’ when Lambrecht flew over and could not get to an opening or beach in time to be spotted, or because of wind and wave sounds Lambrecht planes were not heard in time to get to an opening, or Lambrecht and crew were busy looking at other objects ( maybe recent habitations ) and just did not see them, or similar reasons. After the flight she or both migrated down to the seven site and survived for a few weeks, or possibly a few months.
   3).   My theory, John Delsing’s theory if you don’t mind. Yes, they certainly may have landed on Gardner, and transmitted from there, but if you believe this you might also want to believe that most of their transmits were real and truthful, and yes they were injured, just ask Betty or Mabel and after 5 days of 110 to 120 degree heat with injuries and little or no water or food and little or no survival training, they both were either dead or so near death that they could not answer the bell when Lambrecht flew over. ( I have no proof or manuals Martin, just my thoughts on how well they prepared for their radio communications, and how well they striped needed things from the plane for weight reasons ).
   Please note; if you accept some, or all of my theory then you will have to also accept the fact, as hard a it will be for some, that AE never visited, let alone survived at the seven site ( She may have, in her last hours, staggered down the beach till she could go no farther, and crawled up under the shade of a large wren tree and died ). Not very romantic or the ending that most of us would like, but to me much more logical than spending weeks ( or months ) at the seven site hunting and fishing and building fires in different places but never building a monument of some type, or placing stones or coconuts saying “AE 7-2-37” or using her knife blade to crave in a tree a similar msg, or similar. 
   We have spent trips, much money, and much, much time digging and then analyzing objects from the seven site, and have found not one item that we can say came from AE. Hindsight is always 20/20 and I don’t want to criticize our past decisions, I am sure at the time the evidence looked good, but if we would have spent just a small portion of that search effort searching the ‘brush’ near where most of us think the plane landed and where “we know” they had to have camped for 5 days, I think our odds of finding something would have been far greater. But that will probably be a good reason to launch a new expedition.
   I closing I know that as of now, none of the three theories can be proved, or disproved, However; I would like to go out on the limb and state that by this time next month we will be down to only two plausible theories.
I am causally optimistic that Ric will be calling in with pictures of an engine, or at least a propeller and theory 1, for most of us, will be just a ‘bad’ memory. For those members that made the Wash DC meeting and were thinking about buying an electronic pin to wear, I suggest you watch ebay in the coming weeks, I have a feeling that one that reads “CRASHED and SANK” will be coming available shortly.

The Earth is Full
 
Logged

Gary LaPook

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1624
Re: After the Landing
« Reply #309 on: June 20, 2012, 12:46:33 AM »

   
I am causally optimistic that Ric will be calling in with pictures of an engine, or at least a propeller and theory 1, for most of us, will be just a ‘bad’ memory. For those members that made the Wash DC meeting and were thinking about buying an electronic pin to wear, I suggest you watch ebay in the coming weeks, I have a feeling that one that reads “CRASHED and SANK” will be coming available shortly.
I cut a deal with the manufacturer of the "CRASHED AND SANK" pins and I will be be taking order for them next month. They come packaged in blister packs that hold one, five, ten, and a hundred. They are also available by the bushel.

gl
« Last Edit: June 20, 2012, 12:48:06 AM by Gary LaPook »
Logged

Jeff Victor Hayden

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1387
Re: After the Landing
« Reply #310 on: June 20, 2012, 04:39:18 AM »

There will be wreckage found on the reef at Niku however, crash and sink pins may still be needed as a result. Hopefully not but if so I have always considered the Niku and crash and sink the top 2 scenarios. South West of Howland is my best guess, that's my pin in place. ;
This must be the place
 
Logged

Jeff Victor Hayden

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1387
Re: After the Landing
« Reply #311 on: June 20, 2012, 07:01:52 AM »

If I had found myself in the same situation as AE and FN on Gardner Island (assuming they made it there) then the place to leave evidence that you were there would be somewhere that would be easily found/discovered by future visitors.
From the previous history of Gardner Island the only place that would easily attract the attention of future visitors was the Norwich City survivors camp.
No use leaving evidence you were there on the ground though, you need to put it up high, eye level where it would be seen.
Markings carved into trees?
(trying to get thread back on topic)
This must be the place
 
Logged

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 2951
Re: After the Landing
« Reply #312 on: June 20, 2012, 07:08:51 AM »

Proof of construction numbers - I think you should read back on this thread http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,648.15.html .

I've read that topic.   Here, apparently, is what you take as proof:

"The most interesting thing I find in the evidence quoted on the New Britain crash web site is the reference to the C/N tag found attached to the engine bearer of the wreck by the members of the Australian army patrol in 1945. Also interesting is that according to their lieutenant the USAAF said at the time that the aircraft was not a US military wreck. Now is the C/N tag a coincidence, is the wreck Japanese, a pre-war US civil aircraft or did the patrol make up the whole thing and quite by accident come up with that C/N tag number."


So you're taking the word of "the New Britain crash web site."

What objective evidence do they have from the Australian army patrol?

When was that evidence collected?

How good is the provenance of the evidence?

What is the chain-of-custody for this evidence?

How do you deal objectively with the physics of flight and of radio transmissions which place the Electra out of range of New Britain?  Please show your calculations.

Quote
The rest are your doubts and unsupported by anything that I can see. Best leave it there for your own sake.

If I'm not mistaken, I'm entitled to say, "Not proven" of the assertions you have made about the alleged C/N number on the alleged tag.  All you do is assert that these things happened.  Where is the physical object--New Britain's "Any Idiot Artifact"--that proves that the there is a match between a number on an engine mount and the C/N of the Electra? 

You have said that such evidence exists, but I don't think you've seen it yourself.  You certainly haven't shown it to us here.  I hope you aren't asking us to take everything you say without questioning it. 
LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
Logged

Jeff Victor Hayden

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1387
Re: After the Landing
« Reply #313 on: June 20, 2012, 07:18:19 AM »

The C/N 'tag' in question is, according to the New Britain scenario a 'repair tag', not the manufacturers identification plate...

I have been in aircraft engineering for 48 years. I believe the Metal Tag, wired to the tubing on the detached engine and removed by the patrol Warrant Officer was a metal “Repair Tag”, which had been left on the engine mount truss after repair and re-installation. The leaving of repair tags on components does happen, even today. In 1937, the aircraft was repaired where it had been made and workers at the Lockheed factory at Burbank would identify all components removed during the repair as from the build number , “C/N1055", not as from “NRl6020", the civil registration of the aircraft. Items sent for a gas flame welding shop repair would get fireproof metal tags not card tags, just as they would do today.

http://www.electranewbritain.com/Interestbegins2.htm
This must be the place
 
« Last Edit: June 20, 2012, 07:26:56 AM by Jeff Victor Hayden »
Logged

Tom Swearengen

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 818
  • earhart monument, Hawaii
Re: After the Landing
« Reply #314 on: June 20, 2012, 07:36:34 AM »

John---I actually DO buy in to your theory, although mine varies slightly. Injured (?), possibly mal-nurished, etc, I do have my own reservations reguarding the seven site. I certainly am open to seaarching there , and the rest of the island for more clues.
Tom Swearengen TIGHAR # 3297
 
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 19 20 [21] 22 23 ... 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