Print

[Malcolm McKay]

Malcolm, after reading just the first part of the first sentence in your post I was forced to stop, due to the patronizing "if indeed" tone. I assume the rest of your post repeats items you have already stated before.

Red x applied...

Off to productive new ideas and angles.

Regards,

So Ingo has decided that "... new ideas and angles." are possible without access to all the input. Hmm... interesting.

[Malcolm McKay]

Malcolm---we agree on that. There isnt any incontrovertible evidence linking the artifacts to AE or FN. Alot of circumstancial evidence mind you, but nothing that jumps out and says AE or FN.
You are also correct about the wreckage search, and its hopes of that evidence we look for.
But---I think that even if the wreckage isnt linked to AE, this discussion will on. Hope you will continue also.
Tom

Yes Tom - that is it in a nutshell. It also makes for a rather frustrating discussion from the point of view of the archaeology. It is simply wrong to ascribe the origins of something to someone just because of a mix of coincidence and hope, yet both those features are so enticing if one becomes overly committed to an idea. In archaeology it can at times be more common than one would hope, and that is why it is necessary to be rigorous in examining published information.

I remember a debate elsewhere early last year in a subject far removed from the Earhart search where an article claimed that a certain author had radically changed their viewpoint on something and cited the key article wherein this was supposed to have happened. This had quite important ramifications if correct, yet it became clear that the person claiming the change of view seemed to have read only a short and rather erroneously worded summary of the original paper because if one read the original article in its entirety and examined the data quoted the original author had done no such thing. In fact all that had been done was that the analysis of some data had been tightened with new information to remove a small anomaly while leaving the original conclusions unchanged.

[Jeff Victor Hayden]

Sorry to hear your thread has gone 'off topic' Ingo and, deteriorated into a discussion on archeology, again. You have started some interesting threads which have given everyone the opportunity to debate and throw some light on some interesting points, good work.
Yes, the irony of me posting an off topic post into this thread had occurred to me 

[Malcolm McKay]

Sorry to hear your thread has gone 'off topic' Ingo and, deteriorated into a discussion on archeology, again. You have started some interesting threads which have given everyone the opportunity to debate and throw some light on some interesting points, good work.
Yes, the irony of me posting an off topic post into this thread had occurred to me 

Well at the risk of being pedantic this thread was created by Randy Reid, not Ingo, so I really don't understand his grounds for complaint. But as the investigation of the material artifacts on Nikumaroro is clearly an archaeological matter as far as their location and recovery is concerned then I can't see what is not apposite about archaeological methodology being discussed.

[Adam Marsland]

I think it's perfectly fair that a bunch of people might want to kick around ideas about a topic that they're interested in and they might be tired of someone repeatedly derailing this prospect by repeatedly reminding everybody that they haven't proved anything, and they're not being scientific enough.  Particularly when nobody is really asserting otherwise, but the same point keeps being made over and over as if that was not the case.

[Malcolm McKay]

I think it's perfectly fair that a bunch of people might want to kick around ideas about a topic that they're interested in and they might be tired of someone repeatedly derailing this prospect by repeatedly reminding everybody that they haven't proved anything, and they're not being scientific enough.  Particularly when nobody is really asserting otherwise, but the same point keeps being made over and over as if that was not the case.

I have always considered that if ideas are to be kicked around in search of solutions that it is at the least desirable that they stay within the bounds of what is germane to the issue rather than being simply thought bubbles. Of course there is always room for non-germane thought bubbles so long as everyone accepts that they are beckoning towards a blind alley. I shall try in future not to point out obvious blind alleys as you appear to find that offensive.   

[C.W. Herndon]

Jeff, speaking as one among those of us who are inferior I say you have hit the nail right on the head. DRIVE ON!!!

[Ingo Prangenberg]

I agree. I've never thought anything wrong in "kicking around ideas". If you do not use your imagination to search for different scenarios, you may run the risk of pigeon-holing yourself. With little scientific data available and a hypothesis based on circumstantial evidence, should one limit ones possibilities by not thinking outside of the box? I'm certain many archaeologists have incorporated a non-scientific "leap of faith", which helped them find new theories for the many questions that are presented.

During college I was part of a small survey team in Northern California searching for a Russian supply vessel for Fort Ross. The bay in which it ran aground had silted over and created sand dunes. Our professor made us aware of the limited data that was available and asked us to keep an open mind in regards to where the ship ran aground, where cargo may have been transferred to land and how the eventual rescue may have proceeded. Using maps, moving through the physical space ourselves and (dare I say) our imaginations we came up with quite a few productive ideas. These ideas were then used to search for more data.

Don't many solutions come from ideas derived from ones imagination? Mathematicians of all people are also known for this. If you limit your thinking to the few scientific facts available you may continuously spin your wheels and progress will come to a stand still. It will also take away a great deal of positive momentum and make this a stagnant discussion about methodology.

Malcolm, after reading just the first part of the first sentence in your post I was forced to stop, due to the patronizing "if indeed" tone. I assume the rest of your post repeats items you have already stated before.

Red x applied...

Off to productive new ideas and angles.

Regards,

So Ingo has decided that "... new ideas and angles." are possible without access to all the input. Hmm... interesting.

And why wouldn't I want to search for new ideas and angles "without access to all the input"? Nobody has access to all the input, if we did someone would have found the Electra by now. If you focus too closely to only what you know, you may loose focus of overall perspective and miss point entirely. And don't get me wrong here, I'm NOT saying to draw conclusions.

Sorry to hear your thread has gone 'off topic' Ingo and, deteriorated into a discussion on archeology, again. You have started some interesting threads which have given everyone the opportunity to debate and throw some light on some interesting points, good work.
Yes, the irony of me posting an off topic post into this thread had occurred to me 

Jeff, with all respect, I don't think this thread keeps "deteriorating into a discussion on archaeology", but rather methodology. Possibly too scholarly, certainly not productive.  In an attempt to find "new ideas and angles" (which Malcolm finds not valid) I spent quite a while today reading up on land crab burrowing habits. I hope to understand their behavior a bit more in regards to how long their dens are used, how deep they are dug and whether they take larger food items into these dens. Lets see if anything interesting is gleaned.

Also, this isn't my thread, I do not claim it as my own. I don't know why it should matter who started a thread.

[Tom Swearengen]

Ingo---i call it the 'What IF' scenario. What if-this or what if that. With the lack of really hard concrete evidence, sometimes we do have to think out of the box to come up with some answers. I think we all have to admit that we aer theorizing what happened, or what they did or didnt do.
It will be interesting to see how this all works out.

[Jeff Victor Hayden]

I spent quite a while today reading up on land crab burrowing habits. I hope to understand their behavior a bit more in regards to how long their dens are used, how deep they are dug and whether they take larger food items into these dens.

That would be useful Ingo, I don't think this has been investigated in a lot of detail so far as I can determine. Interesting avenue of thought.

[Martin X. Moleski, SJ]

Also, this isn't my thread, I do not claim it as my own. I don't know why it should matter who started a thread.

There is some value in locating threads in the proper category.

From time to time, I will split threads or move them.

This thread does not have a luminous title.  "Slow Down a Little" could mean almost anything and apply to everything under the sun, including meditations on methods.   

It is true that no one owns a thread, other than TIGHAR. 

Thread drift happens.

I'm open to advice about how to separate threads as needed.

The moderators can also close threads, for what it's worth.

Some day I'll start a thread on thread drift.  Not now.  I've got to put the keyboard down and come out of the house.