Must be the silly season……TIGHAR the gift that keeps giving…..

TIGHAR hypothesized that the Electra’s belly (receiving) antenna was lost on takeoff from Lae while the dorsal (transmitting) antenna on top remained untouched and intact. From the USCG radio log, it is clear Itasca could hear Earhart, but she could not hear them .. so the proposed scenario fits at least that part of the known evidence. I won’t comment on the alleged “post loss” messages.

I think they did claim at once point, based on film of the last takeoff, that the Electra had sustained damage and therefore possibly wasn’t receiving radio messages from the Itasca, or not very reliably. In the ever-shifting world of TIGHAR mythology – I don’t know if that’s what they still say. But as the Coast Guard could hear her – she was certainly still able to transmit.

Didn’t TIGHAR claim that they lost the wire on the last take-off or am I getting my wire’s crossed?

And now with the “new” research on the alleged post-loss radio transmissions, there is a posting that all of the propagation models are based on the assumption that Earhart’s radio antenna was “phosphor-bronze wire, which was typically used for aircraft antennas. Phosphor-bronze wire resistance is higher than copper, and the model takes the difference into account.” OK, all well and good, except … if it wasn’t P-B wire, then that trashes all of those lovely models. And all TIGHAR has is yet another house of cards.

As someone who has fairly extensive experience with MF and HF propogation* I can assure you that, to all practical intents and purposes, the radiating characteristics of phosphor -bronze wire over standard copper or even steel wire will be essentially the same at the frequencies involved. Shortwave propogation is a complex subject and TIGHAR will have no way of accurately modelling the band conditions for any given day 80 years after the event.

Where can I find a link to these discussions? I’d be happy to give you my take on it.

Robert B.

* (I’ve participated in various propogation experiments on the shortwave bands. 0.1 watts ERP to New South Wales being my record so far).

You might find it, or ask someone where you can find it, over at:
http://aviationmystery.com

There has not been a single word on the TIGHAR forums about the New England Air Museum’s finding that the rivet pattern on the piece of aluminum TIGHAR found on Nikumaroro matches the wing panel of a DC-3/C-47 …

Is there someplace online where the NEAM report is available for review? I’ve heard this finding repeated several times and would like to see exactly how it’s all laid out.

Malcolm McKay said, “If TIGHAR want to use credible in its strict meaning then they have to admit that no credible historical organization accepts the Gardner hypothesis as proved, which is precisely why they keep adding more speculative claims to those already made.”

Yes, that has been Gillespie’s MO for the last three decades, which you see clearly once you step back and take an objective look, pushing aside all of his flapdoodle and rank speculation. There’s also TIGHAR’s habit of vigorously using and promoting some bits of info that support its theories, while minimizing or flatly ignoring other bits of info that don’t support its theories.

Two recent cases in point: There has not been a single word on the TIGHAR forums about the New England Air Museum’s finding that the rivet pattern on the piece of aluminum TIGHAR found on Nikumaroro matches the wing panel of a DC-3/C-47, one of which crashed on a nearby island during WWII. Gillespie has had this information since last summer. I’ve seen it, and it looks to me to be pretty convincing. Yet TIGHAR has stayed silent.

And now with the “new” research on the alleged post-loss radio transmissions, there is a posting that all of the propagation models are based on the assumption that Earhart’s radio antenna was “phosphor-bronze wire, which was typically used for aircraft antennas. Phosphor-bronze wire resistance is higher than copper, and the model takes the difference into account.” OK, all well and good, except … if it wasn’t P-B wire, then that trashes all of those lovely models. And all TIGHAR has is yet another house of cards.

It’s quite obvious that despite all the claimed certainty that TIGHAR feed to the media TIGHAR recognises that the sceptics quite rightly far outnumber the believers. If TIGHAR want to use credible in its strict meaning then they have to admit that no credible historical organization accepts the Gardner hypothesis as proved, which is precisely why they keep adding more speculative claims to those already made. In fact the plain unvarnished fact is that as even their name TIGHAR is deceptive then what benefit can another round of speculative amateur science provide.

For example read the latest discussion of the bones on the Aviation Mysteries website (from page 27 onwards) which has failed to produce any response from TIGHAR – yet those bones are the central plank of their hypothesis. The discussion raises some very important evidence that rebuts the TIGHAR claim yet they continue to pretend it doesn’t exist. If there was certainty in their argument they would have leapt onto the discussion and comprehensively refuted the points raised – they haven’t so what does that tell us.

And just who decides if it is credible?
Wait, wait, let me guess…

Is there even an objective definition as to what makes anything credible?
Otherwise, like the rest of the club, it’s just what RG says it is.

Sounds more like a cult than a scientifically credible group.

Malcolm McKay said, “It’s sort of a cloud funding style of scientific research. Find a bunch of amateurs and allow them to contribute opinions then average those results out and bingo – scientific proof.”

Yes, we’re seeing that with the dissection of the “new” version of the radio calls analysis over on the TIGHAR forums. I’m not saying that another set of eyes on a problem or question doesn’t have value – it does – but the way Gillespie runs TIGHAR these days it’s a closed-loop decision cycle. You can only post in the forums if you’re a member, and you can only stay a member if you toe Gillespie’s line. I think the technical term is echo chamber, Malcolm may have a better one.

Regardless, TIGHAR introducing a new term, “Credible Beyond a Reasonable Doubt” for certain alleged radio calls. Talk about piling it on, or is it up? Or is it higher and deeper? Regardless, seems like a pile, to me.

Aircraft? No…

…but there is a jar of freckle cream that would have been lost to history if TIGHAR hadn’t saved it!

But of course.

The found a bunch of well-heeled suckers, they saved themselves from impecunity, they restored their bank balance, they discovered there was an amazing source of free money, they raised their fees.

What’s not to like ?

Unsubstantiated rumours aside, have TIGHAR ever found, saved, restored, salvaged, discovered, raised, anything?

soon to announce they may have found Glen Millers aircraft

https://www.ebay.com/itm/Obscure-USAAF-WWII-C-64-Noorduyn-Norseman-Cockpit-Placard/273383980406?hash=item3fa6f47d76:g:jZIAAOSwAV5bYmrt

The perfect business model…failure is rewarded by more donations and continued employment.

Tighar is brilliant Give them credit.

It’s the Fat Lady carnival act — except they never have to produce the Fat Lady! They just promise to look for her!

Inspired.

Nobody famous onboard…
No well known aviatrix, no French war hero, no band leader.

If you look at those common dominators, we can see that each has “name recognition”…hence an easier marketing job to get donations.

There are plenty of Aviation mysteries, so why are they focused on those three?

That should tell you all you need to know about the real motives of the organization.

Give them time …..

Its a wonder they haven’t announced the search for Flight 19 yet..

Looney Tunes, or seriously blinded with regards to objectivity and facts. Some of the acolytes of various theories whom I’ve dealt with genuinely scare me with the degree of their fervor.

The Earhart mystery has an extraordinary ability to suck people in and hold them tight, sometimes for decades, or even lifetimes.

I suspect a lot of that has to do with the secret desire most of us humans have – to be Remembered As Having Done Something Great – so it gets written down in a history book someplace and referred to for all eternity. “Ric Gillespie, the man who solved the Earhart mystery!” is a lot more memorable than “Ric Gillespie, the man who spent millions of dollars of other people’s money and solved nothing.”