Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9   Go Down

Author Topic: Confidence  (Read 115392 times)

Malcolm McKay

  • Read-only
  • *
  • Posts: 551
Re: Confidence
« Reply #90 on: July 25, 2012, 07:13:57 PM »


Ah, but if you would only read for content, Malcolm, you'd know that your strawman question
Quote
... why if the Bevington object after Glickman's "enhancement" (and that purported u/c component in the coral) was so important to getting the State Department visit didn't the last trip concentrate on finding that? That, if it is a component of the Electra, is the "smoking gun" yet TIGHAR blithely ignores it after all the years of hype and runs this highly expensive underwater search.
is specious nonsense. 

relevant daily report from the Niku VI expedition in 2010 that shows your strawman question to be the quatsch that it is.  Do a little reading, Malcolm.  It'll do you good.  Read the entire set of daily reports from that expedition.  You are a scientist, man.  Do what scientists do: continually educate yourself by reading all available information.  Speak from a wealth of background knowledge, and not from the abyss of ignorance.

Otherwise, you will just continue to be a master at framing nonsense strawman questions that are full of false words, insults, and gratuitous misdirection. You have a lot to contribute to this forum; you have already shown the value of healthy skepticism.  Please stop shooting yourself in the foot by turning into simply a verbal bully who uses this free forum to pound your chest and clutter the environment with dreck.

So apart from that outburst which is probably explained by frustration at what this trip achieved you still haven't explained why that wonderfully enhanced photo of the object in the coral which was flashed around as "evidence" (you know the one- the one that is suggested is part of the Electra u/c replete with explanatory yellow lines) wasn't investigated this trip. Now if the Bevington object was indeed part of the Electra wouldn't it and that part most likely be the same? Or did the Electra lose both u/c legs in the coral? Isn't going back and actually looking at that feature in the coral of which you have quite modern photos more conducive to providing a smoking gun?

Now I realise that there is a certain amount of sensitivity here given the results of the trip. However I do think that simple questioning of assumptions that are made here about very inconclusive evidence; artifacts which could have origins other than Earhart or Noonan; somewhat imaginative propositions as to what the Bevington object is (that video presentation is imaginative at best); the excuses offered as to why Maude and Bevington didn't spot it or, if they did, dare I suggest wrote it off after investigation as a natural feature like driftwood; the rather vacuous explanations offered to explain why the Navy searchers found nothing; the post-loss radio messages etc. are not verbal bullying but that skepticism you find so praiseworthy.

The title of this thread is Confidence and I freely admit that, after seeing the evidence offered so far, I have absolutely none that the Nikumaroro hypothesis is valid, because I have never seen so much shoehorning of disparate, unrelated and imaginary objects into a hypothesis since von Daniken and Chariots of the Gods?. When did this wild goose chase begin - 1989? Since 1989 all over the world many historic aircraft have been found and recovered - its happening with steady regularity. Recently there have been two recoveries of WW2 Il2 attack aircraft in Russia, then there is the very recently found P40 in Libya; a couple of years ago a complete P39 from a lake in northern Russia, a rare early model FW190 recovered and restored, few years back a Canadian group recovered and restored a unique MkIII Halifax, etc. etc. All of these occurred with much less media coverage and public calls for funds. So isn't it about time that TIGHAR stopped beating around the bush and either validated the hypothesis or moved on. TIGHAR list a TBD, the P38 in Wales and the L'Oiseau Blanc in their site, what about work on those. Then if those aren't attractive there are numerous recoverable historic aircraft at the bottom of Lake Michigan from WW2. Or has TIGHAR ceased to pay lip service to historic aircraft recovery and simply become the Find Amelia Earhart Foundation, in which case wouldn't a name change be appropriate. After all the money expended isn't it time something, anything, conclusive was recovered or demonstrated.

And if anyone feels bullied by that then I suggest that they may have led very sheltered lives. 
Logged

Adam Marsland

  • T2
  • **
  • Posts: 88
Re: Confidence
« Reply #91 on: July 25, 2012, 08:21:39 PM »


Ah, but if you would only read for content, Malcolm, you'd know that your strawman question
Quote
... why if the Bevington object after Glickman's "enhancement" (and that purported u/c component in the coral) was so important to getting the State Department visit didn't the last trip concentrate on finding that? That, if it is a component of the Electra, is the "smoking gun" yet TIGHAR blithely ignores it after all the years of hype and runs this highly expensive underwater search.
is specious nonsense. 

relevant daily report from the Niku VI expedition in 2010 that shows your strawman question to be the quatsch that it is.  Do a little reading, Malcolm.  It'll do you good.  Read the entire set of daily reports from that expedition.  You are a scientist, man.  Do what scientists do: continually educate yourself by reading all available information.  Speak from a wealth of background knowledge, and not from the abyss of ignorance.

Otherwise, you will just continue to be a master at framing nonsense strawman questions that are full of false words, insults, and gratuitous misdirection. You have a lot to contribute to this forum; you have already shown the value of healthy skepticism.  Please stop shooting yourself in the foot by turning into simply a verbal bully who uses this free forum to pound your chest and clutter the environment with dreck.

So apart from that outburst which is probably explained by frustration at what this trip achieved you still haven't explained why that wonderfully enhanced photo of the object in the coral which was flashed around as "evidence" (you know the one- the one that is suggested is part of the Electra u/c replete with explanatory yellow lines) wasn't investigated this trip. Now if the Bevington object was indeed part of the Electra wouldn't it and that part most likely be the same? Or did the Electra lose both u/c legs in the coral? Isn't going back and actually looking at that feature in the coral of which you have quite modern photos more conducive to providing a smoking gun?

Now I realise that there is a certain amount of sensitivity here given the results of the trip. However I do think that simple questioning of assumptions that are made here about very inconclusive evidence; artifacts which could have origins other than Earhart or Noonan; somewhat imaginative propositions as to what the Bevington object is (that video presentation is imaginative at best); the excuses offered as to why Maude and Bevington didn't spot it or, if they did, dare I suggest wrote it off after investigation as a natural feature like driftwood; the rather vacuous explanations offered to explain why the Navy searchers found nothing; the post-loss radio messages etc. are not verbal bullying but that skepticism you find so praiseworthy.

The title of this thread is Confidence and I freely admit that, after seeing the evidence offered so far, I have absolutely none that the Nikumaroro hypothesis is valid, because I have never seen so much shoehorning of disparate, unrelated and imaginary objects into a hypothesis since von Daniken and Chariots of the Gods?. When did this wild goose chase begin - 1989? Since 1989 all over the world many historic aircraft have been found and recovered - its happening with steady regularity. Recently there have been two recoveries of WW2 Il2 attack aircraft in Russia, then there is the very recently found P40 in Libya; a couple of years ago a complete P39 from a lake in northern Russia, a rare early model FW190 recovered and restored, few years back a Canadian group recovered and restored a unique MkIII Halifax, etc. etc. All of these occurred with much less media coverage and public calls for funds. So isn't it about time that TIGHAR stopped beating around the bush and either validated the hypothesis or moved on. TIGHAR list a TBD, the P38 in Wales and the L'Oiseau Blanc in their site, what about work on those. Then if those aren't attractive there are numerous recoverable historic aircraft at the bottom of Lake Michigan from WW2. Or has TIGHAR ceased to pay lip service to historic aircraft recovery and simply become the Find Amelia Earhart Foundation, in which case wouldn't a name change be appropriate. After all the money expended isn't it time something, anything, conclusive was recovered or demonstrated.

And if anyone feels bullied by that then I suggest that they may have led very sheltered lives.

Rule #1 of evidence:  a vigorous assertion of one's opinion is not evidence.
Rule #2 of evidence:  selectively restating and/or mischaracterizing facts to suit one's agenda is not an intellectually honest argument, nor is it in any way scientific.  It is, however, what one does when one is building a partisan case....which, since science is built around objective evaluation, is also inherently unscientific.

Bruce has your number, Malcolm.  You shoot off about flaws in TIGHAR's theory without bothering to research for, or acknowledge the existence of, or casually dismiss if brought to your attention, answers to your questions.  That says nothing about TIGHAR's credibility, only yours.  And might I add, your post betrays more frustration than does Bruce's.

No one is cowering from bullying; we're (admittedly possibly wrongly speaking for others here) just tired of you not contributing anything particularly useful, when you have the intellectual capacity and experience to do so, if only you didn't have an obvious axe to continually grind.
« Last Edit: July 25, 2012, 08:23:24 PM by Adam Marsland »
Logged

Malcolm McKay

  • Read-only
  • *
  • Posts: 551
Re: Confidence
« Reply #92 on: July 25, 2012, 09:39:31 PM »


No one is cowering from bullying; we're (admittedly possibly wrongly speaking for others here) just tired of you not contributing anything particularly useful, when you have the intellectual capacity and experience to do so, if only you didn't have an obvious axe to continually grind.

I would have thought that a healthy dose of scepticism would be the most useful thing anyone with my "intellectual capacity and experience" could contribute to the discussion of the Nikumaroro hypothesis. You may rest assured I will continue to do so. I note your comments about what constitute and what do not constitute evidence, I'm glad you mentioned those because they highlight the faults I find in the arguments put forward for the Nikumaroro hypothesis.

On a positive level I do note that once again TIGHAR have ended this expedition with a hook for next year's episodes. But I would like to ask why if it is called The International Group for Historic Aircraft Recovery the last part seems never to have occurred. Wouldn't it be a good idea  for TIGHAR to take a year or so off from the Pacific and go to Wales and recover that P38 which is in pretty plain view - that at least would save the need for cliff hanger hooks at the end of each season.   
Logged

Tom Swearengen

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 818
  • earhart monument, Hawaii
Re: Confidence
« Reply #93 on: July 26, 2012, 07:12:01 AM »

malcolm----obviously you havent been paying attention. Recovering the P38 is the easy part. WHERE YOU GOING TO PUT IT? Who is going to to the restoration? What will be left of it once its removed from the sand?
Its called logistics. I would have thought that someone with your vast knowledge of archaeology would know that. Gee---lets go look for some Egyptian treasure. Oh-----who is going to do the work? See---it isnt as easy as putting it on paper and doing it.
Same thing for the Devestator.
The Hunley was recovered from Charleston Harbor quite a few years ago. Many millions were spent on just the logistics of getting it raised. Now----its in a conservatory in Charleston, where scientists---yes scientists of piece by piece restoring it for public display. 12 years. Lots of work.
So as a scientist, you sau lets go get the P38. Then what do you do?
Fund it and TIGHAR will go do it.
Tom Swearengen TIGHAR # 3297
 
Logged

Malcolm McKay

  • Read-only
  • *
  • Posts: 551
Re: Confidence
« Reply #94 on: July 26, 2012, 09:50:43 PM »

malcolm----obviously you havent been paying attention. Recovering the P38 is the easy part. WHERE YOU GOING TO PUT IT? Who is going to to the restoration? What will be left of it once its removed from the sand?
Its called logistics. I would have thought that someone with your vast knowledge of archaeology would know that. Gee---lets go look for some Egyptian treasure. Oh-----who is going to do the work? See---it isnt as easy as putting it on paper and doing it.
Same thing for the Devestator.

Well at the risk of inflaming more passions TIGHAR does stand for the The International Group for Historic Aircraft Recovery so a little matter like being able stabilize objects that have been immersed in salt water should have been factored into the mission statement and business model. TIGHAR was apparently not just created to find Amelia Earhart - I for one see the search for the L'Oiseau Blanc as being of greater significance to aviation history than the Electra.
Logged

Tom Swearengen

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 818
  • earhart monument, Hawaii
Re: Confidence
« Reply #95 on: July 27, 2012, 06:24:29 AM »

Hum---I think stabilizing objects that have been submerged in salt water isnt a big deal either------unless its an intact P38. Would have to be a BIG tank. I saw the salvage operation of a B25 from Lake Moultrie near Columbia several years ago. Their intent was to disassemble it and truck it to Alabama for restoration. The P38, I would think, would be a different story. Removing the wings and verticals for transport may do more damage than moving it intact. I'll defer that to others more knowledgeable than me. i do understand that there are governmental issues involved with the P38 recovery, as well as money.
Tom Swearengen TIGHAR # 3297
 
Logged

Andrew M McKenna

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 692
  • Here I am during the Maid of Harlech Survey.
Re: Confidence
« Reply #96 on: July 27, 2012, 07:26:34 AM »

Malcolm says;
Quote
Well at the risk of inflaming more passions TIGHAR does stand for the The International Group for Historic Aircraft Recovery so a little matter like being able stabilize objects that have been immersed in salt water should have been factored into the mission statement and business model. TIGHAR was apparently not just created to find Amelia Earhart - I for one see the search for the L'Oiseau Blanc as being of greater significance to aviation history than the Electra.

Malcolm,

Yup, the name has Recovery in it.  Got started that way in 1985, some 27 years ago, when the plan for the organization was a bit different.  Yes, things have morphed a bit in near 30 years, but recovery of historic aircraft is still very much part of the agenda, we're just focused on a few specific aircraft.  I think Ric has considered updating the name, but he likes the acronym TIGHAR and simply prefers to keep it.

Unfortunately, as an independent non-profit organization whose goal is preservation as opposed to reconstruction, recovery of aircraft is extremely difficult for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is funding.  Most of the aircraft that are recovered these days are headed for a complete reconstruction project so they can be made airworthy again to satisfy somebody's personal desire to have a flying example of a historic aircraft.  This also takes money and many personal fortunes are being put to this use, but in the end, the goal is to have a valuable asset with which to make money, as an investment, or as a revenue generator.

If you can make money with the end product - a flyable aircraft - you can attract quite a bit of private equity up front willing to buy a piece of the action.  Several groups have taken this approach to the Earhart Electra, hoping to make money on it.  A great example of this approach is the research and recovery of Glacier Girl from under the ice in Greenland.  The aircraft had to be substantially reconstructed (something like 80% new parts) to get it airworthy again as it had been crushed under 200+ ft of ice.  In the process, they took what was one of the few authentic WWII examples and essentially stripped it of all the original materials, so it has lost its importance as a resource example of original WWII techniques and materials.  Don't get me wrong, I love to see P-38s fly, but seems a shame to take an authentic time capsule and not think about it's significance as a time capsule. 

TIGHAR, on the other hand, does not have such reconstruction plans.  If found and recovered by TIGHAR, the Electra would get conserved in the condition found rather than reconstructed.  Yes, it would probably be on tour for a while, but would ultimately most likely end up being "donated" by its owner, the nation of Kiribati, to the Smithsonian.  Not much of a money maker for TIGHAR and certainly one that doesn't attract private equity investments.  Instead, we have to raise funds without a promise of ownership, a much harder proposition.

We could have yanked the P-38 out of the sand, or the TBDs off out of the lagoon long ago and easily sold them into the reconstruction market if that was the type of recovery we were interested in, but it is not.  (OK, not the TBDs, but the involvement of the US Navy just illustrates the complexity of recovering historic aircraft)

We have done a lot of research on the stabilization of aircraft immersed in salt water, and the conservation of such is not a simple matter.  TIGHAR probably knows more about it now than most aviation archaeology groups.  Until one is ready to deal with the considerable conservation measures, funding required, and a proper museum to house the artifact, it is actually better to leave the aircraft where they are in the water.  Until we can do it right, we'd rather not do something that would in the end be detrimental to the aircraft.  This was not well understood 30 years ago, and many recoveries have turned to disaster for the aircraft as those folks were unprepared to conserve them once out of salt water.

We've narrowed the focus to a few main projects, two with known positions for the aircraft, and two with unknown positions.  There certainly are plans to recover all of them, but it is hard to recover any of them without the right resources, and more importantly, the right plan to conserve, preserve, and house them as genuine historic artifacts, rather than recover them for the private reconstruction market.

What I don't understand is that any understanding of the complexity TIGHAR faces recovering the aircraft we're interested in, you seem intent on criticizing TIGHAR for the lack of actually recovering an intact aircraft to date because the 30 year old name of the organization has the word "Recovery" in it. 

Really, have you nothing more to contribute?

Andrew


« Last Edit: July 27, 2012, 08:32:45 AM by Bruce Thomas »
Logged

Tom Swearengen

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 818
  • earhart monument, Hawaii
Re: Confidence
« Reply #97 on: July 27, 2012, 07:47:44 AM »

Andrew, having been to the 'Maid" site, can tell us alot of its condition. Well, at the time he dove on it anyway. I would think that removing the wings for transport would probably cause more damage. Seems like I remember the P38's had a 50+ foot wingspan. So---to conserve the entire plane intact ---you might as well have an olympic sized pool.
Recovery is the easier part-----the conserving of the aircraft would be an enormous task. The Hunley that I mentioned earlier is a good example. 12 years, MILLIONS of dollars, to get us to the point to be able to see it. How one does that with a submerged aircraft is beyond me.

TIGHAR is doing this right, IMHO.
Tom Swearengen TIGHAR # 3297
 
Logged

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 3006
Re: Confidence
« Reply #98 on: July 27, 2012, 08:27:26 AM »

So isn't it about time that TIGHAR stopped beating around the bush and either validated the hypothesis or moved on.

The time to stop searching is when an area has been thoroughly searched.

Then, and only then, can one say, "I have not found what I was looking for."

The search areas under water and on land have not been thoroughly searched by any means.

Even if they had been, it does not follow that the failure of the search means that the Niku hypothesis is false.  It means that the belief that a different proposition is false, namely that "if the Niku hypothesis is true, then we should be able to find evidence of its truth." 

Ceasing search operations on Niku, therefore, does not logically entail beginning them elsewhere.
LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
Logged

Malcolm McKay

  • Read-only
  • *
  • Posts: 551
Re: Confidence
« Reply #99 on: July 27, 2012, 06:40:25 PM »

Really, have you nothing more to contribute?
Andrew

Well yes, it will only create more inflamed passions, however I will ask it. If recovery seems to be a dead issue as far as TIGHAR is concerned then why bother with continuing the P38 and the TBD as TIGHAR projects. I am fully aware of the difficulties connected with recovering US Navy aircraft as the US Navy never relinquishes ownership, something which has stymied many efforts by people to recover the Lake Michigan aircraft. While the P38 was actually known about for quite a while so TIGHAR's involvement is moot at best given that recovery is now not a part of the business plan. Wouldn't be best simply to divert funding into the search for the Electra and as a second string to the bow keep looking for L'Oiseau Blanc which is a very important aviation artifact.
Logged

john a delsing

  • T2
  • **
  • Posts: 66
  • Minnesota Johnny D.
Re: Confidence
« Reply #100 on: July 27, 2012, 10:36:50 PM »

Malcolm,
      Please,  what is the l xxxx blance ?
             Thanks.
The Earth is Full
 
Logged

Greg Daspit

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 788
Re: Confidence
« Reply #101 on: July 27, 2012, 10:52:51 PM »

RE: L'Oiseau Blanc
A few months ago I was trying to think of other planes that would be important to find and in researching this one found that Tighar already had it as one of its projects.
3971R
 
Logged

Malcolm McKay

  • Read-only
  • *
  • Posts: 551
Re: Confidence
« Reply #102 on: July 27, 2012, 11:18:52 PM »

Malcolm,
      Please,  what is the l xxxx blance ?
             Thanks.

Quite important because its pilots Nungesser and Coli may have been the first people to fly from Paris to New York. The aircraft and crew disappeared but reports were received of people in Newfoundland and Maine hearing an aircraft fly over at the time it would have reached America. The pair's flight predated Lindbergh by about a fortnight.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_White_Bird
Logged

C.W. Herndon

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 634
Re: Confidence
« Reply #103 on: July 29, 2012, 05:17:32 AM »

Malcolm,
      Please,  what is the l xxxx blance ?
             Thanks.

Quite important because its pilots Nungesser and Coli may have been the first people to fly from Paris to New York. The aircraft and crew disappeared but reports were received of people in Newfoundland and Maine hearing an aircraft fly over at the time it would have reached America. The pair's flight predated Lindbergh by about a fortnight.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_White_Bird

Malcolm, I fail to understand your reasoning here. You cite anecdotal evidence, which you have on several occasions declared to be unreliable, as possible proof that the French crew may have been the first to fly from Paris to New York. Since they did not reach New York how can the reports be proof of something that did not happen? (my emphasis added)
Woody (former 3316R)
"the watcher"
 
« Last Edit: July 29, 2012, 06:14:57 AM by C.W. Herndon »
Logged

John Joseph Barrett

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 100
Re: Confidence
« Reply #104 on: July 29, 2012, 06:43:48 AM »

Anecdotal "evidence", in and of itself, has little to no value in proving anything. What it does though is make a person think "what if?". The what if's is why humans have explored the globe, created wondrous inventions, cured disease, etc. Without the anedotal evidence that people in Newfoundland, along the planned flight path of the White Bird, heard a plane fly over about when it should have, there would be no reason to suspect that they ever made land fall and, therefore, no reason for anyone to go look for the wreckage. Did they make it? Based on the number of reports of a plane flying over when and where it was supposed to, I would say yes. Where did they come down? Who knows, the possible area is huge and rather uninviting and not exactly an easy place to search. Much like Niku and the surrounding area where AE/FN disappeared. The proof is there, somewhere, and will only be found if someone is looking for it as no one is likely to just stumble upon it. The White Bird may yet be found by someone passing through the area, and may have been, yet gone unrecognized for what it is. Much as visitors to Niku may have seen parts of the Electra and not recognized what it truly was. As to the "Recovery" in TIGHAR, if you feel it isn't appropriate how about "Relocation" instead? Me, I'm fine with "recovery". It doesn't have to be recovered by TIGHAR. If they find it so someone else with the mean$ can recover and conserve it, what's the difference? I believe in TIGHAR's purpose and I believe that AE/FN made it to Niku, either by planning or luck. The proof is there and will be found.  LTM. - John
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9   Go Up
 

Copyright 2024 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 2.0.18 | SMF © 2021, Simple Machines Powered by PHP