The Whole Thing…
It is a long story and there are some things that we know and an awful lot that we do not know. What I have to do as the person leading this project is to try and put the events into some sort of order to relate what we know and to try to provide an answer as to how the questionable points of what we do not know are explained and give a reasonable answer which satisfies the curiosity of persons interested in the project.
This then resulted in the story as related in the website which at first discusses what we know and then develops into an explanation of what could have happened in relation to what we do not know.
The website story is very long and takes time to digest…. I know that, but it is the only way to get all the myriad of points laid out that people can see. Obviously, I know that some people cannot accept my explanations but if they accept the facts of the “find in the jungle” then they must accept that “somehow” the aircraft managed to get back over land and at fuel exhaustion, crashed into the trees.
I have continually stated that there are two sides to this project:
The Factual side is the first side
This Factual side contains what we do know about the find in the jungle and the events and circumstance that happened from the 1937 groundloop accident at Ford Island in March of that year, through the 1945 events and the discovery of the reference to Earhart’s aircraft on a WWII Map in 1994 and a few other points.
From this Factual side, I and others, do honestly believe on the evidence we have, that the wreckage seen by the Diggers was the elusive Electra belonging to Earhart. This factual side required “detective work” and through that work, it checks out against what we know.
For me the question remains that there is an aircraft there with a big question mark over it and wherever there is “that” question people will want to know if it is Earhart’s, therefore the Factual side of the project must be continued.
The Hypothesis side is the second side
This side of the story is like watching a “who did it” TV documentary which leaves an answer for some people but no answers for others. It is a Hypothesis, but it has to provide a “reasonable and plausible” explanation. That explanation has to be a feasible answer as to how an aircraft built as a gasoline tanker to break records could achieve a long out and return flight and be where it is on a ridgeline in East New Britain.
As a Hypothesis it is up for debate as all Hypotheses are and if it is not agreed to then the debate ranges from one side to the other until both sides are satisfies that the hypothesis “is a proven” and satisfies all. If a “satisfies all” agreement cannot be achieved then those that disagree fall out and those that agree remain, that is how hypotheses work.
Do I believe my own Hypothesis, “Yes and No”, I will say that it is feasible because I used standard aeronautical equations and standard power equations to drive it. However, I am not satisfied that the basis for the hypothesis is correct because I cannot prove it and never will.
What is the basis for the Hypothesis ? I do sincerely believe that at Nukumanu, when they discovered the wind was double the forecast, the combination of the Fuel Plan and the Navigation Plot had to be changed “if” they were to continue. Their original ETA at Howland could not stand as it had been made on a forecast that had now been shown to be wrong.
No “Local” weather man had given the forecast, the forecast for her, of weather in the Southern Hemishere had come from a USN source in Hawaii in the Northern Hemisphere. We are talking here of 1937 and transmission of weather data from scattered outposts over a vast area collated at a single point over many days culminating in a best guess. No SAT information then. I say they should have turned back because that is what I would want to do but I am not they and they were about getting to the U.S. by the “Fourth of July” for a Joyous Welcome.
The single most important commodity on the aircraft was “The FUEL” and with the new wind, fuel had to be conserved. That is the basis of the Hypothesis.
How do you conserve Fuel ? Working against the conservation of fuel is the Headwind and the low Altitude and any possible Mistakes in the handing of the engines. I worked the Hypothesis at 10,000 feet. I started with 1100 USG. Did they go to 12,000 feet and stay there ? Did Earhart use Lean of Peak ? Did they start with 1100 USG or did they have 1151 USG ? So it goes on…….
Alternative Hypotheses
I have no problem with anyone questioning the Hypothesis that I have put out but if they retain their interest in the Factual side and continue to chip away at the Hypothesis side, then I do have a question for people who do that and that is that “they provide an Alternative Hypothesis” as a response.
A Hypothesis is for debate, “Hit and Run” is NOT the answer, that gets us nowhere.
If people have no interest in the Factual side and completely dismiss it, then they have no business even in contemplating the Hypothesis side.
David.
Last edited by David Billings; 5th Apr 2018 at 02:50.