TIGHAR and the TIGHAR SCIENTIFIC METHODOLOGY
Thu Mar 05, 2015 5:39 pm
I believe that David Billings four part treatise on the 'TIGHAR Scientific Methodology' bears repeating in a topic of it's own; not to be lost among many other posts in the topic 'TIGHAR at it again'. Please post your comments after the 4th installment.
TIGHAR and the TIGHAR SCIENTIFIC METHODOLOGY
Part One
The recent propulsion of the Aluminum sheet = "Once More into the Breach"
I suppose that the dragging out of this piece of aluminum aircraft skin had to happen when Mr. Gillespie is desperate to invent some new angle in order to appeal to the masses that are not aware of his tendencies, as an angle made to urge them to open their wallets and send him some money to buy groceries. I am told that is about the state he is in at this present time with former major contributors to the TIGHAR Hypothesis refusing to shell out, yet again.
He has publicly anaesthetised The Discovery Channel so no luck there. The recent crowd funder appeal resulted in securing a few thousand dollars only, which must have been quite a blow to whatever value of pride he has left.
We do know that this piece of aluminum sheet has appeared before in 1991 as per these words:
The Bottom Line 18 Oct 1991 ( TIGHAR)
"Through laboratory analysis of its physical features, and archival documentation of their significance, Artifact 2-2-V-1 has been shown to be identical, in every knowable aspect, to a particular and unique section of NR16020. At the same time, it has been shown to be unlike any part of any other aircraft known, or even rumored, to have been lost in the region. The conclusion is inescapable. This is a piece of Amelia Earhart’s aircraft."
TIGHAR Bulletin March 12, 1992 claims:
"The analysis of artifacts recovered during last year’s expedition has reached the point where we can now say with confidence that we have the proof. Exhaustive research has established that a section of aluminum aircraft skin found on Nikumaroro could only have come from Earhart’s aircraft (see page 2, “Artifact 2-2-V-1”)."
...and we go back a bit for this statement:
"In 1988 TIGHAR set out to demonstrate that high academic standards could replace wild imaginings with rational hypotheses, and that strict adherence to scientific method could sort fact from fiction to discover the truth about the disappearance of Amelia Earhart. We did it with the hard work and perseverance of the Earhart Project volunteers; the generous assistance of scientists, scholars, and corporations; and most of all, with the support of the people who make it all possible: you, the worldwide members of TIGHAR." (My bolding)
Let us leave these historic words and venture into the Credo which TIGHAR states that it upholds.
The TIGHAR SCIENTIFIC METHODOLOGY
The above TIGHAR statement can be attributed as a precis of what is known as the TIGHAR "Scientific Methodology" where fact is separated from fiction and every pronouncement made by TIGHAR is made in accordance with the credo of Scientific Methodology. These two words: Scientific Methodology, are used very often to underscore and to mean, TIGHAR's painstaking application of expertise to reach a solid scientific based conclusion. The words appear in statements and in bulletins issued by TIGHAR. We shall see Scientific Methodology applied.
So you have Gillespie saying that he uses Scientific Methodology on the one hand and producing a scrap of sheetmetal with no proof on the other. It could be said that the man is totally without conscience and is prepared to place a grab-bag of bits without any provenance in front of the public and ask for money.
TIGHAR: The TIGHAR Hypothesis.
Earhart's last transmission stated that she was "....on the line 157-337, flying North and South". From this, two serving American servicemen postulated that Earhart would not continue flying "north" but would likely have flown "south". It so happens that a the rising sun on that morning, on an azimuth of 067 degrees TRUE, causes a sunline, which if drawn through HOWLAND Island in degrees TRUE (not Magnetic) and continued South-south-east on 157 degrees True, passes close to Gardner Island. Gillespie picked up on this postulation and ran with it, we now have the "TIGHAR Hypothesis", using a 157-337 degrees TRUE, sunline. Note that Earhart did not say "sunline", she said "line".
The first problem with this is, that you can draw any line on those degree numbers centred at any point East of half-way on Earhart's track line between Tabituaea Island in The Gilberts and Howland Island and you would be about as wise as to position of the Electra as Earhart and Noonan were on 2nd July 1937. If they had known "where they are" on that track line, it could be said that with Noonan's expertise they would have found Howland. The conclusion that can be drawn from that is that they did NOT know where they were on the trackline when they started the approach preparations for Howland.
The approach to Howland was supposed to be a direct DF approach, using a Direction Finder fitted to the aircraft. Some say, Noonan would have used an "offset " approach where he diverts from track at a distance from the target, purposely "aiming off" until reaching a sunline (by a reckoning method) and then turning in towards the target, flying into the target on the sunline. It may have been an approach using both methods.
There is a second problem with this "broadcasted" 157-337 line and that is that the degrees are interpreted as TRUE degrees and Aviators do not work in TRUE degrees, they work in MAGNETIC degrees. If not laying off for wind as they approach close to Howland they should have been steering 068 degrees Magnetic. Earhart did not say she was on a sunline, she said "on the line" and a line of 157-337 Magnetic does not go near to Gardner Island. If Noonan told Earhart to steer 067 Magnetic, allowing one degree for wind, then the line 157-337 at 90 degrees to the trackline of 067 degrees Magnetic would be correct for the 157-337 "line"...... a line at right angles to their steered course.
Even so, if they were flying "North and South" on a supposed pre-planned sunline of 157-337 TRUE degrees, there is absolutely nothing to say that this sunline they were using did cut through Howland Island, after all, they "thought" they were there, but obviously they were not there.
The problem Gillespie has is that the TIGHAR Hypothesis is built on an assumption. The assumption is that Earhart and Noonan took a south-south-easterly course after not finding Howland Island and eventually wound up at Gardner Island, now called Nikumaroro Island. There is no basis for thinking that Earhart would head off into the unknown, which is exactly what it would be. For in not finding Howland, the conclusion must be that the Navigation under Noonan was not sufficient to find Howland and therefore if they could not find Howland, they were in effect "lost".
They expected and indeed thought, that they were near Howland; as is shown by the radio transmission, "We must be on you but cannot see you", surely one of the most tragic radio transmissions in history. When you are lost and your position is not known, you cannot navigate to a "known" position. We are in the air now, not on land.....we cannot walk back through city streets to get back to where we came from, or ask someone for directions, then start again to get to where we have to go. In the air over the sea, you have to know where you are or by a recent landmark, where you were.
It must always be remembered that Navigators of this period, navigating by Astro Navigation and for many years after, until the invention of Inertial Guidance Systems and GPS giving readings of LAT/LONG; could NEVER tell you "where you are" at a given time, only "where you had been" at a given time. Any position report request from an aircraft Captain of "Where are we NAV ?" would be met with "Well, at 0900 we were at X and by now we should be at Y, I'll give you an update after my next fix." After the next fix meaning that the fix itself had to be worked out to get the position..... where they had been......
The question arises of whether they actually knew that the Phoenix Group of islands, widely spaced in the Central Pacific could be found, rather than the islands that Earhart had nominated as her Contingency Plan, which were The Gilbert Islands. If they could navigate to Gardner Island, they could navigate to Howland Island, it is that simple. If they do not know where they are on the track line to Howland, they cannot follow a line of position to anywhere.
In order to leave their unknown position and find somewhere dry, it has to be asked: "Which is the better plan ?"
1. From an unknown position on their track line to Howland Island, turn back on their reciprocal course (a reverse course) for the Gilbert Islands; which would be a 500 Mile wide swath of islands at right angles across the return path which would be hard to miss.
or,
2. From an unknown position on their track line to Howland Island, turn SSE for a group of islands, 350 miles away, widely spaced which they could miss, very easily..
They carried strip maps which were about 500mm long and 200mm wide. For the LAE-Howland sector of 2556 Miles, the straight line covered the page from left to right and the tiny islands of the Phoenix Group would be mere pin-points on that piece of paper, with no Lat/Long numbers shown.
They also carried the 1936 National Geographic Map of the Pacific for which there were no Lat/Long numbers given for the Phoenix Group and again, the islands would be mere pin-points on that map.
The choice is simple, follow your Contingency Plan for the Gilberts. The TIGHAR Hypothesis remains an assumption, a hypothesis, no evidence that it actually happened. Yet TIGHAR has expounded volumes on the Electra safely landing on the reef, even to the extent of "taxying in under the shade of the Ren Trees" and then being pushed across the island to a supposed "rough runway", then being "washed into the lagoon", then "being washed over the edge of the reef into deep water"....ALWAYS (akin to the hidden pea game) in an attempt to garner more funds to keep TIGHAR alive and well and living in Delaware and now in Oxford, Pennsylvania.
The TIGHAR Scientific Methodology declares that Earhart was mistaken in her pre-flight Contingency Plan to fly back to The Gilberts and she abandoned this astute plan (planned for a possible circumstance) and headed off into the Southern Pacific, hoping to make landfall.
Part Two to follow.
by: David Billings
TIGHAR and the TIGHAR SCIENTIFIC METHODOLOGY
Part One
The recent propulsion of the Aluminum sheet = "Once More into the Breach"
I suppose that the dragging out of this piece of aluminum aircraft skin had to happen when Mr. Gillespie is desperate to invent some new angle in order to appeal to the masses that are not aware of his tendencies, as an angle made to urge them to open their wallets and send him some money to buy groceries. I am told that is about the state he is in at this present time with former major contributors to the TIGHAR Hypothesis refusing to shell out, yet again.
He has publicly anaesthetised The Discovery Channel so no luck there. The recent crowd funder appeal resulted in securing a few thousand dollars only, which must have been quite a blow to whatever value of pride he has left.
We do know that this piece of aluminum sheet has appeared before in 1991 as per these words:
The Bottom Line 18 Oct 1991 ( TIGHAR)
"Through laboratory analysis of its physical features, and archival documentation of their significance, Artifact 2-2-V-1 has been shown to be identical, in every knowable aspect, to a particular and unique section of NR16020. At the same time, it has been shown to be unlike any part of any other aircraft known, or even rumored, to have been lost in the region. The conclusion is inescapable. This is a piece of Amelia Earhart’s aircraft."
TIGHAR Bulletin March 12, 1992 claims:
"The analysis of artifacts recovered during last year’s expedition has reached the point where we can now say with confidence that we have the proof. Exhaustive research has established that a section of aluminum aircraft skin found on Nikumaroro could only have come from Earhart’s aircraft (see page 2, “Artifact 2-2-V-1”)."
...and we go back a bit for this statement:
"In 1988 TIGHAR set out to demonstrate that high academic standards could replace wild imaginings with rational hypotheses, and that strict adherence to scientific method could sort fact from fiction to discover the truth about the disappearance of Amelia Earhart. We did it with the hard work and perseverance of the Earhart Project volunteers; the generous assistance of scientists, scholars, and corporations; and most of all, with the support of the people who make it all possible: you, the worldwide members of TIGHAR." (My bolding)
Let us leave these historic words and venture into the Credo which TIGHAR states that it upholds.
The TIGHAR SCIENTIFIC METHODOLOGY
The above TIGHAR statement can be attributed as a precis of what is known as the TIGHAR "Scientific Methodology" where fact is separated from fiction and every pronouncement made by TIGHAR is made in accordance with the credo of Scientific Methodology. These two words: Scientific Methodology, are used very often to underscore and to mean, TIGHAR's painstaking application of expertise to reach a solid scientific based conclusion. The words appear in statements and in bulletins issued by TIGHAR. We shall see Scientific Methodology applied.
So you have Gillespie saying that he uses Scientific Methodology on the one hand and producing a scrap of sheetmetal with no proof on the other. It could be said that the man is totally without conscience and is prepared to place a grab-bag of bits without any provenance in front of the public and ask for money.
TIGHAR: The TIGHAR Hypothesis.
Earhart's last transmission stated that she was "....on the line 157-337, flying North and South". From this, two serving American servicemen postulated that Earhart would not continue flying "north" but would likely have flown "south". It so happens that a the rising sun on that morning, on an azimuth of 067 degrees TRUE, causes a sunline, which if drawn through HOWLAND Island in degrees TRUE (not Magnetic) and continued South-south-east on 157 degrees True, passes close to Gardner Island. Gillespie picked up on this postulation and ran with it, we now have the "TIGHAR Hypothesis", using a 157-337 degrees TRUE, sunline. Note that Earhart did not say "sunline", she said "line".
The first problem with this is, that you can draw any line on those degree numbers centred at any point East of half-way on Earhart's track line between Tabituaea Island in The Gilberts and Howland Island and you would be about as wise as to position of the Electra as Earhart and Noonan were on 2nd July 1937. If they had known "where they are" on that track line, it could be said that with Noonan's expertise they would have found Howland. The conclusion that can be drawn from that is that they did NOT know where they were on the trackline when they started the approach preparations for Howland.
The approach to Howland was supposed to be a direct DF approach, using a Direction Finder fitted to the aircraft. Some say, Noonan would have used an "offset " approach where he diverts from track at a distance from the target, purposely "aiming off" until reaching a sunline (by a reckoning method) and then turning in towards the target, flying into the target on the sunline. It may have been an approach using both methods.
There is a second problem with this "broadcasted" 157-337 line and that is that the degrees are interpreted as TRUE degrees and Aviators do not work in TRUE degrees, they work in MAGNETIC degrees. If not laying off for wind as they approach close to Howland they should have been steering 068 degrees Magnetic. Earhart did not say she was on a sunline, she said "on the line" and a line of 157-337 Magnetic does not go near to Gardner Island. If Noonan told Earhart to steer 067 Magnetic, allowing one degree for wind, then the line 157-337 at 90 degrees to the trackline of 067 degrees Magnetic would be correct for the 157-337 "line"...... a line at right angles to their steered course.
Even so, if they were flying "North and South" on a supposed pre-planned sunline of 157-337 TRUE degrees, there is absolutely nothing to say that this sunline they were using did cut through Howland Island, after all, they "thought" they were there, but obviously they were not there.
The problem Gillespie has is that the TIGHAR Hypothesis is built on an assumption. The assumption is that Earhart and Noonan took a south-south-easterly course after not finding Howland Island and eventually wound up at Gardner Island, now called Nikumaroro Island. There is no basis for thinking that Earhart would head off into the unknown, which is exactly what it would be. For in not finding Howland, the conclusion must be that the Navigation under Noonan was not sufficient to find Howland and therefore if they could not find Howland, they were in effect "lost".
They expected and indeed thought, that they were near Howland; as is shown by the radio transmission, "We must be on you but cannot see you", surely one of the most tragic radio transmissions in history. When you are lost and your position is not known, you cannot navigate to a "known" position. We are in the air now, not on land.....we cannot walk back through city streets to get back to where we came from, or ask someone for directions, then start again to get to where we have to go. In the air over the sea, you have to know where you are or by a recent landmark, where you were.
It must always be remembered that Navigators of this period, navigating by Astro Navigation and for many years after, until the invention of Inertial Guidance Systems and GPS giving readings of LAT/LONG; could NEVER tell you "where you are" at a given time, only "where you had been" at a given time. Any position report request from an aircraft Captain of "Where are we NAV ?" would be met with "Well, at 0900 we were at X and by now we should be at Y, I'll give you an update after my next fix." After the next fix meaning that the fix itself had to be worked out to get the position..... where they had been......
The question arises of whether they actually knew that the Phoenix Group of islands, widely spaced in the Central Pacific could be found, rather than the islands that Earhart had nominated as her Contingency Plan, which were The Gilbert Islands. If they could navigate to Gardner Island, they could navigate to Howland Island, it is that simple. If they do not know where they are on the track line to Howland, they cannot follow a line of position to anywhere.
In order to leave their unknown position and find somewhere dry, it has to be asked: "Which is the better plan ?"
1. From an unknown position on their track line to Howland Island, turn back on their reciprocal course (a reverse course) for the Gilbert Islands; which would be a 500 Mile wide swath of islands at right angles across the return path which would be hard to miss.
or,
2. From an unknown position on their track line to Howland Island, turn SSE for a group of islands, 350 miles away, widely spaced which they could miss, very easily..
They carried strip maps which were about 500mm long and 200mm wide. For the LAE-Howland sector of 2556 Miles, the straight line covered the page from left to right and the tiny islands of the Phoenix Group would be mere pin-points on that piece of paper, with no Lat/Long numbers shown.
They also carried the 1936 National Geographic Map of the Pacific for which there were no Lat/Long numbers given for the Phoenix Group and again, the islands would be mere pin-points on that map.
The choice is simple, follow your Contingency Plan for the Gilberts. The TIGHAR Hypothesis remains an assumption, a hypothesis, no evidence that it actually happened. Yet TIGHAR has expounded volumes on the Electra safely landing on the reef, even to the extent of "taxying in under the shade of the Ren Trees" and then being pushed across the island to a supposed "rough runway", then being "washed into the lagoon", then "being washed over the edge of the reef into deep water"....ALWAYS (akin to the hidden pea game) in an attempt to garner more funds to keep TIGHAR alive and well and living in Delaware and now in Oxford, Pennsylvania.
The TIGHAR Scientific Methodology declares that Earhart was mistaken in her pre-flight Contingency Plan to fly back to The Gilberts and she abandoned this astute plan (planned for a possible circumstance) and headed off into the Southern Pacific, hoping to make landfall.
Part Two to follow.
by: David Billings
Last edited by Eagleflight on Thu Mar 05, 2015 8:54 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Re: TIGHAR and the TIGHAR SCIENTIFIC METHODOLOGY
Thu Mar 05, 2015 5:48 pm
TIGHAR and the TIGHAR SCIENTIFIC METHODOLOGY
Part Two
TIGHAR: The Gardner Island Bones
In 1940, the resident Colonial Officer on Gardner reported that he was in possession of some bones and he sent them first to Tarawa and then they were sent to Fiji where an English Doctor named Hoodless examined them and pronounced them as "Male, mixed race, approximately 5 feet 6 inches tall".
Various flagged ships have been visiting Gardner Island for decades from the time of wooden sailing ships to the TIGHAR Cruises. There are records of whaling ships visits and of expired sailors being buried there in groups. Life at sea in those days caused sailors to frequently expire. A steamer, the S.S. Norwich City ran aground on Gardner in 1929 causing a big expiry when eleven lives were lost, some of the lives lost were Arab crewmen from the Middle East and some are recorded as being 5 feet 6 inches tall or around that height. That ship alone added to burials on the island when four poor souls were buried there, which must have increased the total to at least a score or more interred on Gardner. Seven of those poor souls from the S.S. Norwich City were not recovered and buried and it may be possible for one or two to have actually survived the rough seas and the sharks and made it to shore in a debilitated state only to die. The burials of the four, took place on the beach probably due to the difficulty of digging graves into coral. A later New Zealand Survey party in 1938, recorded bones littering the beaches, so "those may be from they". In other words, there were many bones left on the island. The 1940 bones were found up the top of the beach where the plants were growing and TIGHAR itself reports beach detritus being washed up on to the shore in storms. As said some sailors from the ship were not found and who is to say that one of those did not struggle ashore at a distance away from the survivors and expire on the spot in the shrubbery from ingestion of salt water and exertion......
TIGHAR picked up on the bones as an exercise to see if they could be turned into "Earhart's bones". The TIGHAR sleuths unearthed the good Doctor's notes and a member of TIGHAR who was an anthropologist ran the measurements through a computer programme. Instead of the Dr. Hoodless's results of "Male, mixed race, approximately 5 feet 6 inches tall", the computer produced: "Female, Nordic race, approximately 5 feet 9 inches tall". With my mouth open, I could have swallowed a bone.... Who could this be ? Attilla the Hun's wife maybe ? No, I could not believe it, the TIGHAR Hypothesis credits only one "Nordic race" woman with being on Gardner Island and she was 5 feet 9 inches tall. Guess who ? Now the results of this exercise must be put down as a Computer assumption. This is unusual in itself, for we know that computers never lie. What it means is that there were no Nordic women with Cow's Horn Helmets on board whaling ships or tramp steamers, perhaps ?
The TIGHAR Scientific Methodology declares "the Bones" to be of a Nordic female about 5 feet 9 inches tall based on a computer programme that did not include all races from this Earth. Among those races not included were the Pacific Island races and I have yet to hear if Arabian peoples were also included......
TIGHAR: The Bookcase
This "boxy" aluminium sheet case was found by TIGHAR near to where they were camping on Nikumaroro and according to one member who was there was basically ignored until they were leaving. Then as they were leaving basically empty handed, the boxy item became of importance and was added to the minutiae that they had found.
On arrival back in America, the boxy item was discovered to have an aircraft Part No. on it and this was traced as a Consolidated Aircraft Part No. which was an item known as a Navigators Book Stowage, a "Bookcase", used on some Consolidated aircraft. The U.S Navy was a large buyer of Consolidated maritime aircraft. Now, using Scientific Methodology, TIGHAR raises the assumption that because Earhart had landed the Electra at a Naval Air Station and the aircraft has been in the hands of the U.S. Navy for a time at that station, the U.S. Navy had graciously given Noonan one of these bookcases and it had been fitted into the Electra.
The TIGHAR Scientific Methodology alludes that the "boxy" item found on the island of Nikumaroro had been on the Electra as a bookcase and had been removed for some useful purpose.
TIGHAR: The Shoe Sole
I really like this one.....
Despite the fact that Gardner Island had been tramped over by dozens of people for what would be a century at least, including a detachment of U.S. Coastguardsmen during WWII, a Shoe Sole, or the remnants of a shoe-sole were found by TIGHAR and immediately seized on as being Earhart's shoe sole. A frenzied Press and the Media outlets said that "Earhart's shoe sole had been found."
Mr. Gillespie's finest example of the institution of Scientific Methodology into his conclusions was when he went to see the author of "The Sound of Wings". This finest example was related to me by the author in a mail back in about 1996 or 1997 after I had written to the author concerning the East New Britain Project. Gillespie and Thomas King (author of the "Bones" book) went to the author's home after writing and asking to see all the notes that had been kept while writing the book. This was for the purpose that the author "might have" missed something important and they wanted to "double-check" the notes to see if they could glean something relevant. The author dragged several boxes of notes from the attic and took them down stairs ready for their arrival. They arrived somewhat late and announced that they didn't have any time to go through the boxes..... but, but, but: They had brought the famous shoe-sole with them.
We now need a Drum Roll......Richard Gillespie proudly produced the shoe-sole with a flourish and said, "This....is Amelia Earhart's shoe sole." The author replied , "It cannot be her shoe sole. That looks like a mans's size ten shoe sole to me and Earhart was a women's size six and half." To which, as the author related to me, Richard Gillespie, using Scientific Methodology replied, "Must be Noonan's then....."
TIGHAR, using Scientific Methodology, declares the shoe sole from Nikumaroro to be Fred Noonan's shoe sole (having been informed it was too big to be Earhart's), having previously declared it to be Earhart's shoe sole.
TIGHAR: The loss of the aerial at LAE
This aerial story is an oldie, but a goodie. I first saw this in a TIGHAR Manifesto dated about 1991 or maybe a bit later. It appeared as a possibility... a possibility that Earhart had lost her aerial on take-off. I continued reading and about four pages later the possibility had become a fact as in, "...when the aerial was lost..."
Now before we go further into this, I used to fly as a Flight Engineer on an aircraft that had HF Radio and the aerials for HF were two aerial wires strung from the twin Vertical Stabilisers of the aircraft. Transmit and Receive was by these aerials. Receive was always open when the sets were on. We also had a dynamotor to power the Tx signal when the transmit key was pressed. On pressing to transmit (PTT) the first thing you would hear would be a loud "click" as the relay went over to switch the aerial from Rx to Tx, then the Dynamotor would wind up with an increasingly loud whine. The wind up took about 2-3 seconds. So, PTT, wait 3 seconds and transmit.
We do know that when Earhart flew from the Dutch East Indies (now Indonesia) to Darwin in Australia, that her Radio Receiver had blown a fuse. We do know this because a Royal Australian Air Force Sergeant, named Stan Rose, replaced the fuse and gave Amelia some spare fuses in case the set blew a fuse again.
It is obvious to readers of the Earhart saga, that she was not receiving any messages passed to her and only received the letter "A" sent to her several times by the ITASCA in response to her transmissions as she approached the ship at a distance. She did receive the letter A's on her loop aerial indicating that there was indeed something wrong with the Receiving System. TIGHAR attributes this to the loss of the lower "clothesline aerial".
Gillespie states that her lower "clothesline" aerial, the one he says was lost; was for Rx but Radio Techs say the upper V-aerial was for Rx and Tx same as the aircraft I flew in was set up to provide Tx by switching from Rx to Tx by an electrical relay.
The TIGHAR story goes that a U.S. General Infantryman (G.I.) at LAE during WWII was told by some "old-timers" at LAE that: "It was no wonder she couldn't hear anything because she lost her aerial wire here at LAE." Now, in one of my rare and wildest moments, I had the temerity to actually ask Mr. Gillespie exactly who this U.S. Infantryman was that was known to TIGHAR. I did not receive a response to this at all. Also, knowing the date of this verbal exchange would assist me in my appreciation of belief.
The next troubling thing was that it would be very unlikely that there would be any "Old-timers" at LAE unless they got out when the men from up North came for a vacation to New Guinea in 1942, there would be a few valiant "Old-Timers" who would return after the men from up North were kicked out but a lot of the "old-Timers" at LAE who were captured were taken to RABAUL and later transported out of Rabaul in the ship named the "Montevideo Maru" and we know where that ended up together with the "Old-timers".
By mentioning "Old-timers" at LAE, I sense that Mr. Gillespie means expatriates or does he really mean New Guinean's. He did not define that phrase. If it means expatriates employed at LAE then there would be very few who would venture back after LAE was re-taken by the MacArthur pincer movement by Para drop and Glider assault on the Nadzab Plains to the West and by the Australians from the East. I digress.
In any case, my knowledge of Papua New Guinea says that the aerial wire would have been found eventually by the grass cutters and taken to one of the Aircraft companies in the hope of getting a shilling or two as a reward. Then an "Old-Timer" at the LAE airfield would have known it as something off an aircraft and a fleet check would have ensued and on finding all aerials intact the question would have been "Whose aerial is it then ?"....I think we would have heard about that a little earlier.
"Not lost on the runway", I hear, "it dangled off the aircraft, blew a puff of dust,but was carried all the way out into the pacific." If so we wouldn't know it was lost.
What about the puff of dust in the movie ? Well, LAE must have been dry (which is unusual) because the pilot waiting for the Electra to get off the ground so he could land his Junkers freighter said he saw a big cloud of dust rise in the air after the Electra took off. Papua New Guineans have a habit of walking across runways, as the shortest way between two points. So do their pigs, dogs and cattle. It is very likely that there was not one but several tracks across the runway and the puff of dust was caused by a wheel going across a well-worn track and prop-wash.
TIGHAR, using Scientific Methodology and wanting to encourage the aerial loss story, sees a puff of dust as an aerial mast dragging across a runway because a U.S. General Infantryman, known to TIGHAR, hears about an aerial wire found on the runway at LAE from Old-Timers. Tighar does not or will not name the U.S. General Infantryman.
Part Three to follow
by: David Billings
Part Two
TIGHAR: The Gardner Island Bones
In 1940, the resident Colonial Officer on Gardner reported that he was in possession of some bones and he sent them first to Tarawa and then they were sent to Fiji where an English Doctor named Hoodless examined them and pronounced them as "Male, mixed race, approximately 5 feet 6 inches tall".
Various flagged ships have been visiting Gardner Island for decades from the time of wooden sailing ships to the TIGHAR Cruises. There are records of whaling ships visits and of expired sailors being buried there in groups. Life at sea in those days caused sailors to frequently expire. A steamer, the S.S. Norwich City ran aground on Gardner in 1929 causing a big expiry when eleven lives were lost, some of the lives lost were Arab crewmen from the Middle East and some are recorded as being 5 feet 6 inches tall or around that height. That ship alone added to burials on the island when four poor souls were buried there, which must have increased the total to at least a score or more interred on Gardner. Seven of those poor souls from the S.S. Norwich City were not recovered and buried and it may be possible for one or two to have actually survived the rough seas and the sharks and made it to shore in a debilitated state only to die. The burials of the four, took place on the beach probably due to the difficulty of digging graves into coral. A later New Zealand Survey party in 1938, recorded bones littering the beaches, so "those may be from they". In other words, there were many bones left on the island. The 1940 bones were found up the top of the beach where the plants were growing and TIGHAR itself reports beach detritus being washed up on to the shore in storms. As said some sailors from the ship were not found and who is to say that one of those did not struggle ashore at a distance away from the survivors and expire on the spot in the shrubbery from ingestion of salt water and exertion......
TIGHAR picked up on the bones as an exercise to see if they could be turned into "Earhart's bones". The TIGHAR sleuths unearthed the good Doctor's notes and a member of TIGHAR who was an anthropologist ran the measurements through a computer programme. Instead of the Dr. Hoodless's results of "Male, mixed race, approximately 5 feet 6 inches tall", the computer produced: "Female, Nordic race, approximately 5 feet 9 inches tall". With my mouth open, I could have swallowed a bone.... Who could this be ? Attilla the Hun's wife maybe ? No, I could not believe it, the TIGHAR Hypothesis credits only one "Nordic race" woman with being on Gardner Island and she was 5 feet 9 inches tall. Guess who ? Now the results of this exercise must be put down as a Computer assumption. This is unusual in itself, for we know that computers never lie. What it means is that there were no Nordic women with Cow's Horn Helmets on board whaling ships or tramp steamers, perhaps ?
The TIGHAR Scientific Methodology declares "the Bones" to be of a Nordic female about 5 feet 9 inches tall based on a computer programme that did not include all races from this Earth. Among those races not included were the Pacific Island races and I have yet to hear if Arabian peoples were also included......
TIGHAR: The Bookcase
This "boxy" aluminium sheet case was found by TIGHAR near to where they were camping on Nikumaroro and according to one member who was there was basically ignored until they were leaving. Then as they were leaving basically empty handed, the boxy item became of importance and was added to the minutiae that they had found.
On arrival back in America, the boxy item was discovered to have an aircraft Part No. on it and this was traced as a Consolidated Aircraft Part No. which was an item known as a Navigators Book Stowage, a "Bookcase", used on some Consolidated aircraft. The U.S Navy was a large buyer of Consolidated maritime aircraft. Now, using Scientific Methodology, TIGHAR raises the assumption that because Earhart had landed the Electra at a Naval Air Station and the aircraft has been in the hands of the U.S. Navy for a time at that station, the U.S. Navy had graciously given Noonan one of these bookcases and it had been fitted into the Electra.
The TIGHAR Scientific Methodology alludes that the "boxy" item found on the island of Nikumaroro had been on the Electra as a bookcase and had been removed for some useful purpose.
TIGHAR: The Shoe Sole
I really like this one.....
Despite the fact that Gardner Island had been tramped over by dozens of people for what would be a century at least, including a detachment of U.S. Coastguardsmen during WWII, a Shoe Sole, or the remnants of a shoe-sole were found by TIGHAR and immediately seized on as being Earhart's shoe sole. A frenzied Press and the Media outlets said that "Earhart's shoe sole had been found."
Mr. Gillespie's finest example of the institution of Scientific Methodology into his conclusions was when he went to see the author of "The Sound of Wings". This finest example was related to me by the author in a mail back in about 1996 or 1997 after I had written to the author concerning the East New Britain Project. Gillespie and Thomas King (author of the "Bones" book) went to the author's home after writing and asking to see all the notes that had been kept while writing the book. This was for the purpose that the author "might have" missed something important and they wanted to "double-check" the notes to see if they could glean something relevant. The author dragged several boxes of notes from the attic and took them down stairs ready for their arrival. They arrived somewhat late and announced that they didn't have any time to go through the boxes..... but, but, but: They had brought the famous shoe-sole with them.
We now need a Drum Roll......Richard Gillespie proudly produced the shoe-sole with a flourish and said, "This....is Amelia Earhart's shoe sole." The author replied , "It cannot be her shoe sole. That looks like a mans's size ten shoe sole to me and Earhart was a women's size six and half." To which, as the author related to me, Richard Gillespie, using Scientific Methodology replied, "Must be Noonan's then....."
TIGHAR, using Scientific Methodology, declares the shoe sole from Nikumaroro to be Fred Noonan's shoe sole (having been informed it was too big to be Earhart's), having previously declared it to be Earhart's shoe sole.
TIGHAR: The loss of the aerial at LAE
This aerial story is an oldie, but a goodie. I first saw this in a TIGHAR Manifesto dated about 1991 or maybe a bit later. It appeared as a possibility... a possibility that Earhart had lost her aerial on take-off. I continued reading and about four pages later the possibility had become a fact as in, "...when the aerial was lost..."
Now before we go further into this, I used to fly as a Flight Engineer on an aircraft that had HF Radio and the aerials for HF were two aerial wires strung from the twin Vertical Stabilisers of the aircraft. Transmit and Receive was by these aerials. Receive was always open when the sets were on. We also had a dynamotor to power the Tx signal when the transmit key was pressed. On pressing to transmit (PTT) the first thing you would hear would be a loud "click" as the relay went over to switch the aerial from Rx to Tx, then the Dynamotor would wind up with an increasingly loud whine. The wind up took about 2-3 seconds. So, PTT, wait 3 seconds and transmit.
We do know that when Earhart flew from the Dutch East Indies (now Indonesia) to Darwin in Australia, that her Radio Receiver had blown a fuse. We do know this because a Royal Australian Air Force Sergeant, named Stan Rose, replaced the fuse and gave Amelia some spare fuses in case the set blew a fuse again.
It is obvious to readers of the Earhart saga, that she was not receiving any messages passed to her and only received the letter "A" sent to her several times by the ITASCA in response to her transmissions as she approached the ship at a distance. She did receive the letter A's on her loop aerial indicating that there was indeed something wrong with the Receiving System. TIGHAR attributes this to the loss of the lower "clothesline aerial".
Gillespie states that her lower "clothesline" aerial, the one he says was lost; was for Rx but Radio Techs say the upper V-aerial was for Rx and Tx same as the aircraft I flew in was set up to provide Tx by switching from Rx to Tx by an electrical relay.
The TIGHAR story goes that a U.S. General Infantryman (G.I.) at LAE during WWII was told by some "old-timers" at LAE that: "It was no wonder she couldn't hear anything because she lost her aerial wire here at LAE." Now, in one of my rare and wildest moments, I had the temerity to actually ask Mr. Gillespie exactly who this U.S. Infantryman was that was known to TIGHAR. I did not receive a response to this at all. Also, knowing the date of this verbal exchange would assist me in my appreciation of belief.
The next troubling thing was that it would be very unlikely that there would be any "Old-timers" at LAE unless they got out when the men from up North came for a vacation to New Guinea in 1942, there would be a few valiant "Old-Timers" who would return after the men from up North were kicked out but a lot of the "old-Timers" at LAE who were captured were taken to RABAUL and later transported out of Rabaul in the ship named the "Montevideo Maru" and we know where that ended up together with the "Old-timers".
By mentioning "Old-timers" at LAE, I sense that Mr. Gillespie means expatriates or does he really mean New Guinean's. He did not define that phrase. If it means expatriates employed at LAE then there would be very few who would venture back after LAE was re-taken by the MacArthur pincer movement by Para drop and Glider assault on the Nadzab Plains to the West and by the Australians from the East. I digress.
In any case, my knowledge of Papua New Guinea says that the aerial wire would have been found eventually by the grass cutters and taken to one of the Aircraft companies in the hope of getting a shilling or two as a reward. Then an "Old-Timer" at the LAE airfield would have known it as something off an aircraft and a fleet check would have ensued and on finding all aerials intact the question would have been "Whose aerial is it then ?"....I think we would have heard about that a little earlier.
"Not lost on the runway", I hear, "it dangled off the aircraft, blew a puff of dust,but was carried all the way out into the pacific." If so we wouldn't know it was lost.
What about the puff of dust in the movie ? Well, LAE must have been dry (which is unusual) because the pilot waiting for the Electra to get off the ground so he could land his Junkers freighter said he saw a big cloud of dust rise in the air after the Electra took off. Papua New Guineans have a habit of walking across runways, as the shortest way between two points. So do their pigs, dogs and cattle. It is very likely that there was not one but several tracks across the runway and the puff of dust was caused by a wheel going across a well-worn track and prop-wash.
TIGHAR, using Scientific Methodology and wanting to encourage the aerial loss story, sees a puff of dust as an aerial mast dragging across a runway because a U.S. General Infantryman, known to TIGHAR, hears about an aerial wire found on the runway at LAE from Old-Timers. Tighar does not or will not name the U.S. General Infantryman.
Part Three to follow
by: David Billings
Last edited by Eagleflight on Thu Mar 05, 2015 6:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: TIGHAR and the TIGHAR SCIENTIFIC METHODOLOGY
Thu Mar 05, 2015 5:59 pm
TIGHAR and the TIGHAR SCIENTIFIC METHODOLOGY
Part Three
TIGHAR: The Freckle Cream
Earhart definitely had freckles. We do not know if Earhart used "anti-Freckle Cream or "cover-up-Freckle cream" or "burn-the-freckles-off-yer-face cream". We do not know that "if" she did use one of those creams whether it was made by the "ACME Cream Company" or the "Tabasco Cream Company" or "Heinies Backyard Cream Co." or the "Dr. Berry Ointment Company". We just do not know.
Despite this lack of knowledge, TIGAR relentlessly drives full steam ahead with the assumption that a small broken glass jar found near where the LORAN Station Coastguardsmen carried out shooting practice was a jar which had contained "freckle cream" and by connotation, because Earhart had freckles the jar could well have been hers. Roll out the newspapermen for a Press frenzy again.
TIGHAR, using Scientific Methodology attempts to tie a broken glass jar to Earhart by the assumption that it contained Dr. Berry's Freckle Cream because the jar looks similar, instead of attributing the jar to a USCG rating named Herbie Fullbender from Idaho, who had a red birthmark right in the middle of his forehead and covered it up with his Momma's make-up.
TIGHAR: The TIGHAR "Touch DNA"
Touch DNA is invisible.... You can't see it, smell it or sense it in any way and you definitely cannot touch it.
With tweezers, rubber gloves and cover protection manufactured by "The ACME Immersion Suit Company", TIGHAR impressively collects a wonderful smorgasbord of items to bring back to TIGHAR Central [is that a Railway Station ?] for testing for "Touch DNA" to see if Earhart handled any of these items 70-odd years ago. Yes, folks, this is for real.......
Bingo....! The Laboratory found some DNA. There are absolutely no prizes for guessing whose DNA was found.
Using TIGHAR Scientific Methodology, a TIGHAR "expert" contaminates samples for DNA testing, carried for thousands of miles with personal "expert" Touch DNA. That's what you call, "The Magic Touch".........
TIGHAR: The TIGHAR Turtle Tootsie
The TIGHAR Team of Excavators visit a place called The Seven Site, where it is said, someone lived as a castaway and ate turtles..... it is a lonely place and the final resting place of a few turtles and human it is said. Who was the castaway ? No-one knows save TIGHAR who assume it was Earhart. It is a resting place for turtles, for they have apparently been cooked and eaten there and their remains lie waiting for someone to pick up a sliver of bone for testing to see if it came from a human as there was apparently "this" human also there. After testing of this sliver of bone, it is indeterminate exactly what it is as it proves not to be from a human as no proof can be found by testing that it is indeed from a human, but as usual, the florescent red carrot of the possibility of this sliver being one of Earhart's finger bones is posited to the ever eager Media and off they run with "Earhart's Finger Bone found." No-one from TIGHAR applies the brake to the Media.
Was the human Earhart ? TIGHAR makes the assumption that it was, despite the many accounts of Pacific Islanders out fishing in small canoes being swept hundreds of nautical miles from their home islands, only to make landfall and become a castaway like Ben Gunn. Has anyone got any cheese ?
Using TIGHAR's 'not so quite' Scientific Methodology, an assumed castaway on Nikumaroro assumed and named as Amelia Earhart is assumed to eat turtles and leave a finger bone for TIGHAR to find, some 70 years later..... No-one feels an ounce of regret for the dead turtles who generously gave a castaway a feed.
TIGHAR: The Aluminum Sheetmetal from an Aircraft
Yes, Yes, Yes, it is a piece of aluminum sheet metal aircraft skin. Found on Nikumaroro in 1991, this holy remnant from an aircraft long disappeared was carried back over the waves to be proudly said by TIGHAR ("with confidence") as proof of it coming from Earhart's Model 10E in 1992. I repeat the TIGHAR Bulletin paragraph again here:
"The analysis of artifacts recovered during last year’s expedition has reached the point where we can now say with confidence that we have the proof. Exhaustive research has established that a section of aluminum aircraft skin found on Nikumaroro could only have come from Earhart’s aircraft (see page 2, “Artifact 2-2-V-1”)."
Readers of this epistle will surely recognise that TIGHAR in 1992, said they had carried out "Exhaustive research".
"Exhaustive" means: including or considering all elements or aspects; fully comprehensive.
If that is so, TIGHAR cannot be wrong.
What the item was in the paragraph is the same piece of aircraft aluminum sheeting which is now again being rolled out, 22 years later as the piece of aluminum sheet which covered the aperture left by the removal of the right hand side Rear Window on the Electra 10E at Miami, before the Electra left on the 2nd Round the World Flight attempt.
In 1991/1992, the scrap of sheet metal was turned every which way and upside down onto an Electra exterior surface on all facets and could not be matched to an Electra at all. Former Lockheed employees also said that it was not from an Electra. The piece of sheet could not be matched with some other aircraft at that time either. Then it was stated it could be from the repairs made to the Electra in April/May of 1937. That failed the sobriety test as well....
So now we are at "Round Two"....display the boards, let Round Two begin.....
Before I begin on TIGHAR Artifact 2-2-V-1, let me explain that the Gilbertese workers who were immigrants to Gardner Island for the Copra Plantations, were on the island until the mid-Sixties when because of drought, they were pulled off Gardner and taken back to The Gilberts. Now, initially on being taken to Gardner Island they would leave a lot of relations behind as well as friends. Ships taking supplies and new workers would not necessarily only take those said supplies to Gardner, they would also take messages back and forward between those relatives and friends...... just as we do today.
It is not beyond credible belief that due to the idle time the workers would have on Gardner that in the leisure time they would turn to handicrafts. Melanesians and Polynesians are renowned for their handicraft work. We know from TIGHAR reports of aluminum inlaid wooden boxes for instance on Gardner. Where would the aluminum come from ? Not from Earhart's aircraft because that is only an "assumption", but from the transmitted messages sent from Gardner for their relatives to: "Please send me some of that wreck of the aircraft near to our village at home, I need some aluminium for my handicraft working...." Written or passed by word of mouth in Gilbertese language of course. That can be classed as "a possibility" can it not ? There were many WWII aircraft wrecks of Allied and Japanese origins in The Gilberts, undoubtedly there still are in the remotest areas, just as there are still undiscovered WWII wrecks in Papua New Guinea. Besides that there were wrecks on Canton and Sydney Islands... and as you will read, Mr. Neville, the Inspector of various aircraft for 'fits' of the artifact, has not been on the upper surfaces of a B24 Liberator and, I am presuming... a C-47.
So, a source for the aluminum sheet on Gardner Island, now Nikumaroro could well have been by transportation from The Gilberts to Gardner Island of either American, Australian or indeed Japanese metal from a downed WWII aircraft or, "locally supplied produce."
Mr. Gillespies "Exhaustive research" has not taken that into consideration...... now, please read on.....
TIGHAR: Artifact 2-2-V-1
1. It is a piece of sheet from the early 1940's as per what an ALCOA representative said of the still remaining "negative shadow" printing "AD"which can be seen on artifact 2-2-V-1..
This old piece of sheet was formerly ink marked, with multiple rows of rolled on permanent ink printing to identify the type, grade and thickness of the sheet, by the manufacturer, just as aluminum sheet is supplied today, so that shop workers can identify the sheet in the first place but are able to identify remnants or cut-off pieces from a host sheet. When a sheet metal job is finished on the exterior of an aircraft this inked printing is usually removed with white spirit or thinners before the bare metal is alodined, primed and painted with a finish coat. Remember Earhart's Electra was bare metal, the fuselage was not painted.
Researchers and an ALCOA consultant have said that the lettering "negative shadow" that can be seen on the TIGHAR artifact 2-2-V-1, belongs to a font type that came to be marked onto sheet in the early 1940's. The faint shadow "AD" (from ALCLAD) on the 2-2-V-1 piece of sheet being italicised and "sans serif" in what looks like "Verdana" Font, as per this:
AD from ALCLAD24ST(Verdana will not work on WIX, try this on a home PC)
while metal from the 1930's was "ALC24ST" in a lookalike straight "Times New Roman with serifs" font, as per this:
ALC24ST (again, TNR will not work on WIX try this on a home PC)
So the roll-on ink metal marking tied to a year dating is wrong for the "patch". This is ignored by TIGHAR
(I put this down as failure to carry out "Exhaustive research")
2. The other aspect which can be said about the lettering is that it is on the outer face of the piece of sheet (called "the patch"). As the identification of the raw material, the "full" sheet from where the approximately 28" by 22" supposed patch piece was cut, was by the rolled on identification letters and numbers; they would have been visible on the outside of the aircraft for all to see at Miami. TIGHAR says that the inked marking must have protected the sheet "under" the letters and numbers from the effects of corrosion, meaning that the letters and numbers were left on the sheet "patch" after the repair and on the RTW Flight. Therefore these identification letters and numbers would show up on photographs taken of the starboard (RHS) of the aircraft at Miami and at Karachi and at Darwin....but no trace of these letters can be seen in photographs. On this point alone, the supposed "patch" piece in the possession of Tighar fails. It stands to reason that Earhart, being very proud of her Electra, would have had the inked letters and numbers removed after the repair was completed. Note: This has also been pointed put by a previous WIX contributor.
(I put this down as failure to buy new spectacles)
3. Gillespie and his erstwhile stable mate, one Mr. Jeffrey Neville, who has led the charge on this claim about the piece of sheet on the TIGHAR Forum, go into elaborate explanations of what they "suppose" and "assume" would be the internal structure behind the sheet to explain the myriad of rivet holes in the sheet in rows with machine-like equal spacing ("pitch") between the neatly laid out holes which an expert says could only have been done in a factory environment yet they call this a "Field Repair" done on site.
(I put this down as a difference of opinion between "experts")
4. None of the lines of rivet holes line up with what we see on an example of a Model 10 when the sheet is placed in the Station & Buttline position where the 10E RHR Window was located. TIGHAR states that their photographic expert can see lines of rivets from a blurred photograph but fails to supply data to back that up.
(Without the data, this must be classed as a guess until we see the exhaustive research data)
5. TIGHAR's placement of the piece of sheet would require that an extra row of holes be drilled in the aircraft skin to accommodate a row of rivets at a location on a Buttline one inch or more below the aperture lower edge. Doing this would require that the lower row of rivets originally in the window frame and removed would not be used but would remain as holes left in the aircraft skin which is definitely not a standard practice or a required "unfinished" action to take. Gillespie and Neville "invent" a supporting piece in the interior as a kind of "backing plate".
(An assumption)
6. TIGHAR's placement of the sheet leaves a "tab" hanging down below the required lower placement line which Neville explains as a tab to cover minor damage or marking caused during the installation. This was his explanation before the explanation offered at 5. above.
(An assumption)
7. TIGHAR's own expert in repairs states that the drilled holes in the sheet are so perfect in pitch that they would have been factory made. Initially Gillespie and Neville agree on this but then declare the piece of sheet to be the result of a "Field Repair".
(A two-person dithering assumption)
8. TIGHAR's placement of the sheet against a 10A aircraft shows a totally illogical placement of rivet lines which would not coincide with the normal practice of splicing stringers in a Standard Repair. This is explained away as a Field Repair (remember the expert said the holes were factory made).
(Another dithering assumption)
9. TIGHAR's Gillespie and Neville "invent" and "assume" supporting interior structure which is shown in photographs, some of the structure is placed such that it would support connection between this structure and Nevilles "assumed" stiffeners but Neville states the stiffeners would not connect, they would be anti-oil canning stiffeners only.
(Two assumptions)
10. In the examination of "other aircraft types" as a source for the piece of sheet, TIGHAR states it cannot find a match externally or internally but Jeffrey Neville openly admits he did not access aircraft top surfaces.
(This is failure to carry out "Exhaustive research" yet still inspires TIGHAR to say that they have "confidence" that they are correct.)
All the TIGHAR statements about this aluminum piece of sheet are made under the banner of the credo of TIGHAR Scientific Methodology.
We now read that the piece of sheet requires further exhaustive research. I thought I had read that "Exhaustive Research" was carried out in 1991/1992 ? So, the said "Exhaustive research" blithely rolled from Gillespie's lips in 1992, was not "Exhaustive research at all.
TIGHAR now seems to be backing away from the claim of the piece of sheet being the cover or "patch" over the RHS Rear Window aperture by saying "We never said it was the Smoking Gun".
Well they did say as much in 1992, but I guess will claim "semantics".
Part Four to follow
by: David Billings
Part Three
TIGHAR: The Freckle Cream
Earhart definitely had freckles. We do not know if Earhart used "anti-Freckle Cream or "cover-up-Freckle cream" or "burn-the-freckles-off-yer-face cream". We do not know that "if" she did use one of those creams whether it was made by the "ACME Cream Company" or the "Tabasco Cream Company" or "Heinies Backyard Cream Co." or the "Dr. Berry Ointment Company". We just do not know.
Despite this lack of knowledge, TIGAR relentlessly drives full steam ahead with the assumption that a small broken glass jar found near where the LORAN Station Coastguardsmen carried out shooting practice was a jar which had contained "freckle cream" and by connotation, because Earhart had freckles the jar could well have been hers. Roll out the newspapermen for a Press frenzy again.
TIGHAR, using Scientific Methodology attempts to tie a broken glass jar to Earhart by the assumption that it contained Dr. Berry's Freckle Cream because the jar looks similar, instead of attributing the jar to a USCG rating named Herbie Fullbender from Idaho, who had a red birthmark right in the middle of his forehead and covered it up with his Momma's make-up.
TIGHAR: The TIGHAR "Touch DNA"
Touch DNA is invisible.... You can't see it, smell it or sense it in any way and you definitely cannot touch it.
With tweezers, rubber gloves and cover protection manufactured by "The ACME Immersion Suit Company", TIGHAR impressively collects a wonderful smorgasbord of items to bring back to TIGHAR Central [is that a Railway Station ?] for testing for "Touch DNA" to see if Earhart handled any of these items 70-odd years ago. Yes, folks, this is for real.......
Bingo....! The Laboratory found some DNA. There are absolutely no prizes for guessing whose DNA was found.
Using TIGHAR Scientific Methodology, a TIGHAR "expert" contaminates samples for DNA testing, carried for thousands of miles with personal "expert" Touch DNA. That's what you call, "The Magic Touch".........
TIGHAR: The TIGHAR Turtle Tootsie
The TIGHAR Team of Excavators visit a place called The Seven Site, where it is said, someone lived as a castaway and ate turtles..... it is a lonely place and the final resting place of a few turtles and human it is said. Who was the castaway ? No-one knows save TIGHAR who assume it was Earhart. It is a resting place for turtles, for they have apparently been cooked and eaten there and their remains lie waiting for someone to pick up a sliver of bone for testing to see if it came from a human as there was apparently "this" human also there. After testing of this sliver of bone, it is indeterminate exactly what it is as it proves not to be from a human as no proof can be found by testing that it is indeed from a human, but as usual, the florescent red carrot of the possibility of this sliver being one of Earhart's finger bones is posited to the ever eager Media and off they run with "Earhart's Finger Bone found." No-one from TIGHAR applies the brake to the Media.
Was the human Earhart ? TIGHAR makes the assumption that it was, despite the many accounts of Pacific Islanders out fishing in small canoes being swept hundreds of nautical miles from their home islands, only to make landfall and become a castaway like Ben Gunn. Has anyone got any cheese ?
Using TIGHAR's 'not so quite' Scientific Methodology, an assumed castaway on Nikumaroro assumed and named as Amelia Earhart is assumed to eat turtles and leave a finger bone for TIGHAR to find, some 70 years later..... No-one feels an ounce of regret for the dead turtles who generously gave a castaway a feed.
TIGHAR: The Aluminum Sheetmetal from an Aircraft
Yes, Yes, Yes, it is a piece of aluminum sheet metal aircraft skin. Found on Nikumaroro in 1991, this holy remnant from an aircraft long disappeared was carried back over the waves to be proudly said by TIGHAR ("with confidence") as proof of it coming from Earhart's Model 10E in 1992. I repeat the TIGHAR Bulletin paragraph again here:
"The analysis of artifacts recovered during last year’s expedition has reached the point where we can now say with confidence that we have the proof. Exhaustive research has established that a section of aluminum aircraft skin found on Nikumaroro could only have come from Earhart’s aircraft (see page 2, “Artifact 2-2-V-1”)."
Readers of this epistle will surely recognise that TIGHAR in 1992, said they had carried out "Exhaustive research".
"Exhaustive" means: including or considering all elements or aspects; fully comprehensive.
If that is so, TIGHAR cannot be wrong.
What the item was in the paragraph is the same piece of aircraft aluminum sheeting which is now again being rolled out, 22 years later as the piece of aluminum sheet which covered the aperture left by the removal of the right hand side Rear Window on the Electra 10E at Miami, before the Electra left on the 2nd Round the World Flight attempt.
In 1991/1992, the scrap of sheet metal was turned every which way and upside down onto an Electra exterior surface on all facets and could not be matched to an Electra at all. Former Lockheed employees also said that it was not from an Electra. The piece of sheet could not be matched with some other aircraft at that time either. Then it was stated it could be from the repairs made to the Electra in April/May of 1937. That failed the sobriety test as well....
So now we are at "Round Two"....display the boards, let Round Two begin.....
Before I begin on TIGHAR Artifact 2-2-V-1, let me explain that the Gilbertese workers who were immigrants to Gardner Island for the Copra Plantations, were on the island until the mid-Sixties when because of drought, they were pulled off Gardner and taken back to The Gilberts. Now, initially on being taken to Gardner Island they would leave a lot of relations behind as well as friends. Ships taking supplies and new workers would not necessarily only take those said supplies to Gardner, they would also take messages back and forward between those relatives and friends...... just as we do today.
It is not beyond credible belief that due to the idle time the workers would have on Gardner that in the leisure time they would turn to handicrafts. Melanesians and Polynesians are renowned for their handicraft work. We know from TIGHAR reports of aluminum inlaid wooden boxes for instance on Gardner. Where would the aluminum come from ? Not from Earhart's aircraft because that is only an "assumption", but from the transmitted messages sent from Gardner for their relatives to: "Please send me some of that wreck of the aircraft near to our village at home, I need some aluminium for my handicraft working...." Written or passed by word of mouth in Gilbertese language of course. That can be classed as "a possibility" can it not ? There were many WWII aircraft wrecks of Allied and Japanese origins in The Gilberts, undoubtedly there still are in the remotest areas, just as there are still undiscovered WWII wrecks in Papua New Guinea. Besides that there were wrecks on Canton and Sydney Islands... and as you will read, Mr. Neville, the Inspector of various aircraft for 'fits' of the artifact, has not been on the upper surfaces of a B24 Liberator and, I am presuming... a C-47.
So, a source for the aluminum sheet on Gardner Island, now Nikumaroro could well have been by transportation from The Gilberts to Gardner Island of either American, Australian or indeed Japanese metal from a downed WWII aircraft or, "locally supplied produce."
Mr. Gillespies "Exhaustive research" has not taken that into consideration...... now, please read on.....
TIGHAR: Artifact 2-2-V-1
1. It is a piece of sheet from the early 1940's as per what an ALCOA representative said of the still remaining "negative shadow" printing "AD"which can be seen on artifact 2-2-V-1..
This old piece of sheet was formerly ink marked, with multiple rows of rolled on permanent ink printing to identify the type, grade and thickness of the sheet, by the manufacturer, just as aluminum sheet is supplied today, so that shop workers can identify the sheet in the first place but are able to identify remnants or cut-off pieces from a host sheet. When a sheet metal job is finished on the exterior of an aircraft this inked printing is usually removed with white spirit or thinners before the bare metal is alodined, primed and painted with a finish coat. Remember Earhart's Electra was bare metal, the fuselage was not painted.
Researchers and an ALCOA consultant have said that the lettering "negative shadow" that can be seen on the TIGHAR artifact 2-2-V-1, belongs to a font type that came to be marked onto sheet in the early 1940's. The faint shadow "AD" (from ALCLAD) on the 2-2-V-1 piece of sheet being italicised and "sans serif" in what looks like "Verdana" Font, as per this:
AD from ALCLAD24ST(Verdana will not work on WIX, try this on a home PC)
while metal from the 1930's was "ALC24ST" in a lookalike straight "Times New Roman with serifs" font, as per this:
ALC24ST (again, TNR will not work on WIX try this on a home PC)
So the roll-on ink metal marking tied to a year dating is wrong for the "patch". This is ignored by TIGHAR
(I put this down as failure to carry out "Exhaustive research")
2. The other aspect which can be said about the lettering is that it is on the outer face of the piece of sheet (called "the patch"). As the identification of the raw material, the "full" sheet from where the approximately 28" by 22" supposed patch piece was cut, was by the rolled on identification letters and numbers; they would have been visible on the outside of the aircraft for all to see at Miami. TIGHAR says that the inked marking must have protected the sheet "under" the letters and numbers from the effects of corrosion, meaning that the letters and numbers were left on the sheet "patch" after the repair and on the RTW Flight. Therefore these identification letters and numbers would show up on photographs taken of the starboard (RHS) of the aircraft at Miami and at Karachi and at Darwin....but no trace of these letters can be seen in photographs. On this point alone, the supposed "patch" piece in the possession of Tighar fails. It stands to reason that Earhart, being very proud of her Electra, would have had the inked letters and numbers removed after the repair was completed. Note: This has also been pointed put by a previous WIX contributor.
(I put this down as failure to buy new spectacles)
3. Gillespie and his erstwhile stable mate, one Mr. Jeffrey Neville, who has led the charge on this claim about the piece of sheet on the TIGHAR Forum, go into elaborate explanations of what they "suppose" and "assume" would be the internal structure behind the sheet to explain the myriad of rivet holes in the sheet in rows with machine-like equal spacing ("pitch") between the neatly laid out holes which an expert says could only have been done in a factory environment yet they call this a "Field Repair" done on site.
(I put this down as a difference of opinion between "experts")
4. None of the lines of rivet holes line up with what we see on an example of a Model 10 when the sheet is placed in the Station & Buttline position where the 10E RHR Window was located. TIGHAR states that their photographic expert can see lines of rivets from a blurred photograph but fails to supply data to back that up.
(Without the data, this must be classed as a guess until we see the exhaustive research data)
5. TIGHAR's placement of the piece of sheet would require that an extra row of holes be drilled in the aircraft skin to accommodate a row of rivets at a location on a Buttline one inch or more below the aperture lower edge. Doing this would require that the lower row of rivets originally in the window frame and removed would not be used but would remain as holes left in the aircraft skin which is definitely not a standard practice or a required "unfinished" action to take. Gillespie and Neville "invent" a supporting piece in the interior as a kind of "backing plate".
(An assumption)
6. TIGHAR's placement of the sheet leaves a "tab" hanging down below the required lower placement line which Neville explains as a tab to cover minor damage or marking caused during the installation. This was his explanation before the explanation offered at 5. above.
(An assumption)
7. TIGHAR's own expert in repairs states that the drilled holes in the sheet are so perfect in pitch that they would have been factory made. Initially Gillespie and Neville agree on this but then declare the piece of sheet to be the result of a "Field Repair".
(A two-person dithering assumption)
8. TIGHAR's placement of the sheet against a 10A aircraft shows a totally illogical placement of rivet lines which would not coincide with the normal practice of splicing stringers in a Standard Repair. This is explained away as a Field Repair (remember the expert said the holes were factory made).
(Another dithering assumption)
9. TIGHAR's Gillespie and Neville "invent" and "assume" supporting interior structure which is shown in photographs, some of the structure is placed such that it would support connection between this structure and Nevilles "assumed" stiffeners but Neville states the stiffeners would not connect, they would be anti-oil canning stiffeners only.
(Two assumptions)
10. In the examination of "other aircraft types" as a source for the piece of sheet, TIGHAR states it cannot find a match externally or internally but Jeffrey Neville openly admits he did not access aircraft top surfaces.
(This is failure to carry out "Exhaustive research" yet still inspires TIGHAR to say that they have "confidence" that they are correct.)
All the TIGHAR statements about this aluminum piece of sheet are made under the banner of the credo of TIGHAR Scientific Methodology.
We now read that the piece of sheet requires further exhaustive research. I thought I had read that "Exhaustive Research" was carried out in 1991/1992 ? So, the said "Exhaustive research" blithely rolled from Gillespie's lips in 1992, was not "Exhaustive research at all.
TIGHAR now seems to be backing away from the claim of the piece of sheet being the cover or "patch" over the RHS Rear Window aperture by saying "We never said it was the Smoking Gun".
Well they did say as much in 1992, but I guess will claim "semantics".
Part Four to follow
by: David Billings
Re: TIGHAR and the TIGHAR SCIENTIFIC METHODOLOGY
Thu Mar 05, 2015 6:05 pm
TIGHAR and the TIGHAR SCIENTIFIC METHODOLOGY
Part Four
I conclude this "quadrology" (!) by explaining "why" I have gone to all the trouble to explain the TIGHAR's Scientific Methodology....
TIGHAR accusations of "assumptions" made in the East New Britain Project
A Member of TIGHAR accused me, as the lead in the East New Britain Project of making "assumptions". In making that statement he fired me up to write this epistle. Mr. Neville should have let sleeping dogs lie.....
1. I make no assumptions concerning the evidence that we have which is written on the edge of a WWII Map.
No matter how many times TIGHAR have attempted to discredit this evidence, for me it stands. TIGHAR did say that the letters and numbers which are written on the map were passed to the Australians as information concerning Earhart's Electra. This is not so. Nobody in the Australian Army Unit even considered that it might be Earhart's aircraft in April 1945 when they found the wreckage. What the Warrant Officer on the Patrol said to me in 1995 was this: He said that when he removed the tag from the engine mount tubing, he read it (and he said to me), "It was a string of letters and numbers which did not mean anything to me, so I put the tag in my pocket intending to hand it in with the Patrol Report"
2. I make no assumptions concerning the visual evidence said to me by honest Australian Army Veterans who saw an aircraft wreck in the jungle which, from the evidence of the Map certainly says it is the 10E and from their sighting, it resembles a 10E. I make no assumptions about those.
3. I may make assumptions about what I consider happened on that fateful "Last Flight"; for that is "my" hypothesis. There are many worse assumptions cast as a hypothesis and made by TIGHAR continually and broadcast to the Media, continually. You have just read them.
My Grandmother would have said of TIGHAR: "That is the kettle calling the pot black"..... and so it is.
TIGHAR's credo, far from being Scientific Methodology, seems to be the credo of:
"Say it often enough and people will believe it."
This is my Conclusion concerning TIGHAR:
The TIGHAR Hypothesis started as an assumption, with no evidence. It continues as an assumption followed by another assumption, with yet more assumptions within assumptions spreading out all over the place and yet this is called Scientific Methodology ?
TIGHAR is a House of Cards which eventually will collapse, for it has no factual standing
TIGHAR will collapse because the wisdom of Abraham Lincoln's words, will catch up with it.
David Billings
3rd November 2014.
Part Four
I conclude this "quadrology" (!) by explaining "why" I have gone to all the trouble to explain the TIGHAR's Scientific Methodology....
TIGHAR accusations of "assumptions" made in the East New Britain Project
A Member of TIGHAR accused me, as the lead in the East New Britain Project of making "assumptions". In making that statement he fired me up to write this epistle. Mr. Neville should have let sleeping dogs lie.....
1. I make no assumptions concerning the evidence that we have which is written on the edge of a WWII Map.
No matter how many times TIGHAR have attempted to discredit this evidence, for me it stands. TIGHAR did say that the letters and numbers which are written on the map were passed to the Australians as information concerning Earhart's Electra. This is not so. Nobody in the Australian Army Unit even considered that it might be Earhart's aircraft in April 1945 when they found the wreckage. What the Warrant Officer on the Patrol said to me in 1995 was this: He said that when he removed the tag from the engine mount tubing, he read it (and he said to me), "It was a string of letters and numbers which did not mean anything to me, so I put the tag in my pocket intending to hand it in with the Patrol Report"
2. I make no assumptions concerning the visual evidence said to me by honest Australian Army Veterans who saw an aircraft wreck in the jungle which, from the evidence of the Map certainly says it is the 10E and from their sighting, it resembles a 10E. I make no assumptions about those.
3. I may make assumptions about what I consider happened on that fateful "Last Flight"; for that is "my" hypothesis. There are many worse assumptions cast as a hypothesis and made by TIGHAR continually and broadcast to the Media, continually. You have just read them.
My Grandmother would have said of TIGHAR: "That is the kettle calling the pot black"..... and so it is.
TIGHAR's credo, far from being Scientific Methodology, seems to be the credo of:
"Say it often enough and people will believe it."
This is my Conclusion concerning TIGHAR:
The TIGHAR Hypothesis started as an assumption, with no evidence. It continues as an assumption followed by another assumption, with yet more assumptions within assumptions spreading out all over the place and yet this is called Scientific Methodology ?
TIGHAR is a House of Cards which eventually will collapse, for it has no factual standing
TIGHAR will collapse because the wisdom of Abraham Lincoln's words, will catch up with it.
David Billings
3rd November 2014.
Re: TIGHAR and the TIGHAR SCIENTIFIC METHODOLOGY
Thu Mar 05, 2015 6:20 pm
We now need a Drum Roll......Richard Gillespie proudly produced the shoe-sole with a flourish and said, "This....is Amelia Earhart's shoe sole." The author replied , "It cannot be her shoe sole. That looks like a mans's size ten shoe sole to me and Earhart was a women's size six and half." To which, as the author related to me, Richard Gillespie, using Scientific Methodology replied, "Must be Noonan's then....."
I can't stop laughing.
Re: TIGHAR and the TIGHAR SCIENTIFIC METHODOLOGY
Fri Mar 06, 2015 2:03 pm
I wouldn't know where to start to comment given all David's observations - none of which I find to be unfair.
In sum, as I look back at a long effort and association with TIGHAR as a member, and in more recent years as a 'research' member, the problem for me got to be that of a 'bootstrap effect'. That effect is well enough summarized by many observers who note the tendency - as in the 'shoe' anecdote above, the tendency to positively coopt by explanation any 'find' that seems to support the overall hypothesis.
The recent effort with 2-2-V-1 - a piece of sheetmetal which was viewed as a possible candidate for a covering over the lavatory window on Earhart's Electra (after years of consideration as a belly patch, etc.) provides a good example. David gives a good outline of this, and fairly enough observes the standing of people like Gillespie and myself as to that artifact. For my part, I did have great enthusiasm for this piece - and as an amateur investigator looking for a way certainly did shun what I saw as unfounded efforts at discrediting the artifact, and favored continuing the examination until hopes were either exhausted or it was proven true.
Now I must say it has proven not true - not of provenance as the lavatory window covering. That is not for reasons of the odds because of mismatches in rivet hole alignments with those of the Lockheed's general construction, etc. but for critically measurable reasons - and corroborating photographic evidence that now indicates that the window cover probably lacked 'field rivets' (those in the middle of the part). The part is simply too large to not bear evidence of rivet holes in the areas in it's margins; it would have to be bigger than the part we see on the Electra to have torn away from those edge fasteners by the manner of failure we see on the part, and have the surviving remnant to be as large as it is. In short, it dimensionally exceeds the natural attachment boundaries on the host airplane as we know them to be.
Some see this evolution on my part as a 'change in heart', which it is not. I merely came to a place where some concrete finding could be made and understood, and could not escape the outcome: an inverted 'Cinderella story' is what we're left with - the glass slipper not only didn't fit, it turned out to not be a glass slipper at all.
That there are issues with things like the printed material on the part not matching known specimens from Earhart's time, etc. are also problematic - but defendable enough short of proof, by my own peculiar standard (judge at as one will). Why? This is the crux of my hard-headed nature: ANYTHING that MIGHT relate to Earhart deserves the most thorough wring-out it can be given, IMO. That others differ for their own reasons is understandable and fine with me.
So 2-2-V-1 has been wrung out to my own satisfaction. I can't speak for TIGHAR or others, but for me it is not worth further pursuit. All other possible fits on the airplane were more than adequately investigated, in my view (and I was largely skeptical of those because yes, a displacement of a quarter inch or so means 'no fit' where existing fastener lines should match, etc.). What was attractive about the lavatory window was that it was a crapshoot: we had no definitive data on how that covering was installed, and 2-2-V-1 bore some evidence of 'handwork', in my opinion, that I viewed as possibly consistent with a one-off effort like this while hurrying to get the ship out of Miami and on its way.
I could go on, but my point is, if any artifact surfaces that has some chance of relating to Earhart, it needs to be wrung dry before being cast aside. That goes for things TIGHAR has found. Things, by the way, which I now believe to have been essentially 'wrung dry' after many years of intense study.
Where the whole process tanks, in my view, is when that crucial piece of evidence surfaces that kills the idea of provenance but the beat goes on, ignoring a measurable finding - and worse, that the artifact in question remains some sort of promotional poster child. That subordinates the touted 'science first' approach to that of business promotion. No bucks, no Buck Rogers - true for any organization, but there must be a rational limit or the gut and mind won't permit me to follow.
Now I notice that one string as to 2-2-V-1 continues, in the form of a 'mysterious window' discussion - and another feature of TIGHAR's forum is again apparent: that of 'new commentary', which really only rehashes much that has been covered in one form or another - but lends an open door to getting newly arrived folks emersed in the mystique of what I now consider to be a dead artifact. How so? As of this morning, we have fresh speculation that the covering would not likely have been the product of some simple concern such as 'not needed', but MUST have been done due to some dire concern, such as a weakness manifested by a hard landing, etc., as implied.
What has that got to do with potential 2-2-V-1 provenance (which is now non-existent by my estimate)? Nothing. So why the point? I submit because it generates general interest and keeps the commentary mill attractive to others who might join. This fits the 'cycle of discussion' that has been pointed out to me in that place - and I acknowledge that it appears to be a way of keeping fresh meat fed into the grinder, whether deliberate or just out of the proprietor's own zeal. If one can promote interest in this feature on Earhart's airplane, and not concede a non-fit of the related artifact, one has hope of excitement over the 'evidence' one holds. It keeps the thready hope alive - despite exhaustive investigation that showed it dead.
I can't judge for others, only myself - and obviously newly focused, naive people will arrive - perhaps even legions over time who've not tread this path and have no clue of what has already been covered. So here's the real point for me of all that David says so well, and that which the rest of us may have to say: this constant arrival of new eyes and minds makes it all the more important for voices of criticism to be rational, well-studied and fair if they'd count for anything worthwhile. Otherwise we are dismissed as lunatic fringe, nuts who are interested only in being spoilers.
My thought is don't be afraid to let something be wrung dry, comment of course but think twice before condemning - but yes, be critical and demand clear, rational thought. Understand that some will have a great deal of zeal, as well - without it there's no enthusiasm for this search. Apply that and we all learn something along the way. We might even witness someone finding this lost wreck yet.
Thanks for staring this string, Bob. We needed some fresh air.
In sum, as I look back at a long effort and association with TIGHAR as a member, and in more recent years as a 'research' member, the problem for me got to be that of a 'bootstrap effect'. That effect is well enough summarized by many observers who note the tendency - as in the 'shoe' anecdote above, the tendency to positively coopt by explanation any 'find' that seems to support the overall hypothesis.
The recent effort with 2-2-V-1 - a piece of sheetmetal which was viewed as a possible candidate for a covering over the lavatory window on Earhart's Electra (after years of consideration as a belly patch, etc.) provides a good example. David gives a good outline of this, and fairly enough observes the standing of people like Gillespie and myself as to that artifact. For my part, I did have great enthusiasm for this piece - and as an amateur investigator looking for a way certainly did shun what I saw as unfounded efforts at discrediting the artifact, and favored continuing the examination until hopes were either exhausted or it was proven true.
Now I must say it has proven not true - not of provenance as the lavatory window covering. That is not for reasons of the odds because of mismatches in rivet hole alignments with those of the Lockheed's general construction, etc. but for critically measurable reasons - and corroborating photographic evidence that now indicates that the window cover probably lacked 'field rivets' (those in the middle of the part). The part is simply too large to not bear evidence of rivet holes in the areas in it's margins; it would have to be bigger than the part we see on the Electra to have torn away from those edge fasteners by the manner of failure we see on the part, and have the surviving remnant to be as large as it is. In short, it dimensionally exceeds the natural attachment boundaries on the host airplane as we know them to be.
Some see this evolution on my part as a 'change in heart', which it is not. I merely came to a place where some concrete finding could be made and understood, and could not escape the outcome: an inverted 'Cinderella story' is what we're left with - the glass slipper not only didn't fit, it turned out to not be a glass slipper at all.
That there are issues with things like the printed material on the part not matching known specimens from Earhart's time, etc. are also problematic - but defendable enough short of proof, by my own peculiar standard (judge at as one will). Why? This is the crux of my hard-headed nature: ANYTHING that MIGHT relate to Earhart deserves the most thorough wring-out it can be given, IMO. That others differ for their own reasons is understandable and fine with me.
So 2-2-V-1 has been wrung out to my own satisfaction. I can't speak for TIGHAR or others, but for me it is not worth further pursuit. All other possible fits on the airplane were more than adequately investigated, in my view (and I was largely skeptical of those because yes, a displacement of a quarter inch or so means 'no fit' where existing fastener lines should match, etc.). What was attractive about the lavatory window was that it was a crapshoot: we had no definitive data on how that covering was installed, and 2-2-V-1 bore some evidence of 'handwork', in my opinion, that I viewed as possibly consistent with a one-off effort like this while hurrying to get the ship out of Miami and on its way.
I could go on, but my point is, if any artifact surfaces that has some chance of relating to Earhart, it needs to be wrung dry before being cast aside. That goes for things TIGHAR has found. Things, by the way, which I now believe to have been essentially 'wrung dry' after many years of intense study.
Where the whole process tanks, in my view, is when that crucial piece of evidence surfaces that kills the idea of provenance but the beat goes on, ignoring a measurable finding - and worse, that the artifact in question remains some sort of promotional poster child. That subordinates the touted 'science first' approach to that of business promotion. No bucks, no Buck Rogers - true for any organization, but there must be a rational limit or the gut and mind won't permit me to follow.
Now I notice that one string as to 2-2-V-1 continues, in the form of a 'mysterious window' discussion - and another feature of TIGHAR's forum is again apparent: that of 'new commentary', which really only rehashes much that has been covered in one form or another - but lends an open door to getting newly arrived folks emersed in the mystique of what I now consider to be a dead artifact. How so? As of this morning, we have fresh speculation that the covering would not likely have been the product of some simple concern such as 'not needed', but MUST have been done due to some dire concern, such as a weakness manifested by a hard landing, etc., as implied.
What has that got to do with potential 2-2-V-1 provenance (which is now non-existent by my estimate)? Nothing. So why the point? I submit because it generates general interest and keeps the commentary mill attractive to others who might join. This fits the 'cycle of discussion' that has been pointed out to me in that place - and I acknowledge that it appears to be a way of keeping fresh meat fed into the grinder, whether deliberate or just out of the proprietor's own zeal. If one can promote interest in this feature on Earhart's airplane, and not concede a non-fit of the related artifact, one has hope of excitement over the 'evidence' one holds. It keeps the thready hope alive - despite exhaustive investigation that showed it dead.
I can't judge for others, only myself - and obviously newly focused, naive people will arrive - perhaps even legions over time who've not tread this path and have no clue of what has already been covered. So here's the real point for me of all that David says so well, and that which the rest of us may have to say: this constant arrival of new eyes and minds makes it all the more important for voices of criticism to be rational, well-studied and fair if they'd count for anything worthwhile. Otherwise we are dismissed as lunatic fringe, nuts who are interested only in being spoilers.
My thought is don't be afraid to let something be wrung dry, comment of course but think twice before condemning - but yes, be critical and demand clear, rational thought. Understand that some will have a great deal of zeal, as well - without it there's no enthusiasm for this search. Apply that and we all learn something along the way. We might even witness someone finding this lost wreck yet.
Thanks for staring this string, Bob. We needed some fresh air.
Last edited by Ghost of Itasca on Wed Jul 22, 2015 7:34 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: TIGHAR and the TIGHAR SCIENTIFIC METHODOLOGY
Fri Mar 06, 2015 6:59 pm
Reading between the lines of David's TIGHAR treatise just furthers for me what I already am "down with". That he could vividly retain, and be able to recite at a moment's notice, details from all the many years of Tighar's goings-ons, suggests that he was goin' nuts the whole time, witnessing, enduring, these misguided efforts. Seeing these guys get all the press and donations, while he's sitting right on top of the answer, with not the physical proof to make people believe. I'm tellin' ya there's a good book here. A way to recoup? But the story is not done, yet! Chapters are being written as we speak. History will be written! I'm utterly optimistic about all this.
Re: TIGHAR and the TIGHAR SCIENTIFIC METHODOLOGY
Fri Mar 06, 2015 7:22 pm
IMHO, 2-2-V-1 artifact really comes down to a simple question:
What are the odds that the 10,000 lb. Electra crash landed on Niku, and Tighar found the exact 1.5 lb. piece of aluminum skin taken from the only part of Earhart's aircraft that was non-standard, not documented, and not clearly photographed?
What are the odds that the 10,000 lb. Electra crash landed on Niku, and Tighar found the exact 1.5 lb. piece of aluminum skin taken from the only part of Earhart's aircraft that was non-standard, not documented, and not clearly photographed?
Re: TIGHAR and the TIGHAR SCIENTIFIC METHODOLOGY
Fri Mar 06, 2015 7:52 pm
IMHO, 2-2-V-1 artifact really comes down to a simple question:
What are the odds that the 10,000 lb. Electra crash landed on Niku, and Tighar found the exact 1.5 lb. piece of aluminum skin taken from the only part of Earhart's aircraft that was non-standard, not documented, and not clearly photographed?
That dastardly razor.
Re: TIGHAR and the TIGHAR SCIENTIFIC METHODOLOGY
Sat Mar 07, 2015 8:27 am
"....with not the physical proof to make people believe"
...Yea, but with "the" only documentary evidence and a sighting linking AE & FN to a place on this plane Earth....
Courier Sportster says:
"Reading between the lines of David's TIGHAR treatise just furthers for me what I already am "down with". That he could vividly retain, and be able to recite at a moment's notice, details from all the many years of Tighar's goings-ons, suggests that he was goin' nuts the whole time, witnessing, enduring, these misguided efforts. Seeing these guys get all the press and donations, while he's sitting right on top of the answer, with not the physical proof to make people believe. I'm tellin' ya there's a good book here. A way to recoup? But the story is not done, yet! Chapters are being written as we speak. History will be written! I'm utterly optimistic about all this."
Yes... "All of the above".....But when mentioning the unspeakable, you left out the incantations of half-wits who sucked up to Gillespie and continued the insults after he had his go... The worst was when the Veterans, those honest men from a bygone age; received the ignominious accolade, by inference, that they were liars and that their simple tale was not correct. Even The Priest, in his adulation, abeyance and adoration of the Striped Cat, made a similar inference that their information was not of their own source.
I shall never forgive Gillespie for allowing those posts saying that the Veterans had interfered with the truth.
Never mind, March the 10th approaches... Big deposit due for the Nai'a booking. Let us see if US$189,000.00 changes hands...
I recently became a Bookie, taking bets now.. Odds are 157,337 to 1, any takers ?
...Yea, but with "the" only documentary evidence and a sighting linking AE & FN to a place on this plane Earth....
Courier Sportster says:
"Reading between the lines of David's TIGHAR treatise just furthers for me what I already am "down with". That he could vividly retain, and be able to recite at a moment's notice, details from all the many years of Tighar's goings-ons, suggests that he was goin' nuts the whole time, witnessing, enduring, these misguided efforts. Seeing these guys get all the press and donations, while he's sitting right on top of the answer, with not the physical proof to make people believe. I'm tellin' ya there's a good book here. A way to recoup? But the story is not done, yet! Chapters are being written as we speak. History will be written! I'm utterly optimistic about all this."
Yes... "All of the above".....But when mentioning the unspeakable, you left out the incantations of half-wits who sucked up to Gillespie and continued the insults after he had his go... The worst was when the Veterans, those honest men from a bygone age; received the ignominious accolade, by inference, that they were liars and that their simple tale was not correct. Even The Priest, in his adulation, abeyance and adoration of the Striped Cat, made a similar inference that their information was not of their own source.
I shall never forgive Gillespie for allowing those posts saying that the Veterans had interfered with the truth.
Never mind, March the 10th approaches... Big deposit due for the Nai'a booking. Let us see if US$189,000.00 changes hands...
I recently became a Bookie, taking bets now.. Odds are 157,337 to 1, any takers ?
Re: TIGHAR and the TIGHAR SCIENTIFIC METHODOLOGY
Sun Mar 08, 2015 1:17 pm
I've lurked on this board for some time, mostly for updates of David Billings' ENB theory. Below is a comment I've seen David make several times, but I've been unable to find any contemporary documents to verify.
Mr. Billings, can you please point me to the relevant document where it is stated the beaches of Gardner Island were "littered with bones"?
Thank you,
Jeff Scott
TIGHAR: The Gardner Island Bones
...A later New Zealand Survey party in 1938, recorded bones littering the beaches, so "those may be from they". In other words, there were many bones left on the island...
Mr. Billings, can you please point me to the relevant document where it is stated the beaches of Gardner Island were "littered with bones"?
Thank you,
Jeff Scott
Re: TIGHAR and the TIGHAR SCIENTIFIC METHODOLOGY
Wed Apr 01, 2015 7:57 am
Your question got me curious, eljefe -
I recall there being a find of bones likely relating to the dead from Norwich City being buried, but could not find the documented telling of it.
David of course can answer this better, I'm sure.
What was held to be remarkable about Gallagher's find of bones - presumed by TIGHAR to have been at what is today called "the 7 site" by TIGHAR, is that they were found alone and in a possible 'bivouac' situation. Gallagher himself supposed whether they might be those of Earhart - but we know the ensuing doubt and today's ambiguity, at best.
David's point was well made to me - that there were plenty of bones on Gardner. That said, I guess it was more what Gallagher described that left an impression of distinction from the 'other bones' on me, as I look back. Gallagher's found bones may very well have been those of some poor 'castaway', whoever it may have been. Dr. Hoodless certainly did not think they were those of Earhart.
I recall there being a find of bones likely relating to the dead from Norwich City being buried, but could not find the documented telling of it.
David of course can answer this better, I'm sure.
What was held to be remarkable about Gallagher's find of bones - presumed by TIGHAR to have been at what is today called "the 7 site" by TIGHAR, is that they were found alone and in a possible 'bivouac' situation. Gallagher himself supposed whether they might be those of Earhart - but we know the ensuing doubt and today's ambiguity, at best.
David's point was well made to me - that there were plenty of bones on Gardner. That said, I guess it was more what Gallagher described that left an impression of distinction from the 'other bones' on me, as I look back. Gallagher's found bones may very well have been those of some poor 'castaway', whoever it may have been. Dr. Hoodless certainly did not think they were those of Earhart.
Re: TIGHAR and the TIGHAR SCIENTIFIC METHODOLOGY
Wed Apr 01, 2015 8:21 am
Courier Sportster wrote:Reading between the lines of David's TIGHAR treatise just furthers for me what I already am "down with". That he could vividly retain, and be able to recite at a moment's notice, details from all the many years of Tighar's goings-ons, suggests that he was goin' nuts the whole time, witnessing, enduring, these misguided efforts. Seeing these guys get all the press and donations, while he's sitting right on top of the answer, with not the physical proof to make people believe. I'm tellin' ya there's a good book here. A way to recoup? But the story is not done, yet! Chapters are being written as we speak. History will be written! I'm utterly optimistic about all this.
I am very empathetic to David's plight and realize his torture to some degree myself, actually - even as one who followed TIGHAR very closely and enthusiastically for a very long time.
That said, one cannot gain traction by pointing overly-much to another's short-comings, or undeserved achievements - but must labor positively on one's own behalf. We're also all allowed a bit of time in which to lament how we were treated by others, but at some point have to remember that eyes were put in the front of our noggins and move on in our own best efforts.
Yes David lacks physical proof. So does everyone else: while TIGHAR has claimed NEAR-proof in physical terms, she in fact also clearly lacks physical proof. All things held and considered 'probably of Earhart' by TIGHAR are at best ambiguous in that sources other than Earhart remain plausible - if not far more likely.
Even proven 'otherwise' in some cases: while the sheet metal artifact known as 2-2-V-1 seems to remain among TIGHAR's purported 'perusal' evidence, reports on metallurgy and fit / size showing that item to be almost certainly not of provenance to Earhart are also released on TIGHAR's site (however unheralded those reports remain on the main site and within the forum).
While I respect David's intellect, hard work and tenacity - and humor as long as not too mean (TIGHAR's got some real challenges on her hands, careful what you wish for), I also must concede that one great check always exists for every theory that gets advanced: plausibility, given the manner in which the flight can be presumed to have progressed due to range limitations.
I am also sorely reminded of Occam's Razor, and that the simplest explanation may be the most sensible pursuit, at least until exhausted -
- I have to admit that I see it as problematic for the flight to have gotten to a point on July 2, 1937 where it is believed by all concerned, including Earhart and those aboard Itasca, that she was close to the Howland vicinity - and then to go back many hundreds of miles to ENB.
- I realize David has some excellent, detailed thoughts as to what may have really happened so as to get her back to ENB, but the razor slashes as I work through that, personally.
But since this is really about TIGHAR and her methods, I can apply the same critical thought - especially as one who drank from the cup for some time -
- Gary LaPook has just given a thorough explanation of how the moon and sun could have easily provided updated positional awareness to Noonan, given the clear skies to the south of Howland that the Itasca's commander reported that morning.
- We have that same commander's decision and underlying comments based on observed worse weather to the NW of Howland that morning, which seems to have fit all that he heard from Earhart's own reports. We know that his initial instinct was to search in that direction.
Those things fit 'the razor' to me, I must admit. I also think of 'multiple choice' questions on tests and how we're told - rightly, that our first answer is most often the best: Itasca was in that position as I saw it and it is compelling. I must remember that while Friedell of the Colorado had noble reasons for searching south and among the Phoenix Group, he had to be considering that Itasca had already searched NW of Howland and that his limited resources had to be applied in the 'next best' direction.
Does TIGHAR adequately consider these things in her assessment? I can see why there are serious questions about it. No doubt TIGHAR has constructed some very logical arguments in favor of Gardner - but if one looks objectively, and one should, there is a great deal of room for error.
Then we get into things like radio signals after the loss, etc. I realize how compelling those things can be - but must also appreciate that people were not idiots in 1937, and that these were considered. What is the likelihood, at the simple, razor-edge level of consideration, that Earhart could not make herself heard better to ships like Itasca than she did after that last known call? We know she was switching to her day frequency, and that may have been disruptive - but what are the odds that she went without being heard clearly again if she could run an engine on a dry reef and transmit at all?
The razor doth cut. Long has a point, as does LaPook and others who look to the sea: she seems to have got near Howland and fuel must have been short.
I am not claiming to know the answer - I merely point out that there are problems with each theory. The simplest theory - lost at sea, may carry the greatest conundrum: ENB and Gardner are more readily searchable in a defining way than is the vast, open ocean.
Bottom line is, as time wears on I grow to believe more every day that this mystery may remain just that for all time: she may never be found - whether on the ocean floor, in the crags and grooves of a seamount slope or under the mud in ENB. That may be the razor's meanest cut of all.
Re: TIGHAR and the TIGHAR SCIENTIFIC METHODOLOGY
Wed Apr 01, 2015 11:23 am
Jeffrey Neville wrote:Bottom line is, as time wears on I grow to believe more every day that this mystery may remain just that for all time: she may never be found - whether on the ocean floor, in the crags and grooves of a seamount slope or under the mud in ENB. That may be the razor's meanest cut of all.
And maybe, just maybe, that is the way it should be.
Re: TIGHAR and the TIGHAR SCIENTIFIC METHODOLOGY
Wed Apr 01, 2015 11:55 am
Mods: can all these TIGHAR etc threads be merged please? Too much BS on the 'unread posts page'
It's also beginning to look like a carefully concocted attempt by TIGHAR to create more publicity. As if a group ever needed more.
Ta.
It's also beginning to look like a carefully concocted attempt by TIGHAR to create more publicity. As if a group ever needed more.
Ta.