• February 25, 2024, 11:55:40 PM
• Welcome, Guest

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5   Go Down

### AuthorTopic: Why 10AM from Lae?  (Read 109850 times)

#### h.a.c. van asten

• T4
• Posts: 322
##### Re: Why 10AM from Lae?
« Reply #30 on: June 03, 2011, 02:00:57 PM »

Mr. Lapook,

You wrote here that computations I made ("invented") were generally beyond knowledge of of the era sea/air navigators. Certain calculations however , were for them as old as the hills , like computing the LHA (always of the true sun) and the GHA of a heavenly body. Strictly within these limits of skill we (and any navigator henceforth) can establish sunrise time , no N.A.listing ,no rounding , no formulae , in the roads of Howland as described in EJN-2008 / 2011 :

GHA @ 159-07-E                       071545 GAT     288-56-18
GHA @ 178-47-W      U.L.sun horizon       add      87-45-40
________
201-10-38
subtract from      360-00-00
________
In orbit travel of true sun                                 158-49-22

Divide by  15 deg / hr                                     10h35m17s

_______
GAT                                U.L. sun in horizon      17-51-02

Add   03m50s                      Equation of Time          03-50
_______

GMT of sunrise U.L.                                           17-54-53
=======

The sunset fix appears in detail in EJN-2011 , the sunset fix is recomputed  , in somewhat other terms as above , in EJN-2008.

Logged

#### h.a.c. van asten

• T4
• Posts: 322
##### Re: Why 10AM from Lae?
« Reply #31 on: June 03, 2011, 03:01:30 PM »

G.Lpk. Last sentence : ..the sunrise fix is recomputed ..

Logged

#### Monty Fowler

• T5
• Posts: 1078
##### Re: Why 10AM from Lae?
« Reply #32 on: June 03, 2011, 04:01:59 PM »

Mr. Van Asten, I'm thinking it's about time you broke out the popcorn and put the Ameila DVD into your player and just kicked back for awhile ... because, to me, the nits you're picking at, re-picking, kicking, stomping on and otherwise beating to death have gotten way, way less entertaining.

My 2 cents.
Ex-TIGHAR member No. 2189 E C R SP, 1998-2016

Logged

#### Gary LaPook

• T5
• Posts: 1624
##### Re: Why 10AM from Lae?
« Reply #33 on: June 03, 2011, 07:05:46 PM »

Mr. Lapook,

You wrote here that computations I made ("invented") were generally beyond knowledge of of the era sea/air navigators. Certain calculations however , were for them as old as the hills , like computing the LHA (always of the true sun) and the GHA of a heavenly body. Strictly within these limits of skill we (and any navigator henceforth) can establish sunrise time , no N.A.listing ,no rounding , no formulae , in the roads of Howland as described in EJN-2008 / 2011 :

GHA @ 159-07-E                       071545 GAT     288-56-18
GHA @ 178-47-W      U.L.sun horizon       add      87-45-40
________
201-10-38
subtract from      360-00-00
________
In orbit travel of true sun                                 158-49-22

Divide by  15 deg / hr                                     10h35m17s

_______
GAT                                U.L. sun in horizon      17-51-02

Add   03m50s                      Equation of Time          03-50
_______

GMT of sunrise U.L.                                           17-54-53
=======

The sunset fix appears in detail in EJN-2011 , the sunset fix is recomputed  , in somewhat other terms as above , in EJN-2008.

----------------------------------------------------

That's nice.

In the past I have asked you to provide the books that you claim contain your methods and you have refused to do so, I have shown you mine but you haven't shown me yours. So, I am not going to continue this conversation with you until you do.

Gary LaPook
Logged

#### Ric Gillespie

• Executive Director
• Posts: 6097
• "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
##### Re: Why 10AM from Lae?
« Reply #34 on: June 03, 2011, 07:45:49 PM »

I'm thinking it's about time you broke out the popcorn and put the Ameila DVD into your player and just kicked back for awhile ...

I don't think Mr. van Asten has committed any offense that deserves being condemned to sit through that film.
Logged

#### Hilary Christine Olson

• TIGHAR member
• Posts: 38
• My Passion
##### Re: Why 10AM from Lae?
« Reply #35 on: June 03, 2011, 10:01:49 PM »

Actually Gary has earned respect He now has a full name not an abbreviated form. I have been quite reluctant to post as my first and last initials can imply a tag I only like in triplicate at Xmas !
Ho Ho Ho !
HCO

Logged

#### h.a.c. van asten

• T4
• Posts: 322
##### Re: Why 10AM from Lae?
« Reply #36 on: June 03, 2011, 10:39:10 PM »

G.Lapk. As I told you , as soon as I am back home , I will go over the nav literature I have , I cannot have invented any nav theory or practice myself : when I started research in 1988 I knew zero on the subject.
Logged

#### h.a.c. van asten

• T4
• Posts: 322
##### Re: Why 10AM from Lae?
« Reply #37 on: June 03, 2011, 11:06:20 PM »

G.Lpk. There is no reason to be impressed by anything mathematic since the GHA/LHA listing is arithmetical ; may it be that time sight , or longitude by chronometer do not have , or no longer possess a paragraph in American Practical Navigator , that does not mean that the technique not existed resp. was dispersed among navigators circles , might it be as an emergency measure.
Logged

#### h.a.c. van asten

• T4
• Posts: 322
##### Re: Why 10AM from Lae?
« Reply #38 on: June 03, 2011, 11:47:31 PM »

G.Lapk. It may be so that interpolation by N.A. (or other) listing of sunrise time gave the exact (175453 GMT) outcome , accidentally , as compared with the formular result . If it so happened o/b of A/c the coincidence simply took place. It has no influence on any outcome of theory : the sunrise U.L. time is exact , only : if instead of using the bubble sextant @ sunset , the marine sextant was used , the navigator observed the visible sun of 175103 GMT , not the one of 175453 GMT for which the watch time was shifted to GMT 175843 . The navigation error (as of theory) is completely independent of time and position of A/c @ sunrise.
Logged

#### Monty Fowler

• T5
• Posts: 1078
##### Re: Why 10AM from Lae?
« Reply #39 on: June 04, 2011, 08:42:33 AM »

Mr. Van Asten - with all due respect - you have no idea, nor does anyone else, which sextant Fred Noonan used to take which sight, and when. You weren't there. The only two people who were are dead.

Therefore, any theory constructed on the assumption of which sextant was used, introducing or not introducing an error, is, in the simplest and most basic of engineering terms, a WAG*.

My polite 2 cents.

P.S. to Ric - Amelia wasn't that bad ... if you were willing to, ummmm, suspend belief and not get hung up about things like facts for a couple of hours.

P.P.S - *WAG - wild-assed guess. And yes, I have seen it in official memos *laughs*
Ex-TIGHAR member No. 2189 E C R SP, 1998-2016

« Last Edit: June 04, 2011, 08:54:52 AM by Monty Fowler »
Logged

#### h.a.c. van asten

• T4
• Posts: 322
##### Re: Why 10AM from Lae?
« Reply #40 on: June 05, 2011, 12:22:50 AM »

Mt.Fwr . I suppose you were on Gardner when the aircraft landed there after a 200 mls southwards navigation fault of which you have documents ?  Any theory developed must be first ,that is on short term , be consistent : not any flaw of computation must be present and there is no contradiction with logic. The  relevancy (does it match things that happened) is of second line importance and dependend of further research. If this rule (consistency-relevancy) is trespassed you will always see that opponents try ,with many words , undermine the statements of theory , and when not succesful , they turn vexed and end with the clincher "pure speculation" . For complex incidents like Earhart´s , it´s background containing mathematical implications ,any theory without quantitative outcomes is useless.
Logged

#### Martin X. Moleski, SJ

• Posts: 3006
##### Re: Why 10AM from Lae?
« Reply #41 on: June 05, 2011, 05:45:29 AM »

... any theory without quantitative outcomes is useless.

Please note well that the statement quoted above is a theory without any quantitative outcomes.

It is a pure, non-mathematical, philosophical assertion that does not meet the standard set in it.

It is therefore, in its own terms, "useless."

One of the fundamental laws of computation is "Garbage in, garbage out."

It certainly seems to me that your computations begin with a whole host of assumptions that are not self-evident and that are not derived from self-evident truths.  If your premises are correct, then your conclusions ("quantitative outcomes") should be correct.

I doubt that your premises are correct.  Strict calculations based on nonsense are nonsense.
LTM,

Marty
TIGHAR #2359A

Logged

#### Ric Gillespie

• Executive Director
• Posts: 6097
• "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
##### Re: Why 10AM from Lae?
« Reply #42 on: June 05, 2011, 08:36:13 AM »

Strict calculations based on nonsense are nonsense.

And theories that can't be tested are nothing more than intellectual masturbation.
Logged

#### Martin X. Moleski, SJ

• Posts: 3006
##### Re: Why 10AM from Lae?
« Reply #43 on: June 05, 2011, 09:32:13 AM »

Strict calculations based on nonsense are nonsense.

And theories that can't be tested are nothing more than intellectual masturbation.

And that line is a theory that can't be tested, so ...
LTM,

Marty
TIGHAR #2359A

Logged

#### Ric Gillespie

• Executive Director