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

Author Topic: Betty's Notebook, Page 53, S309 165E  (Read 89488 times)

Bruce Thomas

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 646
  • Now where did I put my glasses?
Re: Betty's Notebook, Page 53, S309 165E
« Reply #15 on: July 05, 2012, 01:00:42 PM »

After a brief run to verify to the north you would go 337 157 toward the greater preponderance of islands close by.

Welcome, John.  I've noted in the quote-snippet above the change I think you'd probably make yourself after another proofreading of what you wrote.  :) (You can modify your own postings, using the "Modify" button at the top.)  Join in with your additional thoughts -- this is a wide-ranging Forum, as I guess you've already discerned.

Why not go to the New Member Introduction topic and let us know more about yourself?
LTM,

Bruce
TIGHAR #3123R
 
Logged

Malcolm McKay

  • Read-only
  • *
  • Posts: 551
Re: Betty's Notebook, Page 53, S309 165E
« Reply #16 on: July 06, 2012, 01:09:59 AM »

Breaking news: I actually agree with malcolm on the bettys notebook dating thing. If we were using it as a major factor in our search, I would say it would be logical to have the pages time dated to 1937. Makes logical sense to me, to remove any doubt that it could have been faked, say in 1966.
But---even though its an important peice in the overall puzzle, its content doesnt give me enough specifics to warrant a search of Niku. But-----if she had stated something like, "one a island with a shipwreck on the western shoreline", or something more geographically specific, I would be all over it.
just saying. Good point Malcolm.

Good God Tom - nearly gave me a heart attack  ;D . Next time you agree could you sort of gently lead into it?  :)
Logged

Adam Marsland

  • T2
  • **
  • Posts: 88
Re: Betty's Notebook, Page 53, S309 165E
« Reply #17 on: July 06, 2012, 03:59:29 AM »

There's a great quote from Sherlock Holmes that goes something like, "when you have eliminated all possibilities, whatever remains, however unlikely, must be the truth."

To me, it's not quite enough to just say that you don't believe something, or that the evidence does not meet one's criteria.  I want to hear an alternative explanation that fits the facts without bending them.  TIGHAR, to their credit, have done this on nearly every area of their hypothesis.  Proof?  No.  But anticipating the flaws in their hypothesis and advancing credible explanations for them?  Absolutely. 

This is one reason I'm not particularly impressed with the naysayers' arguments.  It is not enough to merely poke holes in a theory.  You need to be able to come up with a better explanation of your own that fits the facts and the situations as they were (not as they are now, or were at some other time, or would like them to have been), and critically think one's own arguments.  This is something few people do, and one of the reasons I have always liked TIGHAR's approach, because they do do this.  I knew from reading this website in the past that TIGHAR had gone through and verified all of the song lyrics in Betty's Notebook as being period-authentic, to give one example, and did not bring it up because I assumed someone as thorough as Malcolm would not have advanced the criticism about authentication without already knowing this. But he did...which is what frustrates me sometimes about the potshots that keep getting leveled.  Most of this stuff has already been asked and answered credibly, and I confess to rolling my eyes when someone comes up with a highfalutin' GOTCHA and I know full-well TIGHAR dealt with this or that issue at some length 10 years ago and the person just hasn't done their homework.

What I DO like is when someone comes up with something new, pro or con.  That's the good stuff, and it helps advance us to the truth. Because skepticism for its own sake is not objectivity.  It is simply another form of bias -- professional skeptics often are deathly afraid of looking stupid or being played for suckers, and want to preserve intellectual superiority at all times -- but radical changes in our understanding of the world are more often advanced by people thinking out of the box, and who are often ridiculed for going against the prevailing wisdom -- not because they are blind believers, but because they put two and two together and didn't worry that everyone else said it made five.  To see the truth, you have to be able to follow the threads of evidence wherever they lead, even if they lead somewhere that counters conventional belief and in the short term your peers may make fun of you. 

However, healthy skepticism equally applied coupled with an open mind that weighs competing arguments fairly and critically thinks its own arguments' weaknesses as hard as it does others -- now, there's an approach that, in my opinion, arrives at the truth.  And coming up with new ways of looking at the problem that meet these criteria, wherever they point, is really valuable.

So let's say Amelia Earhart's plane washes up on Howland tomorrow.  It will still leave us with a fascinating conundrum, because none of the alternative explanations for Betty's Notebook, or the post-loss messages, or the artifacts found at the Seven Site, have to me manifested a fraction of the thoroughness and attention to detail that TIGHAR's has.  These things are explained away, in my opinion, far too glibly and without taking into account a lot of the actual factual details surrounding them.  If you look closely at all these issues, they are much harder to explain away.  I do agree it is manifestly unlikely for Betty's Notebook, for example, to be what it purports to be...but the alternative explanations are so much more unlikely as to beggar belief.  The basis for believing in the alternative explanations mostly lies in the incredulity that she actually heard Earhart -- but that, in itself, is not an argument. 

There's a difference between being unconvinced of something and being convinced something didn't happen because you find it too fantastic, and in so doing reach for an explanation that, if examined closely, is even more unrealistic.  But because it has the comfort of not being a sensational claim, we feel safe in making it.

Which brings me back to Sherlock Holmes: "when you have eliminated all possibilities, whatever remains, however unlikely, must be the truth."  I personally find it highly unlikely she faked the journals, but it's certainly possible and doable assuming she did it in 1937.  The other explanations advanced simply don't wash when given the same level of scrutiny the Earhart scenario is.  Now this does not mean there couldn't be some other explanation, some odd coincidence of fate and misunderstanding and the mystery of radio, that's even odder than an Earhart reception.  But I would say whatever that would be, would be an even more fascinating and unlikely scenario than the one we're looking at.
« Last Edit: July 06, 2012, 04:16:16 AM by Adam Marsland »
Logged

richie conroy

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1412
Re: Betty's Notebook, Page 53, S309 165E
« Reply #18 on: July 06, 2012, 08:07:02 AM »

Excellent post Adam  :)

Tighar have done the most they can to prove the artifacts belong to Amelia and Fred

Those naysayers who disagree and say they could belong to anyone ?

can they prove they didn't belong to the lost flyer's, Doubt it.

as for the notebook, with or without it Tighar would still be were they are today.

if it said they are on gardner then it would be questionable ? 
We are an echo of the past


Member# 416
 
Logged

Leon R White

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 143
Re: Betty's Notebook, Page 53, S309 165E
« Reply #19 on: July 06, 2012, 09:18:56 AM »

Well stated Adam.  There have been discussions elsewhere that in the scientific method you cannot DISPROVE anything.  You can only prove another explanation that by its proof, makes the first explanation unusuable.  There is a fine line between scepticism and cynicism - but they are not the same thing.  And poking holes doesn't disprove anything.  Alternate proof is what is needed - not probabilities, possibilities, plausible alternatives, or opinions. The fact that there are 42 alternative explanations means nothing without proof. Did she land in New Britain? Australia? the Moon? believe what you like, but pursue some proof.
And the search for proof, not the search of disproof, is what, for me, makes true science elegant and beautiful.  Plus, it keeps my mind off the cricket scores.

Leon
Logged

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 2934
Re: Betty's Notebook, Page 53, S309 165E
« Reply #20 on: July 06, 2012, 09:52:02 AM »

There have been discussions elsewhere that in the scientific method you cannot DISPROVE anything.  You can only prove another explanation that by its proof, makes the first explanation unusuable.

This is how posts about TIGHAR's work turn into philosophical arguments.

We have touched on the question of "proving negatives" in the Chatterbox.  While establishing the falsehood of some theories by proving another is a valid approach, it is also possible to establish falsehood on other grounds without having established the truth of another theory.

In other words, I think your theory about theories is not a reliable guide to how to think about "scientific method."
LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
Logged

Dave Potratz

  • T2
  • **
  • Posts: 75
Re: Betty's Notebook, Page 53, S309 165E
« Reply #21 on: July 06, 2012, 01:50:41 PM »

Quote from Adam Marsland:
"There's a great quote from Sherlock Holmes that goes something like, 'when you have eliminated all possibilities, whatever remains, however unlikely, must be the truth.'


Adam, a bit of a clarification, FWIW, the Sherlock Holmes quote you reference is actually:  "When you have eliminated the impossible , whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth".

Your comment is well said sir...and now that you've mentioned the Great Detective, makes me think of what an asset he would be sometimes on this particular forum. ;)
« Last Edit: July 06, 2012, 01:53:38 PM by Dave Potratz »
Logged

Malcolm McKay

  • Read-only
  • *
  • Posts: 551
Re: Betty's Notebook, Page 53, S309 165E
« Reply #22 on: July 06, 2012, 05:48:50 PM »

... I knew from reading this website in the past that TIGHAR had gone through and verified all of the song lyrics in Betty's Notebook as being period-authentic, to give one example, and did not bring it up because I assumed someone as thorough as Malcolm would not have advanced the criticism about authentication without already knowing this. But he did...which is what frustrates me sometimes about the potshots that keep getting leveled.  Most of this stuff has already been asked and answered credibly, ...


No Adam - the problem is that it has been answered to suit TIGHAR's take on it but is that credible, and the answer without intending to slur TIGHAR is no and that is why I ask questions about paper, the medium used to record the note and handwriting. These questions are quite neutral but given the importance of the Betty notebook they need to be answered neutrally rather than in a fashion that suits the hypothesis.
Logged

Malcolm McKay

  • Read-only
  • *
  • Posts: 551
Re: Betty's Notebook, Page 53, S309 165E
« Reply #23 on: July 06, 2012, 06:03:10 PM »


The habit of listening is not the habit of writing down what you listened to.
Maybe she only kept a written record that time because she heard “This is Amelia Earhart” and realized the importance, and during the other times she listened, there was not anything as important to write down.   

Like the importance of writing down the songs she heard?

gl
[/quote]

Well put Gary. This diary, despite some denials, has a lot riding on it. Without it we don't have the landed on the outer reef scenario nor the means to conjecture post-landing behaviour on the island. It needs to thoroughly examined.
Logged

richie conroy

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1412
Re: Betty's Notebook, Page 53, S309 165E
« Reply #24 on: July 06, 2012, 06:18:08 PM »

Not at all Malcolm

Tighar has found and produced items, not smokeing gun items

but items that would not be out of place in a suitcase belonging to either Amelia or Fred

freckle cream, hand lotion jar's. Amelia, pre Tighar search benedictine bottle inverting eye piece Fred related

can u show me proof or evidence of someone else being on island to which them items could belong ?   
which backup the naysayers  case ?


 
We are an echo of the past


Member# 416
 
Logged

richie conroy

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1412
Re: Betty's Notebook, Page 53, S309 165E
« Reply #25 on: July 06, 2012, 06:53:42 PM »

Excellent post Adam  :)

Tighar have done the most they can to prove the artifacts belong to Amelia and Fred

Those naysayers who disagree and say they could belong to anyone ?

can they prove they didn't belong to the lost flyer's, Doubt it.

as for the notebook, with or without it Tighar would still be were they are today.

if it said they are on gardner then it would be questionable ?

TIGHAR have not proved in the sense of establishing provenance that they belonged to either Earhart or Noonan. If they had the whole search would be over right now and the history rewritten.

I say that the naysayers have established just a good a case for each artifact to have belonged to people other than Earhart or Noonan as to the contrary. Richie I am quite neutral in this matter - you are allowing your desire to believe that these things to belong to the pair overwhelm your objectivity.

If TIGHAR come up with the much sought Electra wreck on this trip then that will be the thing that settles it - not these artifacts which are of questionable provenance.

so your sayin if Tighar produce Electra wreckage on this trip that settles it ?

 Is that with and without decals of NR16020 on tail wing  :-X
We are an echo of the past


Member# 416
 
Logged

Matt Revington

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 286
  • member #4155
Re: Betty's Notebook, Page 53, S309 165E
« Reply #26 on: July 06, 2012, 07:23:28 PM »

Of course if the devil's advocate was posting on these forums he/she could say that the Electra crashed into the ocean near Howland drifted to Gardner and broke up and sunk on the reef face. 
Logged

Malcolm McKay

  • Read-only
  • *
  • Posts: 551
Re: Betty's Notebook, Page 53, S309 165E
« Reply #27 on: July 07, 2012, 12:15:30 AM »


so your sayin if Tighar produce Electra wreckage on this trip that settles it ?

 Is that with and without decals of NR16020 on tail wing  :-X

Richie in answer to all of your posts -

1. TIGHAR have not produced one single item that has direct provenance to either Earhart or Noonan, and have never claimed to, and

2. I'm sure if they discover the identifiable wreck of the Electra on the reef off the island, even I would be gracious enough to accept it.   
Logged

Malcolm McKay

  • Read-only
  • *
  • Posts: 551
Re: Betty's Notebook, Page 53, S309 165E
« Reply #28 on: July 07, 2012, 12:26:07 AM »


Malcolm, you said "Without it we don't have the landed on the outer reef scenario"
 My interpretation of Tighar's "landed on the outer reef scenerio" is that the plane could not transmit if in water for any length of time, that there were several credible radio transmissions, and the props needed to be operable to transmit that long, so a "landed on the outer reef" scenerio best explained the multiple radio transmissions. I also think the outer reef scenario came before Betty's notebook was revealed to Tighar. You can look at Tighars index of dated subjects to see this.

And even before Tighar came up with that scenerio, I think the Navy thought a reef of some kind was a scenario in the 1937 search as well, and I don't think the Navy even talked to Betty. So Betty's notebook is not needed at all to have a "landed on the outer reef scenerio".

You have forgotten that TIGHAR have had to come up with a scenario that supports their hypothesis for the Nikumaroro landing. The reef landing is I believe the fourth attempt at this, the previous ones involved landings on the beach or the island. Therefore for things like the "Betty" notebook entry to have validity there must be a reef landing to keep the radio dry, and there is no landing on the island as has been well and truly demonstrated. Accordingly "Betty" must be kosher in order for the reef landing hypothesis to work and there must be a reef landing for "Betty" to be kosher - it's a circular argument. One supports the other.   
« Last Edit: July 07, 2012, 12:28:09 AM by Malcolm McKay »
Logged

Malcolm McKay

  • Read-only
  • *
  • Posts: 551
Re: Betty's Notebook, Page 53, S309 165E
« Reply #29 on: July 07, 2012, 06:44:17 AM »


Nothing essential to the Niku hypothesis hangs on Betty's notebook.  I guess you are thinking that she decided in her old age (78 in 2000, I believe) to make up a story about her childhood that would bring her riches, fame, and glory.  If so, she sure worked hard to fake the document.

So now you are saying that the story http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Notebook/notebook.html that she offered it to Fred Goerner (1925 - 1994) presumably after he published his book on Earhart is not true.
« Last Edit: July 07, 2012, 06:52:22 AM by Malcolm McKay »
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4   Go Up
 

Copyright 2018 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