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.