Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Page 2 of 10 FirstFirst 123456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 290

Thread: Another Amelia Theory of Disappearance

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Posts
    10,020
    Therein lies the problem.

    It is no different to looking for King Arthur. He may have existed - in some form, but at this distance, and with the information still available, we cannot prove it one way or the other. Doesn't stop people writing more and more elaborate theories mind..

    I have seen a number of Earhart theories that always fall down on the proof - the smoking gun, if you like, is the aeroplane. Find it and you solve the mystery. A few years ago, there was a theory doing the rounds that the aircraft had been found, but mistaken for something else, and that an engine plate number, annotated on a map tied up with the Earhart plane. Once again, no proof was ever, to my knowledge, found.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    72
    Quote Originally Posted by Bruce View Post
    Therein lies the problem.

    It is no different to looking for King Arthur. He may have existed - in some form, but at this distance, and with the information still available, we cannot prove it one way or the other. Doesn't stop people writing more and more elaborate theories mind..

    I have seen a number of Earhart theories that always fall down on the proof - the smoking gun, if you like, is the aeroplane. Find it and you solve the mystery. A few years ago, there was a theory doing the rounds that the aircraft had been found, but mistaken for something else, and that an engine plate number, annotated on a map tied up with the Earhart plane. Once again, no proof was ever, to my knowledge, found.
    Previously in this thread someone observed that the Orona theory just wasn't going to work. I want to ask which if any of the current theories does work? If working means expending money in searching for the aircraft then crash and sink reigns supreme. Millions spent in a futile deep water search. Makes one wonder if any of the intrepid argonauts ever read anything about the deep abyssal plain of the great oceans. Since the early days of Beebe and Bolton's deep exploration in the Bathysphere to more recent deep water research it is known that the layer of loose bio-ooze mud that covers the Pacific floor can be 50-100 meters thick. An aerodynamic airplane glides through the water just as in air and plunges deep into the mud. If crash and sink is true, the plane will never be found. Just as MH370 will not be found if it crashed in an area where the bottom is covered by a deep layer of mud. CrashSink is the perfect theory that works because it can't be proven true and it can't be disproven until the aircraft is found-if ever. The Orona theory can be proven/found false by a simple SCUBA dive expedition. What's so elaborate about that?

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Posts
    10,020
    Tom, if you can prove it, then good luck to you. At the moment however, I think you are making the scant facts fit your theory, which is absolutely fine, but in a market where there are so many different theories, you have your work cut out.

    With respect, it reads like a conspiracy. In my book, the more elaborate the proposition, the less likely it is to have any basis in fact.

    First, find the lady. Everything else flows from that, but not until she is found... I wish you the very best of luck.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Sunshine Coast, Australia
    Posts
    138
    "Find the aircraft"

    Exactly... There will be no answer until it is found...

    Mr. Maxwell....

    If you would be so kind, please do not mention me in the same sentence within which you mention TIGHAR. Please use a separate sentence. Thankyou.

    Mr. McKay....

    It was the erstwhile Bigfoot buff, Gillespie's photo analyst, Mr Glickman; who first saw the black dot on the Bevington photo and turned it into a supposed landing gear leg and wheel assembly. NOTE: There were several more black dots in the picture and some of them were in the sky. An aircraft of that era can only have two main landing gears and a tailwheel.

    I must not say anymore about the Hickory Hill mob in Pennsylvania lest my favourite aviation writer from Cornwall-upon-Hudson comes charging in...

    Bruce....

    The plate [Metal Tag] you mention was not an engine data plate seen by the WWII Patrol members (incidentally we are still in the process of looking for it). The small "Tag" was taken off of the engine mount tubing where it has been tied on with wire and was handed in with the Patrol Report. What we have are three identifying details, written on a Patrol map which we do believe are the same details which were written/stamped/etched on the Metal Tag that was removed from the engine mount tubing. The cryptic details on the map are of a horsepower number, an engine designation and a C/N number as per: 600 H/P S3H1 C/N1055. These "fit" with Earhart's Electra 10E.

    It is my consideration that the Metal Tag was a "Repair Tag" left on the engine mount after it had been repaired post-"The Groundloop Incident" on Ford Island, Hawaii, in March 1937. It would not be typical that a Manufacturer's Engine Data Plate would also carry an aircraft Construction Number. All this is explained on my website.

    I am currently in the process of planning for another visit to the area in 2017

    Regards,
    RPM,
    www.earhartsearchpng.com

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    1,661
    Aaaah the tag RPM - I got into awful trouble at a certain discussion forum for mentioning that because some people seemed unable to grasp that aircraft in the 30s which were produced in relatively small numbers were allotted construction numbers to identify a particular airframe regardless of later numbers like official serial numbers etc. simply because of customized fittings etc. It was necessary if airframe parts like engine mounts were removed for repair, as was the engine mounts after Earhart's prang on the first attempt that these parts be identified so they could be refitted to the airframe. Some people claimed as experts on airframe construction that I didn't know what I was talking about. But they failed to note that this numbering of parts and assemblies during the actual manufacturing process was pretty much standard in any industry where the final product was either customized or produced in a fashion that required hand finishing. That's where the standard means of creating individual serial numbers comes from - not from the manufacturer's need to work out how many of an item was produced.

    However while I concede that it was Jeff Glickman who did the actual photo enlargement and fiddling that produced a blurry image of an undercarriage leg from a Lockheed 10 it was actually Mrs Gillespie who found the tiny dot. Her husband has often asserted this. I pointed out that the actual Bevington photo was covered in small dots and spots - only to be told these could be seagulls, etc. I specifically asked if these also had been subject to analysis but that earned me another smack over the knuckles.

    Recently I revisited the forum just for a look and found out from a recent thread that apparently there are bodies all over the place. The native workforce followed custom and buried their dead relatives quite literally in their backyards. Now while the skeletal material that created all the brouhaha about it being Earhart after the late Dr Kar Burns reanalysis of it predates the Phoenix Island settlement project, there was the previous and not well understood Arundel settlement as well and it also, like the Norwich City wreck, could be a source of the human remains. It is now conceded by TIGHAR that Dr Hoodless' analysis of the skeleton was right, as a new scientific method developed since the analytical process used by Dr Burns which incorporates a much more detailed data base confirms his findings. So the poor chap was a stocky person with Polynesian features and not a very skinny European woman.

    I note also that since the fiasco involving Tim Mellon, the court case, the messy divorce etc. etc. that amateur analysis of underwater film is now a very much verboten topic if it gets too imaginative. Those of us who pointed out at the time that this was necessary if the audience wasn't going to treat the film as a sitcom and fall about laughing are vindicated. But too late.

    Finally on the subject of the Hull island theory - all I can say is that this is not only the easiest of all to check (just do a short dive in the lagoon) but also the least believable because the island was occupied at the time and an aircraft crashing in the lagoon would have attracted the attention of everyone. It really doesn't need stories about Japanese Pirates and kidnapped natives etc. to make it saleable. If Gillespie can make a lucrative career out of Nikumaroro then Hull is a piece of cake.

    My own view is that no one actually wants to find Earhart because for all involved the greater enjoyment is in the swapping of theories not the solution - a bit like Jack the Ripper's identity.
    Last edited by Malcolm McKay; 1st September 2016 at 00:04.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Sunshine Coast, Australia
    Posts
    138
    Not So, Mr. McKay...

    Quote Originally Posted by Malcolm McKay View Post
    My own view is that no one actually wants to find Earhart because for all involved the greater enjoyment is in the swapping of theories not the solution - a bit like Jack the Ripper's identity.
    How can an intelligent man such as yourself say that ? How do you figure that then Malcolm, when, since 1994; I and my team have ventured into the New Guinea Jungle at least a dozen times (albeit several in the wrong area and albeit many of those a waste of time since we found out it had been buried), mostly on my own Aussie Dollar. Of course I want to find that "mystery aircraft" that the Australian WWII Patrol found in 1945.... The aircraft that documentary evidence says is the missing Electra. Nobody invented the find of an unpainted, non-insignia, strange aircraft with P&W engines that looked as though it had been there for quite a few years and nobody invented the indelible pencilled writing on the map border either.

    The writing on the map border and the description of the wreck by the Australian Vets simply does match with the Electra and it is continually amazing to me that I have not received substantial funding for this Project when it is the only project concerning the Earhart and Noonan loss which has any evidence directly linked to the Electra.

    That's right folks, I do not have shoe soles, bones, freckle cream bottles and buckled aluminum window coverings or bits of perspex.... I just have 600H/P S3H1 C/N1055 and the recollections of honest WWII Veterans.

    Regards,
    RPM
    www.earhartsearchpng.com

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    1,661
    Didn't you see the big grin at the end?

    I wish you every success but you really have to smarten your act up, we the easily led followers of the Nikumaroro theory expect to see lots of freckle cream jars, ten pairs of shoes, Fred Noonan's personal hip flask and enough aluminium sheeting to build a B29 and most importantly an enlarged fly speck on an old box Brownie print that clearly shows not one but two u/c legs and a tailwheel if your theory is to be followed with our undying enthusiasm.

    I'm a splashed and sank person myself - somewhere in waters around Howland, probably to the north or south east out of line of sight of the smokescreen raised by the Itasca
    Last edited by Malcolm McKay; 1st September 2016 at 01:50.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Where you wish you were.
    Posts
    9,249
    Quote Originally Posted by Malcolm McKay View Post
    I'm a splashed and sank person myself - somewhere in waters around Howland, probably to the north or south east out of line of sight of the smokescreen raised by the Itasca

    If nothing else play the odds.
    On that leg of her flight, who much was over water? 95-99%?
    If she disappeared on the leg, them the odds are she came down in water.
    Yet the group (who shall remain nameless) heaps scorn and ridicule if you don't subscribe to their pet theory. Their "proof" is very circumstantial and wouldn't hold up in a court.
    Yet, they stick with it...probably since it's just plausible enough to keep the suckers...I mean paying members, interested enough to continue paying dues.
    I would imagine their pitch goes like this: "We're so close..just one more expedition, and we'll find her, THEN you can tell al your friends that you helped find her."
    As long as nothing is found, the cheques keep coming.
    And if they do find her on the island, they probably see big money in books, film rights, they'll have everything tied up with enough copyrights that you won't be able to mention her, any Lockheed (up to and including the TriStar) or the Pacific without them getting a cut.
    Last edited by J Boyle; 1st September 2016 at 03:23.
    There are two sides to every story. The truth is usually somewhere between the two.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    72
    Quote Originally Posted by Bruce View Post
    Tom, if you can prove it, then good luck to you. At the moment however, I think you are making the scant facts fit your theory, which is absolutely fine, but in a market where there are so many different theories, you have your work cut out.

    With respect, it reads like a conspiracy. In my book, the more elaborate the proposition, the less likely it is to have any basis in fact.

    First, find the lady. Everything else flows from that, but not until she is found... I wish you the very best of luck.

    Yes the Orona theory has many problems to overcome before the investigation community accepts it as something worthwhile. Perhaps if I back away from the theory for awhile and concentrate on the image, others might get interested in studying the idea of the theory basis. The basic idea; the lost flight landed on the Hull Island lagoon surface and the fliers survived. The plane lies in about 35 feet of water. I am familiar with the lagoon at Canton and only occasionally are greater depths found. While I have not done any diving in the lagoon at Orona, work acquaintances related that the depth at Orona is comparable. I used two methods to analyze the object that appears in the image. The water index of refraction method and the symmetry method. Google Earth measurements is used for both methods. The index of refraction method divides a GE measurement by 1.33 to yield the actual dimension. The nose to tail measurement is 52' divide by 1.33 yields 39' very close to the actual. It has been pointed out to me that Snell's law only permits this maximum magnification when the viewing angle is 45 degrees and no magnification for a satellite overhead. But the possibility remains that the image is an aerial photo taken above the center of the island. If the altitude was 10000' that would result in a forty five degree angle relative to the planes location. GE sometimes uses aerial photos. But the many arguments about Snell's law, virtual images, and optics overall compel me to abandon the refraction proof. It remains a curiosity.

    The symmetry argument is much easier to understand. By identifying 7 known aircraft points on the image, 21 lines can be drawn. I will explain my method in a later post.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    1,661
    It's basically a script writer's paradise type yarn - so the two theories that have all the best human interest elements are going to attract the most attention.

    TIGHAR's because we have two desperate castaways slowly dying of thirst and injury on an island while search planes fly over head and ultimately just failing by a few weeks to be still alive when the survey team led by Harry Maude arrives.

    While the Saipan (also Hull) theories have it all in spades. Dastardly Japanese who are surreptitiously using their League of Nations mandate over islands in the region to extend their military presence. A brave young white woman held captive for 6 or more years so the evil Japanese plot won't be revealed. US forces belatedly discovering the truth after the surrender of Saipan, the secret burning of the Model 10, the lost brief case, government cover up at the highest level in Washington etc. etc.

    While simpler theories like splashed and sank, New Britain etc. just don't get a chance because where's the human interest in Earhart saying "whoops" or "Oh ****" followed by a loud splashing or crashing noise. Sure you can string out the flight from Lae for about 90 minutes adding a bit of panicky conversation between the dynamic duo at the end but what else is there to dramatize.

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Oldham, UK
    Posts
    325
    Quote Originally Posted by Tony Hill View Post
    I have it on very good authority that there are at least 15 and more probably 30 Amelia Earharts buried in wax paper within crates , near a famous airport. I can't reveal more until the end of September.

    You are a very very bad man. Go and sit on the stairs and think about what you have just done

    Besides, they are in a bricked up cellar in the Black Country.

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    172
    Spartabus


    I know. I blame a Christian Brothers education.....

    The Black Country? Perhaps Time Team could do a dig? I believe they are currently organising one at a certain house in Gloucester.
    In Memory of:
    Flt Lt Tony Hill who successfully photographed a small "Würzburg radar" at Bruneval. 5th Dec 1941

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    72
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Maxwell View Post
    Yes the Orona theory has many problems to overcome......By identifying 7 known aircraft points on the image, 21 lines can be drawn. I will explain my method in a later post.
    The seven identified points are the nose, tail center, left vertical stabilizer center, left wingtip, left engine propeller hub, right engine propeller hub, and the cabin doorway opening. The 21 lines (6+5+4+3+2+1=21) result in 210 ratio comparisons as line distance are divided by remaining lines (20+19+18+........+1=210). The distance between the points is measured with the GE ruler tool and corresponding line length on the overhead scaled sketch of the L10E is measured. I used inches for both the GE image measurement and the drawing. These 210 ratios matched, on average, slightly over 5%. This to me is a good clue that the airframe is very possibly the L10E. Angle symmetry could also be used for analysis. I haven't done so but an analysis using angle comparisons would be interesting to compare against the line ratio method. The GE ruler tool makes precision angle measurements. I used an image near 100' eye altitude for the image measurements.

    My opinion=
    Amelia was not eaton by crabs, did not drowned in the great depths, was not executed by the Japanese, and did not live out her days as a New Jersey socialite.

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    72
    Here is where I located my 7 points on the airframe. Click image for larger version. 

Name:	100ftsymmetryL10E.jpg 
Views:	37 
Size:	52.0 KB 
ID:	247923

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    72
    I'm going to try an attach a Excel file with the ratio comparisons. .....my file L10EOrona.xslx invalid file sez the upload manager. Change extension to "xls" ? I'll check this out. Meanwhile here is the GE 2006 image at Orona.Click image for larger version. 

Name:	OronaL10E.jpg 
Views:	59 
Size:	32.5 KB 
ID:	247924

  16. #46
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Where you wish you were.
    Posts
    9,249
    You're assuming the ac stayed in one piece after a ditching. Not necessarily a given, no matter how smooth the sea.
    There are two sides to every story. The truth is usually somewhere between the two.

  17. #47
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    1,661
    You haven't been taking lessons from Tim Mellon have you Tom?

  18. #48
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    72
    Quote Originally Posted by Malcolm McKay View Post
    You haven't been taking lessons from Tim Mellon have you Tom?
    Many viewers actually see the semblance of an airframe in the Orona image. I'm sorry you can't see it. Trying to see some airplane shapes or shapes of aircraft parts is just about impossible.when the Nikumaroro images are studied. Vastly different. Orona shows an airframe; Nikumaroro shows coral blobs. Sometimes I can't tell if your posts are meant to be demeaning, facetious , or humorous. For now I'll take them as humorous teasing.

  19. #49
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    1,661
    The images I see can be explained as many different things - yes it could be the outline of a sunken aircraft. It could also be the outline of a sunken trimaran; it could be serendipitous patterns caused by reflected light, or even the way the wind is blowing the waves. Coral and weed patterns on the floor of the lagoon also spring to mind - many things do. But the only way of determining what it really actually is is to go and have a look. Until then it is no more than just another Earhart theory. And I might add that seeing identifiable man made objects in what are nothing more than lumps of coral and seaweed seems to be a special feature of many Earhart location theories. All good fun but one must remember not to take it seriously.

  20. #50
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    72
    Yes you are correct in that the object could be created by light and shadow. But mother nature creating a light and shadow replica of the Electra is an extremely remote possibility. Especially, when one considers the millions of square miles of ocean, why would mother nature chose this spot only a few hundred miles from the flight destination Howland Island to situate the nearly impossible combination of light and shadow that looks like the L10E? An imaging expert is required.Click image for larger version. 

Name:	AmeliasL10E.png 
Views:	61 
Size:	235.1 KB 
ID:	247940

  21. #51
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Posts
    10,020
    Tom,

    You need more than that I think. The only option is to send a ROV down to the bottom. Anything else is interpretation, which could be taken any way...

    Best of luck

  22. #52
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    72
    The depth is only about thirty five feet. So no ROV needed. SCUBA and good quality hand held camera is all a that will be needed for the discovery documentation. The TIGHAR contract with Kiribati must expire before any hope of a discovery expedition. The location is public knowledge. TIGHAR was informed in 2011. The organization denies that the Orona image is a possible clue and is so invested in Nikumaroro that they will never search elsewhere. And no one else will be permitted to search.. The aircraft will remain ...quietly awaiting discovery for many years.

  23. #53
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    1,661
    The fascinating thing about the Earhart quest is not so much Earhart or the Electra or any of the claimed physical evidence but actually the rationale of the theories themselves and the apparent willingness of every theorist to stick to their theory regardless of critical analysis. There's probably a heap of Ph. D studies on the psychology of the theorists and also the epistemology of the theories themselves. That's the fascinating part for me - especially the endless capacity of people to see what they want to see in random shapes on photographs and films..

    Take for instance the Gardner Island theory. TIGHAR has offered over the years "definite" proof in the form of shoes, bones, broken jars, vaguely heard radio signals badly recorded in writing by kids, strange evidence in the form of eyewitness accounts of aircraft wreckage near the wreck of the Norwich City, a highly imaginative reconstruction of an aircraft u/c leg based on a pin prick sized anomaly on a tiny photograph etc. etc. All of which has come to nothing because frankly there is no proof that these objects either individually or as a group have any association with Earhart or Noonan (the much touted skeleton is as Dr Hoodless' said so long ago actually a stocky Polynesian - yet a whole book was written about it on the assumption it was Earhart). Not to mention the offshoot nuttiness of supposed aircraft bits and bodies lying in coral debris. The latter theories based on a film from an ROV which even Ric Gillespie has repeatedly told the theorists has no value because it was shot so close to the coral that even the largest bits are no larger than small coins. Even in the face of the word from the man himself the acolytes persisted to the point where Gillespie shut down the discussion because it was embarrassing - which of course didn't stop one of the major "theorists" and donors taking him to court for ignoring this "evidence". One part of the last expensive trip to the island was spent actually testing a supposed sonar anomaly which was found to not actually exist. Given the source of the claim and the demonstrated madness of the claims about what could be seen on the infamous ROV footage by the person who claimed to have found the anomally one would have thought from the get go that it was a waste of money even considering it.

    Just think of all the fun we'd have missed if Earhart safely completed the flight. Spy missions to Saipan, turning around and crashing in New Britain, splashing and sinking somewhere near Howland Is., surviving capture and living under an assumed name in the US, etc. etc.

    It's all a bit like a Grail quest - the fun is in the search not the finding.

  24. #54
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Where you wish you were.
    Posts
    9,249
    If the above information (#52) is correct it shows how unscientific the group is.
    That is unless ignoring alternative theories and preventing other groups from legitimate searches (presumably protecting their financial interests) is some sort of new scientific methodology.

    For a group that stresses its scientific research, that's an odd stance.
    Last edited by J Boyle; 3rd September 2016 at 03:33.
    There are two sides to every story. The truth is usually somewhere between the two.

  25. #55
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    1,661
    Quote Originally Posted by J Boyle View Post
    If the above information (#52) is correct it ...
    A tour group named Betchart visited Nikumaroro in 2015 and will go again in 2017. In fact a member of the tour group took a pic of a cairn like structure on the north part of the island which was discussed on the TIGHAR site.

    http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topi....html#msg40481

    http://betchartexpeditions.com/

    So TIGHAR don't have exclusive rights. Perhaps only for archaeological purposes but if Betchart can go to Nikumaroro then what's to stop someone going to Hull and doing a bit of scuba diving in the lagoon.
    Last edited by Malcolm McKay; 3rd September 2016 at 04:09.

  26. #56
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Sunshine Coast, Australia
    Posts
    138
    Swimming in a Lagoon on Orana

    Quote Originally Posted by Malcolm McKay View Post

    So TIGHAR don't have exclusive rights. Perhaps only for archaeological purposes but if Betchart can go to Nikumaroro then what's to stop someone going to Hull and doing a bit of scuba diving in the lagoon.
    Nothing... For entry to Kiribati, a Visa is not required for a British Passport Holder.

    Rgds,

    RPM

  27. #57
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    35
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Maxwell View Post
    Mother Nature creating a light and shadow replica of the Electra is an extremely remote possibility.
    True. But, that's just not what we're looking at here. A jumble of blurry blue pixels in a blow up from a commercial satellite image of a patch of shallow water (no matter where it's located) hardly constitutes an exact "replica" of NR16020. And labeling selected points then comparing them to a fanciful rendering you created yourself no more makes this a picture of Amelia's Lockheed than connecting a series of random stars in the sky makes them into a bull or a hunter or a set of twins. Sorry .. I don't see it at all. If the "evidence" requires so much convoluted and ultimately subjective interpretation, expert or otherwise, it's not yet proof of anything.

    Of course, I'm pretty sure nothing I say here will dissuade you in your faith. But, I'm equally certain nothing short of a clear unambiguous photo of the wrecked L10E at Hull will convince anyone else of your claims either. If you believe you're right, fine. If you want others to believe, then get a GPS, a camera, and a boat ride to Orona and come back with this ...

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	146838_zpsdixaybkn.jpg 
Views:	47 
Size:	98.8 KB 
ID:	247962

    Not this ...

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	vlcsnap4517251mr01_zpsf5kujx8q.png 
Views:	18 
Size:	159.9 KB 
ID:	247963
    Last edited by Jack Deth; 3rd September 2016 at 05:50. Reason: added missing space between words

  28. #58
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    72
    So you think Google Earth close ups are a jumble of pixels? You know that you can see your house with GE. You can even measure the length of your car with inches of accuracy. So when I hear nay-sayers whine about the inadequate "proof" or "evidence" in the Orona image, I Know they have a favorite theory that they believe has "proof and evidence". None of the theories have proof. Only ideas and speculation. I never ask others to believe. What you are saying is that the earth is flat and don't go near the edges. What theory today has proof?

  29. #59
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    1,661
    Read post # 55.

  30. #60
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Posts
    10,020
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Maxwell View Post
    So you think Google Earth close ups are a jumble of pixels? You know that you can see your house with GE. You can even measure the length of your car with inches of accuracy. So when I hear nay-sayers whine about the inadequate "proof" or "evidence" in the Orona image, I Know they have a favorite theory that they believe has "proof and evidence". None of the theories have proof. Only ideas and speculation. I never ask others to believe. What you are saying is that the earth is flat and don't go near the edges. What theory today has proof?
    There isn't any - if you have a theory, go and prove it. That holds for any theory at all, even, dare I say it, buried Spitfires. Not going to go back to that one, but at least the principal proponent of that idea is spending his own money looking..

    I'm happy to keep an open mind about anything you propose, but creating a backstory when you don't have the front story doesn't fill me with confidence.

    Again, best of luck with your investigations.



    Bruce

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

 

- Part of the    Network -

KEY AERO AVIATION NEWS

MAGAZINES

AVIATION FORUM

SHOP

 

WEBSITES