Advanced search  
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 7   Go Down

Author Topic: Evaluating the Niku hypothesis: conflicting strategies for testing hypotheses  (Read 89139 times)

Malcolm McKay

  • Read-only
  • *
  • Posts: 551

Malcolm,

You said "For me it has always been bits of all those things. One project the final result was just what the accumulated data indicated, as I saw it. That one started out as a side issue in another project I was involved with and in the process of that I found that detailed research was lacking in the particular area which I was allotted." 

So which one do you start with?  If you're assigned a role in some research, for example, do you support the assignment til it takes you elsewhere, or do you do the assignment with whatever scope controls are in place, and then pursue the anomolies separately? (Assuming you were in control of your assignment, like here where I decide what to examine or review) what would be the most rigorous first step?

Hello Leon

I see what you are driving at. Well the answer is do the allotted task as one is obligated and pursue anything that arises separately. However if for instance something came to light that showed that the comparative material  being used in the study for reference purposes had certain unrecognised anomalies that would affect the outcomes of the current work then it would be necessary to make note of that in the report.

Malcolm   
Logged

Malcolm McKay

  • Read-only
  • *
  • Posts: 551

Got it.  So even if you recognized the anomolies then you'd proceed for the moment even it effected the ultimate outcome.

Well, Ok.

No you haven't - I'd only proceed if the noted anomalies were not relevant to the purpose for which the references were being used.

E.g. I am examining a pottery assemblage from a late Neolithic site and combing through published excavation reports for parallels. In passing I note that certain copper artifacts seem to differ according to site location but the pottery does not. Therefore I note the difference in the copper artifacts as a small footnote but also note that the pottery assemblage shows no differences. However if in examining the aforesaid Late Neolithic pottery assemblage I note that the pottery itself shows some stylistic or fabric differences which it appears occurs in parallel with the differences in the copper assemblage then I would naturally attempt to understand, through further comparison, if there is a relation between between the anomalies due to a third unrecognised factor. 
Logged

john a delsing

  • T2
  • **
  • Posts: 66
  • Minnesota Johnny D.

   I have proudly been a Tighar member for several years. I consider it an honor to belong; however, for me, the old Tighar hypothesis badly needs updating. Some members might agree with me, and I’m sure many won’t.

1.   Amelia found Gardner island by running a LOP of 157/337   One of the reasons I joined TIGHAR was I was told that Amelia’s last words were something to the effect that they were running the 157/337 LOP and that if you drew a line from Howland to Gardner, that angle would be very close to 337 degrees. To the north of Howland on 157 was open water, to the south, besides Gardner island on 337 was the Phoenix group of islands acting like a ‘catcher’s mitt’ so if you missed Gardner there were other islands. This made a lot of sense to me and I became a believer. I since have found out that you can’t run a LOP of 337 from the Howland vicinity and hit Gardner, at least mot at that time of day they were there.

2.   Found Gardner instead by ‘ dead reckoning ‘
   This of course made sense to me, because as a pilot, I had done some ‘dead reckoning’, and there also was this catcher’s mitt theory to help if they missed Gardner and so again I believed. You probably realize how I felt when I was reminded that you can’t dead reckon to anywhere, if you first don’t know where you are starting from.

3.   Catchers Mitt
   Then there is the disappearance of the ‘Catcher’s Mitt’ theory ( many islands close enough together that you should run into one of them ). I guess disappearance is not the correct term as something that never was, can’t disappear.

4.   Landing at Gardner Island
   But the good news is I still think there is a good chance that Amelia did find Gardner, maybe by the box/search method, or maybe by pure luck. And that she landed, probably close to the Norwich wreck.

5.   Post Transmits    

   If Amelia landed at Gardner I think most, if not all, credible transmits are real, and that would certainly include Betty and Mabel’s injuries transmits.

6.   The Lambrecht Flight
   If I may let me please skip ahead to the Castaway and then return.

7.   The Castaway of the Seven Site
   By far, in my opinion, the biggest mistake Tighar has made is the acceptance and propagation of what many would call “just another urban legend”. We have spent much money, time and effort on this seven site and everything we have found is more consistent with many other peoples of this island visiting this site than it is to just one castaway and not a single object has been found that we can trace to Amelia.
   ‘Old school theorists’ are going to be very reluctant to give up on this castaway of the seven site theory. I admit it is very romantic. The seven site offered many promising clues a few years ago, and after much work on our part, not one of the clues have paid off. It is now time to put the castaway theory on the back burner and move forward in more promising areas, such as her base camp for Fred and her first five days.
   For those members not willing to give up on the seven site castaway, theory, then start selling the Tighar membership on another trip back to the seven site, this time to dig a little deeper; maybe to the 30 cm level, or possibly to 50 cm; or maybe we should move our search to the north or south of the seven site, we can call them the six site or the eight site, or how about moving to the east or west of the seven site. Does anyone really believe that we can generate much excitement for a ‘dig’ at the 7 west site ?

6.   The Lambrecht Flight
   If anyone is rethinking the castaway of the seven site being Amelia then I suggest you rethink the Lambrecht flight also. The only reason that Amelia has to be ALIVE during Lambrechts’ flight is so she can be alive and move down to the seven site and become it’s castaway, and spend the next few weeks, or possibly months, hunting, fishing, and building fires in different locations.
   Amelia never set foot on the seven site. She and Fred may very well have found Gardner island and landed by the Norwich wreck, got their radio working and transmitted for five days or so, with most, if not all credible transmits being legit, (including the injury ones). Because of lack of survival training, survival preparations (extra water), 120 degree temps, and possible injuries, by weeks end, both Amelia and Fred were dead. Maybe in Amelia’s last hours, in a do a die effort, Amelia struggled to her feet and staged southward down the beach to find help or water. When the sun got too hot to continue, she spotted the shade from a large ren tree; she crawled up to it, closed her eyes and died.
   This is the only hypothesis that is short, simple (occam’s razor anyone ?) and fits the evidence Tighar has found about Amelia, her disappearance, the post transmits, and the Lambrecht flights. For those members not wanting to accept this hypothesis, there is always Gary LaPook’s ‘crashed and sank’, but frankly I think that that one sucks.
 

The Earth is Full
 
Logged

Chris Johnson

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1069
  • Trying to give a fig but would settle for $100,000

OK baseballs not a game i'm familier with but I would suggest that a 'catchers mitt' dosn't guarantee a catch every time.  The word is a metaphor more than anything but you've got more chance of finding land if there are a number of islands in an area against just one.
Logged

Jeff Victor Hayden

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1387

The Phoenix Islands being a 'catchers mitt' seems plausible at first glance but, as we know from another incident, Eddie Rickenbackers B-17 flight to Canton island, the idea doesn't always seem as simple as it first appears to be. After the over-shoot of canton they spent a further 4 hours searching for canton Island without success. They were in the Phoenix Island group and, ended up ditching into the Pacific.

As this example of a missing aircraft and, the subsequent search for it in the Phoenix group of islands is the only other one apart from the Lambrecht search for AE and FN there might be some worth in using it as a comparison/control as to how they went about it. Any similarities, for example: length of search, area of search, weather, sightings etc..

This must be the place
 
« Last Edit: June 29, 2012, 07:21:43 AM by Jeff Victor Hayden »
Logged

C.W. Herndon

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 634

Leon, let's be a little more precise here. Lt Lambrecht said in his report there were "signs of recent habitation". Even when he was interviewed by TIGHAR much later, he did not or would not elaborate on what those signs were. See page 3 of Lt. Lambrecht's report linked below.

http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Lambrecht's_Report.html
Woody (former 3316R)
"the watcher"
 
Logged

Jeff Victor Hayden

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1387

Leon, let's be a little more precise here. Lt Lambrecht said in his report there were "signs of recent habitation". Even when he was interviewed by TIGHAR much later, he did not or would not elaborate on what those signs were. See page 3 of Lt. Lambrecht's report linked below.

http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Lambrecht's_Report.html

Woody, don't you find it strange that despite the report by Lambrecht of 'signs of recent habitation' there was no follow up investigation of Gardner Island for these 'signs of recent habitation'. Have I missed something?
This must be the place
 
Logged

C.W. Herndon

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 634

Yes Jeff, I find that very strange since Capt Friedell's report, he was the capt of the Colorado, says on page 6, last paragaph, see link below, that "No dwellings appeared on Gardner or any other signs of inhabitation". This totally contradicts Lt Lambrecht's report of this issue.

Capt Friedell seemed to be more concerned about the visit of "Neptunus Rex and his court" than this discrepancy, see last para page 7 and 1st para page 8 of his report.

http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Friedell's_Report.html
Woody (former 3316R)
"the watcher"
 
Logged

Jeff Victor Hayden

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1387

Yes Jeff, I find that very strange since Capt Friedell's report, he was the capt of the Colorado, says on page 6, last paragaph, see link below, that "No dwellings appeared on Gardner or any other signs of inhabitation". This totally contradicts Lt Lambrecht's report of this issue.

Capt Friedell seemed to be more concerned about the visit of "Neptunus Rex and his court" than this discrepancy, see last para page 7 and 1st para page 8 of his report.

http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Friedell's_Report.html

No dwellings appeared on Gardner or any other signs of inhabitation

That's odd
Friedell didn't  mention the report from Lambrecht regarding the 'recent signs of habitation' on Garner island, in fact he contradicts it? What's going on here?
This must be the place
 
Logged

C.W. Herndon

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 634

Good question! I think it was discussed somewhere but I don't remember where right now. I will try to find it as soon as I have a chance.
Woody (former 3316R)
"the watcher"
 
Logged

Bruce Thomas

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 648
  • Now where did I put my glasses?

For those who want to delve into the archive of earlier AE Forum postings (back when it was done via email), the Forum Archives provide for many additional hours of entertainment.  It's amusing how much of what gets discussed in the current forum has been hashed over ad nauseum in the past.  Pondering about the discrepancy between Lambrecht and Friedell in their separate writings, about "signs of recent habitation" on Gardner Island or not, was much discussed on the Forum back in March 2006.

The original of Lambrecht's report, annotated with comments as it was forwarded up the chain of command, was unearthed by Randy Jacobson at the National Archives.  I'll quote a Forum entry of Randy's about this (where at the end of the first paragraph he acknowledges that he had earlier reported the incorrect date of the document as July 17; Ron Bright had corrected that, saying that it was actually dated July 16).

Quote
Date:         Sat, 4 Mar 2006 18:13:41
From:         Randy Jacobson
Subject:      Re: Friedell and Lambrecht reports

For Ron Bright,

I have a copy of Lambrecht's original report.  I was the first person to find the original in the National Archives, and have provided a copy of my copy to TIGHAR.  All other copies are carbon copies.  It is, in fact, dated July 16, not 17 as you state.

It was sent via the CO of the Colorado to the Chief of the Bureau of Aeronautics via the Commander Battle Force, US Fleet as the first endorsement.  The second endorsement was sent from the CO of the Battle Force to the Commander-in-Chief, US Fleet, with a reference to CinCus restricted dispatch 0026-1349 (which I do not have).  In this second endorsement, it is stated that the letter of Lambrecht's properly should be under the cognizance of the Navy Dept. instead of the Bureau of Aeronatics, so it is being forwarded to CinCUS.  "Certain undesirable features of this correspondence, including the undue informality of expression in certain portions, are being taken up with the Commanding Officer, U.S.S. Colorado, in separate correspondence."  The date is 27 July, from the USS California, docked in Tacoma, Washington.  It is signed by C.C. Bloch.

I do not have a complete list of personnel in the Naval heirarchy, but I can vouch that CC Bloch, Admiral, was the ComBatForce.  Follow-on endorsements basically over-rule the hesitation and dislike of Lambrecht's letter, and eventually it was published by the Bureau of Aeronautics without editing. The follow-on comments are quite interesting, but has nothing to do with "signs of recent habitation"; rather, the style of writing in the letter.
LTM,

Bruce
TIGHAR #3123R
 
« Last Edit: June 30, 2012, 11:03:44 AM by Bruce Thomas »
Logged

Jeff Victor Hayden

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1387

Thanks Bruce, let the delving begin!!!
This must be the place
 
Logged

Malcolm McKay

  • Read-only
  • *
  • Posts: 551

From Friedell's report -

"No dwellings appeared on Gardner or any other signs of inhabitation. A long shallow lagoon extends the entire length of the Island and through most of the width. A seaplane could land in the lagoon and it is believed that a land plane could make a forced landing there, and the occupants walk ashore. Coral reefs extended out from the shore line for about 150 yards. At Gardner Island a four thousand ton tramp steamer has piled up head on and remains there with her back broken. Groves of Cocoanut palms grow on the western end and the entire island is covered with tropical vegetation. Myriads of birds cover both islands. "

Now from Lambrecht's report -

"From M’Kean the planes proceeded to Gardner Island (sighting the ship to starboard enroute) and made an aerial search of this island which proved to be one of the biggest of the group. Gardner is a typical example of your south sea atoll … a narrow circular strip of land (about as wide as Coronado’s silver strand) surrounding a large lagoon. Most of this island is covered with tropical vegetation with, here and there, a grove of coconut palms. Here signs of recent habitation were clearly visible but repeated circling and zooming failed to elicit any answering wave from possible inhabitants and it was finally taken for granted that none were there.

At the western end of the island a tramp steamer (of about 4000 tons) bore mute evidence of unlighted and poorly charted “Rocks and Shoals”. She lay high and almost dry head onto the coral beach with her back broken in two places.

The lagoon at Gardner looked sufficiently deep and certainly large enough so that a seaplane or even an airboat could have landed or taken off in any direction with little if any difficulty. Given a chance, it is believed that Miss Earhart could have landed her plane in this lagoon and swam or waded ashore. In fact, on any of these islands it is not hard to believe that a forced landing could have been accomplished with no more damage than a good barrier crash or a good wetting."


My emphasis.
Logged

Jeff Victor Hayden

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1387

From Friedell's report -

No dwellings appeared on Gardner or any other signs of inhabitation.

Now from Lambrecht's report -

Here signs of recent habitation were clearly visible...


Friedell and Lambrecht couldn't agree, fair enough. Perhaps the report Friedell saw differed somewhat to the one Lambrecht filed, it happens in the chain of command.



This must be the place
 
Logged

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 2961

Dr Moleski - I don't think you realise the seriousness of what you casually inferred I had done.

Dr. McKay, there was nothing casual at all in my identification of the rhetorical form you employed.

The evidence for the classification I made is in your original post.

Anyone who wishes to examine the evidence and test the classification may do so.

Quote
I'll say once more - you have abused your position as a forum moderator and if you had any understanding of that role you would withdraw unconditionally that comment to which I have objected.

Thanks for repeating yourself.  Oddly enough, it doesn't change my view of the situation.
LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 7   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