Forum Index > Full Moon Saloon > What happened to Amelia Earhart - evidential trail Marshall Islands
 Reply to topic
Previous :: Next Topic
Author Message
thunderhead
Member
Member


Joined: 14 Oct 2015
Posts: 1511 | TRs | Pics
thunderhead
Member
PostWed Jul 12, 2017 9:36 am 
Quote:
but were the final radio transmissions?
They could certainly have flown a bit away from the cutter as their fuel ran down... but they announced their intentions to search along a line that didnt go anywhere near the marshall islands, they certainly didnt have the fuel to make it all the way to the marshal islands(earhart was getting understandably desperate on the radio towards the end) and they probably went down fairly soon after their final transmission.... or there would have been more transmissions. They ran out of fuel near Howland. Whether they made it to a nearby sand bar(specifically gardner) and died of thirst stranded is debatable, but they certainly did not return to the marshall islands. Its too far and in the wrong direction.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Slugman
It’s a Slugfest!



Joined: 27 Mar 2003
Posts: 16874 | TRs | Pics
Slugman
It’s a Slugfest!
PostWed Jul 12, 2017 10:13 am 
Those claiming it is racist not to accept the impossible stories made up by supposed witnesses are making the least valid point ever offered up in the English language. And they also do not know what the word gibberish means. Don't believe insane conspiracy theories offered up by know-nothing crackpots.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
gb
Member
Member


Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Posts: 6303 | TRs | Pics
gb
Member
PostWed Jul 12, 2017 4:14 pm 
Slugman wrote:
Those claiming it is racist not to accept the impossible stories made up by supposed witnesses are making the least valid point ever offered up in the English language. And they also do not know what the word gibberish means. Don't believe insane conspiracy theories offered up by know-nothing crackpots.
Another racist.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Pyrites
Member
Member


Joined: 16 Sep 2014
Posts: 1880 | TRs | Pics
Location: South Sound
Pyrites
Member
PostThu Jul 13, 2017 2:35 am 
The History Channel show seemed to think the presence of a trolley was a state secret. It seemed from previous light reading that outside economic exploitation of this part of the world was focused on guano or coconuts. Was there a coconut plantation on the atoll when it was controlled by the Germans, then the Japanese? Was it common to use trolleys at coconut plantations, particularly in areas with very low populations? Trolleys were widely used at one time.

Keep Calm and Carry On? Heck No. Stay Excited and Get Outside!
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
InFlight
coated in DEET



Joined: 20 May 2015
Posts: 847 | TRs | Pics
Location: Seattle area
InFlight
coated in DEET
PostThu Jul 13, 2017 9:08 am 
Pyrites wrote:
The History Channel show seemed to think the presence of a trolley was a state secret. It seemed from previous light reading that outside economic exploitation of this part of the world was focused on guano or coconuts. Was there a coconut plantation on the atoll when it was controlled by the Germans, then the Japanese? Was it common to use trolleys at coconut plantations, particularly in areas with very low populations? Trolleys were widely used at one time.
It seems more likely that the Japanese may have stationed some troops there during WW2, perhaps with some heavy anti-aircraft guns that would need to be moved. They would likely need to move large tanks of fresh water inland as well. So a trolley would make sense. Why would you need heavy steel trolleys to move a 6500 pound airplane if the tires were even partially serviceable?

“I went to the woods because I wished to live deliberately...” ― Henry David Thoreau
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Ski
><((((°>



Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 12798 | TRs | Pics
Location: tacoma
Ski
><((((°>
PostThu Jul 13, 2017 10:00 am 
InFlight wrote:
Why would you need heavy steel trolleys to move a 6500 pound airplane if the tires were even partially serviceable?
In the animated graphic shown in the presentation, the supposed flight path would have landed the plane on the outboard (ocean) side of that tiny island in the Mili Atoll, which quite likely would have torn the landing gear off the bottom of the plane, if not at least severely damaging it, so using a trolley (like the three they said they found there) makes perfect sense. What doesn't make sense is how a small-diameter steel wheel would carry such a load across what would have essentially been soft sand without running on a steel track, such as those shown in the graphics where the Japanese troops are moving ordnance using a similar trolley set-up. What does make sense is that there was a major war occurring, and the Japanese had built up defensive fortifications all over tiny islands all over the western Pacific, so drawing conclusions based on physical evidence found in a former theater of war is folly.

"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach. I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Pyrites
Member
Member


Joined: 16 Sep 2014
Posts: 1880 | TRs | Pics
Location: South Sound
Pyrites
Member
PostThu Jul 13, 2017 1:04 pm 
To clear up my questions, by trolley I meant using lightweight, often modular, rail road type trolleys. Of course I am not implying any type of locomotive. Where labor was short was it common for trolleys to be used on coconut plantations? A historian would have seemed an important person to have.

Keep Calm and Carry On? Heck No. Stay Excited and Get Outside!
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Ski
><((((°>



Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 12798 | TRs | Pics
Location: tacoma
Ski
><((((°>
PostThu Jul 13, 2017 6:25 pm 
^ The artifacts they found on that little island appeared to be one-piece steel axles with spoked wheels at each end. From the photo shown of the Japanese troops using them to move ordnance, I'm going to guess the wheels were about a foot in diameter and had a tread width of maybe three or four inches. They said they found three of them at that location: two in the bush, and one in the water (which was severely deteriorated from laying in salt water.) I would imagine they'd have to be attached to some sort of "truck" (or "platform") in order to be of any use; you wouldn't be able to put the load directly onto the axle itself. I suppose it's plausible that a 3-1/2 ton aircraft could have been moved a short distance utilizing such devices, but it would have required a lot of muscle, and (again) I just don't see it as being a realistic possibility on a tiny little island covered with sand and palm trees. My take on that is that they're really reaching to connect dots that aren't really there.

"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach. I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Ski
><((((°>



Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 12798 | TRs | Pics
Location: tacoma
Ski
><((((°>
PostThu Jul 13, 2017 6:48 pm 
Looks like my guess was a little off. The wheels are about 20 inches in diameter (scroll way down) This one is kind of interesting:
earharttruth, on the above-cited web page wrote:
"...on Mili Island itself, which had been completely bombed out in WWII, we explored war wreckage that had been completely untouched since the War. All kinds of Betty bombers, fighters, and the most exciting – a wrecked American P-38..."
Note that it sounds like that that wreckage was on Mili Island, not Barre Island. But then we come to this entry on another website, which says there were 2237 Japanese troops stationed on the Mili Atoll. (Were they all on Mili Island, one island on an atoll made up of no fewer than 92 separate islands? I don't profess to be some kind of military strategist, but it seems reasonable to assume that if you had 2237 men and 92 islands, you'd want to have at least one or two men on one of the islands on the north side of the atoll.)

"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach. I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Ski
><((((°>



Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 12798 | TRs | Pics
Location: tacoma
Ski
><((((°>
PostThu Jul 13, 2017 11:02 pm 
Poking around on that guy's pages, I came across this one: https://earharttruth.wordpress.com/tag/endriken-islands/ Scroll down just a bit to that donut-shaped piece of sheet aluminum. If it is true that a person who knows aircraft, and is familiar with that design of Lockheed aircraft, was able to make a positive identification on that piece, why wasn't that piece mentioned in the History channel broadcast? Has it been debunked? I find that one particularly puzzling. Finally found a map image that appears to show the exact location of Barre Island... or does it? Either way, if there was an invasion force coming from the U.S., would it not be reasonable to assume they would be coming from the north or from the east? Would the Japanese commanding officer on Mili Island not have at least some of his troops stationed on islands along the north perimeter of the atoll? And how has it been definitely established that no U.S. or Japanese aircraft went down in that area? Were the native people watching every island 24/7, 365 days a year, day and night, even in bad weather? Just because nobody saw something happen doesn't always necessarily mean it absolutely could not have happened.
Mili Atoll satellite image
Mili Atoll satellite image
^ From the "map" images shown on the History Channel broadcast, I'm going to assume that Barre Island is the one marked "HERE". Yes? No? huh.gif

"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach. I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
gb
Member
Member


Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Posts: 6303 | TRs | Pics
gb
Member
PostFri Jul 14, 2017 7:12 am 
Ski wrote:
InFlight wrote:
Why would you need heavy steel trolleys to move a 6500 pound airplane if the tires were even partially serviceable?
In the animated graphic shown in the presentation, the supposed flight path would have landed the plane on the outboard (ocean) side of that tiny island in the Mili Atoll, which quite likely would have torn the landing gear off the bottom of the plane, if not at least severely damaging it, so using a trolley (like the three they said they found there) makes perfect sense. What doesn't make sense is how a small-diameter steel wheel would carry such a load across what would have essentially been soft sand without running on a steel track, such as those shown in the graphics where the Japanese troops are moving ordnance using a similar trolley set-up.
If the trolleys were used for the heavy aircraft it is likely they were run over lumber, which regardless of the use of the trolleys, would have long ago rotted and disappeared - or was reclaimed.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
DIYSteve
seeking hygge



Joined: 06 Mar 2007
Posts: 12655 | TRs | Pics
Location: here now
DIYSteve
seeking hygge
PostFri Jul 14, 2017 7:26 pm 
gb wrote:
For the photo to have been published in 1935 would have to indicate that Earhart was in the Marshall Islands as of 1935 date of publishing. If that can be proved, the photo as evidence is debunked - not as to content but as to date.
Huh? dizzy.gif If the photo is established to have been taken in 1935, it is 100% debunked as evidence relevant to the issue of whether Earhart survived in 1937. The sole reason the History Channel team oversold the dubious expert photo analysis was because they started with the theory that she survived in 1937 and backfilled with a manifestly strained explanation of the evidence. This is an example of the fundamental flaw with hired gun expert witnesses. It starts with a conclusion and then seeks to defend it. It is the scientific method turned upside down. Cf. Intelligent Design theory. There's an old joke among we litigators that goes like this: A lawyer brings in a big case. One big issue in the case is "what is 2 + 2?" The lawyer interviews three expert accounting witnesses. The lawyer presents the issue to Expert A, a straight shooter. Expert A says "2 + 2 is 4." Then the lawyer presents the issue to Expert B, who is more of an advocate. Expert B says "2 + 2 might be 4, or it might not, depending on the circumstances." Then the lawyer presents the issue to Expert C, a hired gun "whore expert" (legal trade term). Expert C responds: "2 + 2? Hmmmmm. What do you want it to be?"

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Ski
><((((°>



Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 12798 | TRs | Pics
Location: tacoma
Ski
><((((°>
PostFri Jul 14, 2017 7:58 pm 
gb wrote:
"If the trolleys were used for the heavy aircraft it is likely they were run over lumber..."
After consulting the resident civil engineer here: That scenario is possible, but: Assuming the surface of said island is soft (which is most likely) and the aircraft weighs 6500 pounds, your "lumber" would have to be about 8 inches thick x 16 inches wide, and would need to be supported and tied together in some fashion by means of some sort of understructure, otherwise the force of the wheel (which would be on the inboard side of the wheels, considering those wheels in the photo have a lip around the inside perimeter) would push the inboard side of the "lumber" down and toward the outboard side. This would require six parallel wooden "tracks" spaced appropriately apart from each other; two for each wheel/axle set. Unless you're going to move the aircraft only a few feet at a time, and then move the pieces from the rear and set them up again in the front of the aircraft, this would require an enormous amount of wood. So sure, possible, but an extremely difficult task requiring a huge amount of material and labor.

"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach. I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Malachai Constant
Member
Member


Joined: 13 Jan 2002
Posts: 16088 | TRs | Pics
Location: Back Again Like A Bad Penny
Malachai Constant
Member
PostFri Jul 14, 2017 8:44 pm 
DIYSteve wrote:
Then the lawyer presents the issue to Expert C, a hired gun "whore expert" (legal trade term). Expert C responds: "2 + 2? Hmmmmm. What do you want it to be?"
I had a lot of fun cross examining experts C clown.gif

"You do not laugh when you look at the mountains, or when you look at the sea." Lafcadio Hearn
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
gb
Member
Member


Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Posts: 6303 | TRs | Pics
gb
Member
PostSat Jul 15, 2017 7:20 am 
DIYSteve wrote:
gb wrote:
For the photo to have been published in 1935 would have to indicate that Earhart was in the Marshall Islands as of 1935 date of publishing. If that can be proved, the photo as evidence is debunked - not as to content but as to date.
Huh? dizzy.gif If the photo is established to have been taken in 1935, it is 100% debunked as evidence relevant to the issue of whether Earhart survived in 1937. The sole reason the History Channel team oversold the dubious expert photo analysis was because they started with the theory that she survived in 1937 and backfilled with a manifestly strained explanation of the evidence. This is an example of the fundamental flaw with hired gun expert witnesses. It starts with a conclusion and then seeks to defend it. It is the scientific method turned upside down. Cf. Intelligent Design theory.
You claim to be a lawyer but you can't read. I clearly said that if Earnhart can be shown to be in the Marshall Islands in 1935 or before then the photo does not stand as evidence for her being alive in 1937 in the Marshall Islands. If, however, she was not in the Marshall Islands prior to the "date" of publishing then something is fishy in the Japanese book. Realize this was a Japanese book. So, it is simple, debunk the photo of Earhart's survival in 1937 by demonstrating her being in the Marshall Islands prior to "date" of publishing, and you remove the photo as evidence for survival. But it cuts two ways, prove she wasn't in the Marshall Islands prior to the "date" of publishing and you prove a conspiracy in the date of publishing which would strongly implicate her survival. Sorry, you weren't able to follow the logic, here. (Which is very simple). Somewhere on the internet there has to be a log of Earnhart's major flights including those to the South Pacific. It seems you have a big horse in this race.....me, I want to know one way or the other.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
   All times are GMT - 8 Hours
 Reply to topic
Forum Index > Full Moon Saloon > What happened to Amelia Earhart - evidential trail Marshall Islands
  Happy Birthday speyguy, Bandanabraids!
Jump to:   
Search this topic:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum