Advanced search  
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 8   Go Down

Author Topic: New Britain Hypothesis  (Read 91384 times)

Malcolm McKay

  • Read-only
  • *
  • Posts: 551
Re: New Britain Hypothesis
« Reply #30 on: April 28, 2012, 07:01:57 AM »

Oskar---that is true. I occured to me that ALL possibilites cannot be discounted until we find some positive evidence of the Electra-somewhere. Whether at Nikumaroro, the Gilberts, New Britian, Mili, on the bottom off Howland, or someplace we havent considered, this is still and investigation. So far, IMHO, this is the more promising of the bunch. And----right now its the ONLY one moving forward.

Tom

Once again I agree with you Tom - I read Goerner's book when it was first published in fact I still have sitting on the shelf. I never quite agreed with his hypothesis but it certainly was plausible given the evidence he quoted.
Logged

Brad Beeching

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 158
Re: New Britain Hypothesis
« Reply #31 on: April 28, 2012, 08:54:51 AM »

I found it interesting that no one has posted anything about New Britain so I thought I would correct that oversight. As far as some military patrol finding a wrecked aircraft on the island... New Britain was the target of a protracted campaign that spanned vitually the entire war in the Pacific. HUNDREDS of aircraft were destroyed all over the place. And the whole thing boils down to what somebody said they remembered? With no evidence; No government documents? No scraps of Alclad? No pieces of plexi-glass? No Pictures of the aircraft in question? No hard materials at all? (insert snide laugh here) Ugly rivets? (another laugh) Yellow paint? Green paint? (insert long laugh here)

I'll take the same stand everyone else here have taken. Hearsay evidence is not evidence. Even memories like these have to be taken with a grain of salt. However, taken in context with all the other "hold in your hand" items recovered as well as documented radio intercepts etc. etc.... No thanks! I'll spend my money here. At the very least TIGHAR has found something, if it turns out to be airframe 1055, Great! thats what we're here for! If not, then they have found another mystery that needs to be solved... who WAS the castaway?

Brad
Brad

#4327R
 
Logged

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 2948
Re: New Britain Hypothesis
« Reply #32 on: April 28, 2012, 06:12:14 PM »

One thing I would want to know before pitching into a long march to go find that cowling (and associated stuff) would be 'how many of those birds (Lockheed Electras) were in that area and could have left identical parts there?'

I'm not sure about "identical parts," but Guinea Airways had an Electra in Lae: "For Earhart and Noonan, Wednesday, June 30, was a day of  recuperation and preparation. Fred Noonan helped the Guinea Airways maintenance staff service the Electra and address a number of  minor problems. The mechanics were familiar with the aircraft type because the airline operated a Lockheed Electra of its own" (Finding Amelia, p.71).

Art Rypinski reported to EPACT that during the war, "the RAAF repeatedly bombed Gasmata using Lockheed Hudsons (Lockheed Model 14 Super Electras) flying out of Port Moresby."

I am not aware that anyone has done an exhaustive study of all aircraft reported missing withing flying distance of New Britain.
LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
Logged

Malcolm McKay

  • Read-only
  • *
  • Posts: 551
Re: New Britain Hypothesis
« Reply #33 on: April 28, 2012, 07:57:05 PM »

One thing I would want to know before pitching into a long march to go find that cowling (and associated stuff) would be 'how many of those birds (Lockheed Electras) were in that area and could have left identical parts there?'

I'm not sure about "identical parts," but Guinea Airways had an Electra in Lae: "For Earhart and Noonan, Wednesday, June 30, was a day of  recuperation and preparation. Fred Noonan helped the Guinea Airways maintenance staff service the Electra and address a number of  minor problems. The mechanics were familiar with the aircraft type because the airline operated a Lockheed Electra of its own" (Finding Amelia, p.71).

Art Rypinski reported to EPACT that during the war, "the RAAF repeatedly bombed Gasmata using Lockheed Hudsons (Lockheed Model 14 Super Electras) flying out of Port Moresby."

I am not aware that anyone has done an exhaustive study of all aircraft reported missing withing flying distance of New Britain.

Interesting but in regard to the Lockheed Hudson these, despite their development from the Model 14 Super Electra, have very little to nothing in common with the Earhart Model 10 Electra. The engines were either (depending on model) Wright Cyclones, a large 9 cylinder radial or the Pratt & Whitney Twin Row Wasp. Earhart' s Electra had a single row Wasp. I grant you that their basic construction is similar which may confuse someone who was unfamiliar with the technical differences. The telling point in the discussion still remains that enigmatic metal tag with the C/N1055 attached to the structural members of the engine mounts (not to the engine). For what it is worth the proponent of the East New Britain hypothesis claims research to show that no Lockheed 10s were missing in this area.
Logged

Jeff Victor Hayden

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1387
Re: New Britain Hypothesis
« Reply #34 on: April 29, 2012, 01:19:27 PM »

As a comparison, the New Britain wreckage has yet to be found, and that was on land. I assume they know which area to search as the Assie patrol knew where they were patrolling.
Now Imagine how difficult it is for under the sea theories like Tighar and the Waitt institute to find aircraft wreckage. IMHO
This must be the place
 
Logged

John Ousterhout

  • T4
  • ****
  • Posts: 487
Re: New Britain Hypothesis
« Reply #35 on: April 29, 2012, 04:43:27 PM »

"...Now Imagine how difficult it is for under the sea theories like Tighar and the Waitt institute to find aircraft wreckage..."
Especially if the wreckage is sitting on New Britain ;)
(sorry, couldn't resist)
Cheers,
JohnO
 
Logged

Jeff Victor Hayden

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1387
Re: New Britain Hypothesis
« Reply #36 on: April 29, 2012, 05:05:58 PM »

Especially if the wreckage is sitting on New Britain

Should be easier to find John. :D
Don't need $500,000 of kit plus, your nuts won't get crushed from the pressure of 300 or 6000 metres of water.
Which then begs the question, why haven't they...
This must be the place
 
Logged

Malcolm McKay

  • Read-only
  • *
  • Posts: 551
Re: New Britain Hypothesis
« Reply #37 on: April 29, 2012, 07:49:12 PM »

Quote
For what it is worth the proponent of the East New Britain hypothesis claims research to show that no Lockheed 10s were missing in this area.

Has he shared that research?

As far as I am aware the main detail is on his site, on other forums he has discussed a little of it but that's about all I can see.
Logged

richie conroy

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1412
Re: New Britain Hypothesis
« Reply #38 on: May 21, 2012, 06:53:10 PM »

J.Nevill

Malcolm
has said in other post's that the new Britain hypothesis deserves some credibility, which is based on some army guys recollections of 60 years ago

yet he as also said that Betty's notebook has no credibility

whats that about ?
We are an echo of the past


Member# 416
 
Logged

Malcolm McKay

  • Read-only
  • *
  • Posts: 551
Re: New Britain Hypothesis
« Reply #39 on: May 21, 2012, 07:16:52 PM »

J.Nevill

Malcolm
has said in other post's that the new Britain hypothesis deserves some credibility, which is based on some army guys recollections of 60 years ago

yet he as also said that Betty's notebook has no credibility

whats that about ?

I think I have said that the East New Britain hypothesis has as much credibility as the other contenders - certainly the purported metal tag with the Electra construction number on it is worthy of further investigation.

As for Betty's notebook - you must ask yourself how credible is it if the people who propose that it is a valid document have to resort to an argument based on supposition as to what Betty actually heard rather than what she recorded she heard to make it work. If a person comes across that sort of argument then their first task is to examine the primary data, not to simply accept the secondary interpretation. Now if you find fault with that approach then I suggest you tell us why.
Logged

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 2948
Re: New Britain Hypothesis
« Reply #40 on: May 21, 2012, 10:10:59 PM »

Please note that the last three replies have been removed from another thread and dragged over here, closer to where they belong.

If anyone has a photograph of the interesting metal tag discussed above, this is the thread in which to share it.
LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
Logged

richie conroy

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1412
Re: New Britain Hypothesis
« Reply #41 on: May 23, 2012, 07:47:03 PM »

J.Nevill

sorry to involve you  :)

my point was is that Betty didn't say Amelia was on Gardner etc... she just jotted down what she heard, yet Malcolm said the note's she doted down were not usable evidence

yet he said, East New Britain hypothesis has as much credibility as the other contenders..... an that's based on some fella saying he found a tag which had similar numbers to Earhart's Electra,

in which previous searches have failed to find

so my point is how can u ?

A) Discredit Betty's notebook as insufficient on Tighar Website...

and then

B) Saying east new Britain has just as much credibility based on one persons Evidence

Do you see were am going with this  :) 

   
We are an echo of the past


Member# 416
 
Logged

Malcolm McKay

  • Read-only
  • *
  • Posts: 551
Re: New Britain Hypothesis
« Reply #42 on: May 23, 2012, 09:45:18 PM »

on one persons Evidence

Do you see were am going with this  :) 

 

Frankly no - I think you have misunderstood what I posted. Let's leave it at that - it is as simply put as I can.
Logged

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 2948
Re: New Britain Hypothesis
« Reply #43 on: May 24, 2012, 09:10:51 AM »

Wasn't it you, however, that saw an expedition to the jungles of East New Britain as warranted by the report of a tag with a tantalizing number on it?  From one of your replies in the 'New Britain Hypothesis' -

Quote
The C/N number is that of the aircraft not the engine - that is why it is attached to the engine mount which is a part of the airframe not the engine. It also was the airframe part that suffered damage in the ground loop. That is why it is so interesting, that C/N matches that of Lockheed's for Earhart's Electra. A coincidence? possibly, but something that is a worthy of a properly financed expedition to find.

What's fine for you to undertake may look like a flying leap of faith to me.

Looks that way to me, too.
 
How many archaeological artifacts do the New Britain folks have to offer?  None.
 
How many photographs of the crash site?  None.
 
How many other witnesses confirming the anecdote about the "constructor number"?  None.
 
How many examples of constructor numbers appearing on tags in other airframes?  None.
 
How much evidence offered that the Electra could close within 100 miles of Howland, then fly back to New Britain?  None.

How much archaeology ("digging and dating") has been done at the New Britain crash site?  None.

How many pieces of circumstantial evidence tend to point in the direction of New Britain as the crash site?  None.
 
Malcolm's conviction that the anecdote deserves the expenditure of time and money seems to be amazing fact- (and artifact-) free speculation.  But, of course, his assertion that the New Britain project deserves TIGHAR support is, in his view, merely a question, not a declaration of belief.  The following is to be read in the interrogative mood, not the declarative: "something that is a worthy of a properly financed expedition to find."
LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
« Last Edit: May 24, 2012, 09:17:23 AM by Martin X. Moleski, SJ »
Logged

Malcolm McKay

  • Read-only
  • *
  • Posts: 551
Re: New Britain Hypothesis
« Reply #44 on: May 24, 2012, 07:05:52 PM »


Malcolm's conviction that the anecdote deserves the expenditure of time and money seems to be amazing fact- (and artifact-) free speculation.  But, of course, his assertion that the New Britain project deserves TIGHAR support is, in his view, merely a question, not a declaration of belief.  The following is to be read in the interrogative mood, not the declarative: "something that is a worthy of a properly financed expedition to find."

Martin is conveniently ignoring that much of the Nikumaroro hypothesis is both anecdotal (islander claims of aircraft wreckage and male and female skeletons) and artifacts yet to be conclusively linked to Earhart. He is also ignoring that the East New Britain wreck site is, like the wreck of the Electra on Nikumaroro, also yet to be found. So at present and until there is proof either way each hypothesis is equally valid. That is just my humble scientific take on it.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 8   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