Amelia Earhart Event
- Thread starter DominusNovus
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
- Status
Well if nothing is said on how they believe the picture was from 1937 and not 1935, and the blogger can prove that it is then all of the commotion about the photo is done. It's a non-issue.I'm not holding my breath.
I want to put in here that i have not seen good evidence of when the book was published/printed. Remember the Japanese dated things differently at the time than the rest of the world. I think I am correct in saying they dated the year by how many years the emperor had reigned. As in 'the 20th Year of Emperor X'. As said in the article. So has the source of the book photo correctly dated the book? I have not seen a photo of the title page (?) or some other dating source. I have personally seen things miss identified in museums, later corrected after my research into them.
I started writing this I then decided to do some research. This is from the book:
On page 5
This could be: 昭和 which would be Shōwa the imperial period.
Could this be 1 0 ?
&/or could this be 10?
From page 113, back of the book there is this with more numbers:
The book does not seem to use Arabic numerals. More info here & here on numbers & dating.
I started writing this I then decided to do some research. This is from the book:
On page 5
This could be: 昭和 which would be Shōwa the imperial period.
Could this be 1 0 ?
&/or could this be 10?
From page 113, back of the book there is this with more numbers:
The book does not seem to use Arabic numerals. More info here & here on numbers & dating.
I wouldn't be able to do research on a foreign language like that. I can only go on the information provided by those like yourself. I will keep tabs on anymore input by watching the thread.
So thanks for any additional information.
On a probability basis alone, the third option is by far the least likely, due to the vastness of the Pacific Ocean and the difficulty of finding anything that size on it, while the first is most likely. With all our modern technology we haven't been able to find that Malaysian Airlines plane after, what, two years now? The chance of any ship finding Earhart's plane is astronomically tiny. The chance of a Japanese ship picking her up from an island is marginally more likely, but you have to understand that you're not asking people to believe something that had a 33% chance of happening, you're asking them to believe something with a <<1% chance.
Skepticism is quite appropriate here.
Skeptisism based purely on what was written there - not on the photograph or the other points listed. Why would you ignore all of the points that I listed? That makes no sense to me. Right now, everyone is looking at the photograph to determine now if it was from 1935 or if it was from a later date.On a probability basis alone, the third option is by far the least likely, due to the vastness of the Pacific Ocean and the difficulty of finding anything that size on it, while the first is most likely. With all our modern technology we haven't been able to find that Malaysian Airlines plane after, what, two years now? The chance of any ship finding Earhart's plane is astronomically tiny. The chance of a Japanese ship picking her up from an island is marginally more likely, but you have to understand that you're not asking people to believe something that had a 33% chance of happening, you're asking them to believe something with a <<1% chance.
The entire point is the photograph at the moment.
On the top right of this image (Japanese at the time is read from top right to bottom left, nowadays multiple directions are used), it says:
昭和十年十月五日印刷 (Printed on the 5th day of the 10th month of the 10th year of Shouwa (era))
Broken down:
昭和 = Shouwa
十年 = Year 10
十月 = Month 10 (the plus-like symbol is 10)
五日 = Day 5
印刷 = Printing
Which should be October the 5th, 1935 (a saturday), since as of the 1st of January 1873 the Japanese era calendar uses the Gregorian year divisions (ie, 365 or 366 days, 12 months, etc.).
While a 1935 verification would be a nice close to the case the people in the photo could still be anyone. If you go through old archives of grainy photos long enough you will find photos that could be showing Hitler marrying Stalins sister or a giant pig on the moon. See my previous example with a white car. There are lots of people driving white cars. Could be a bank robber, but could also be just about anyone else.
Well from @Arkhis reading, which I trust, puts this evidence to rest. Until I hear good reason to doubt this dating, which I think is unlikely, I am going to go with this is not proof Amelia survived landing in 1937. Maybe she was there earlier in 1935? New evidence she was planning a hoax?
Quick, contact History channel to sell the ideaMaybe she was there earlier in 1935? New evidence she was planning a hoax?
Thank you. It seems like an awfully complicted way to find the date in comparison to ours. Wow.
On the top right of this image (Japanese at the time is read from top right to bottom left, nowadays multiple directions are used), it says:
昭和十年十月五日印刷 (Printed on the 5th day of the 10th month of the 10th year of Shouwa (era))
Broken down:
昭和 = Shouwa
十年 = Year 10
十月 = Month 10 (the plus-like symbol is 10)
五日 = Day 5
印刷 = Printing
Which should be October the 5th, 1935 (a saturday), since as of the 1st of January 1873 the Japanese era calendar uses the Gregorian year divisions (ie, 365 or 366 days, 12 months, etc.).
Quick, contact History channel to sell the idea
Don't give them crazy followup ideas!
Printed on the 5th of October 1935 AD.
Same thing, except we tend not to mention the era, said era which is based upon the birth of someone whose birthdate is unknown. (really, it is assumed JC is born in March, and we are certain that it was not in year 1, either year 2BC or year 2 AD, because of the census and some natural things mentioned in the Bible)
It is in fact even worse if you write it like that : 10/5/1935 because you do a month/day/year when the logical thing to do would be to go from the bottom up or top down, here it is much like fucked up
Last edited:
By the way, for your reference, the date just to the left of the one I translated (October 10th, 1935) is the date of publication.
Well, there's far worse. At least for the period from 1/1/1873 onwards it's fairly easy, all you need to know is what year the emperor's reign started, as they counted the same amount of days as the Gregorian calendar, and new year started on the 1st of January as well. Since Shouwa era started in 1926 (25/12/1926), you can just add the amount in the Japanese date, minus one (Shouwa 10 = 1926 + 10 - 1 = 1935), since you're in the tenth year.
Anything before 1873 is far more difficult, as those years are still based on the Lunar calendar. I used to have a link from back in university where you could enter a full Japanese era date (genko) and convert it to the corresponding dat in the Gregorian calendar, but I can't find it anymore. The options google gives only convert the year, but they don't seem to take the lunar calendar into account anyway.
Well, there's far worse. At least for the period from 1/1/1873 onwards it's fairly easy, all you need to know is what year the emperor's reign started, as they counted the same amount of days as the Gregorian calendar, and new year started on the 1st of January as well. Since Shouwa era started in 1926 (25/12/1926), you can just add the amount in the Japanese date, minus one (Shouwa 10 = 1926 + 10 - 1 = 1935), since you're in the tenth year.
Anything before 1873 is far more difficult, as those years are still based on the Lunar calendar. I used to have a link from back in university where you could enter a full Japanese era date (genko) and convert it to the corresponding dat in the Gregorian calendar, but I can't find it anymore. The options google gives only convert the year, but they don't seem to take the lunar calendar into account anyway.
Except there is no evidence for a census like that described in the Bible being held. Made up later to place the birth in Bethlehem rather than Nazareth. Other than in Egypt where the Romans inherited the Egyptian bureaucracy that the Alexandrian Greeks had inherited, little population data was collected by the Romans. References to Herod's reign and to Roman administrators suggest as early as 4 or 6 BC or as late as AD 6: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Date_of_birth_of_Jesus
Why on earth did you disagree with my post that included the refutation of ancient aliens?
Are you going to look up who disagreed with this one? Because it wasn't me.
As I remember it the census did existed, but later, but my memory is far from perfect, and my days studying Bible are long passed. Thanks for the correction
Just to bring this home ...
"In the documentary, the newly discovered photograph is subjected to facial-recognition and other forensic testing. It is judged authentic, and likely to be that of Earhart and Noonan.
“When you see the analysis that’s been done, I think it leaves no doubt to the viewers,” Shawn Henry, a former executive assistant director for the FBI told NBC News.
... which is why a healthy dose of skepticism is always a good thing. Especially when someone is trying to sell you something and / or arguing that there is "no doubt."
"In the documentary, the newly discovered photograph is subjected to facial-recognition and other forensic testing. It is judged authentic, and likely to be that of Earhart and Noonan.
“When you see the analysis that’s been done, I think it leaves no doubt to the viewers,” Shawn Henry, a former executive assistant director for the FBI told NBC News.
... which is why a healthy dose of skepticism is always a good thing. Especially when someone is trying to sell you something and / or arguing that there is "no doubt."
This were you see it is BS. A serious scientist or analyst would never have said : "no doubt" especially with image reconstruction where computers are prone to terrific mistake.
Skepticism based purely on the laws of probability, actually, which is the basis for the entire scientific method.
Scientist are a very skeptical lot (I say as one myself), because there are a lot of random flukes out there. If you want people to take your work seriously, you're going to need at least a 3-sigma detection in the hard sciences, often much higher (i.e., showing that the chance of what you observed happening purely by random chance is so small that it makes more sense to believe it happened as a result of something deterministic, usually a hypothesis you're positing support for).But hey, if you want specific points addressed, I can do that too.
The photo, at this point in the thread, seems to have been pretty conclusively dated to two years before Earhart's disappearance, so I won't discuss it specifically, instead focusing on other points (I remain open to new evidence in this area, of course!).
That video…hoo boy. I watched it, and if I were to write a scientific paper with that slapdash level of quality it would be laughed out of every scientific journal on the planet. Leaving aside stuff about the photo (although I could go into that quite a bit too, such as false-positive rates for facial recognition and how seemingly only a single person did the analysis):
- There's a file missing from the Office of Naval Investigation. Ok. Great. Is this an isolated instance? We're only told of one, which makes it sound like some big conspiracy or cover-up, but it could also have just as easily simply been misplaced. The ONI isn't infallible. How many other such files are missing? I'm sure the ONI loses, misfiles, or accidentally throws out things like other organizations do, and the farther back in time we look the more likely it is. We're never told how many other files are similarly missing, so we can't make a quantitative judgement of the rarity of this situation.
- Even if it's a very rare thing to happen, it could still be down to simple human error. No government cover-up needed.
- For that matter, the video takes this missing document as somehow evidence for its theory. We don't know what was in it. Maybe it was a boring technical report on the economic conditions of the Marshall Islands. No one knows, so taking it as evidence of a government cover-up is a serious leap of faith. That's the beauty of a conspiracy theory, that it can take the very lack of evidence for something as evidence for that something having occurred.
- Ah, yes, this anonymous Marine Corps commandant. No name? Not even a picture of the letter he supposedly wrote? Seriously, this is basic level journalism. There's no way to check or corroborate this story. All we have is the presenter's word to go on. (Note that I'm not seriously suggesting the presenter is deliberately lying in this case, but would it kill him to at least mention a name??)
- Being on the internet as long as I have, the phrase "We all know X" is an immediate red flag to me that X is probably not true and the speaker is trying to drum up support for their position by making it seem as if disagreement would be going against common knowledge. Anyone can claim that "We all know X" without it being true. ("We all know Paradox actually had the content for TfV and DoD ready to go at launch and chose to cut it for DLC later!")
- For instance, we don't know the context of this mysterious letter. Was it a simple, matter-of-fact letter to a fellow commandant acknowledging something that was, indeed, common knowledge to both of them? Or was it a paranoid conspiracy theory to a fellow conspiracy nut saying "C'mon man, we all know that she was killed in Saipan, and that Martians have been stealing our cattle for decades!" The context is important in assessing credibility of the source.
- And let's say it really was common knowledge among at least some people in the military. Are we seriously to believe that not a single person in possession of this secret (beyond this one anonymous guy) ever spilled it? No one, on their death bed, in fear of no government reprisal, ever went "Yeah, actually the government's been covering it up all along, but I know what happened to Amelia Earhart."? No one wrote a sensational exposé in search of fame and riches? No one ever accidentally let it slip while drunk? The more people know a secret the harder it is to keep it. Believing this requires a far greater faith in the ability of the common man's secret-keeping capacity than I have.
- Being on the internet as long as I have, the phrase "We all know X" is an immediate red flag to me that X is probably not true and the speaker is trying to drum up support for their position by making it seem as if disagreement would be going against common knowledge. Anyone can claim that "We all know X" without it being true. ("We all know Paradox actually had the content for TfV and DoD ready to go at launch and chose to cut it for DLC later!")
- [mini rant]The guy in the video says at 3:52 "We have no evidence anywhere that she crashed into the ocean […] I think we have a lot of evidence that she lived and survived in the Marshall Islands." Well, of course we wouldn't find evidence if she crashed into the ocean! We would expect to find no evidence! The Pacific Ocean is huge. I live in Hawaii, surrounded by it, and have a faint inkling of just how enormous it is. A single plane and two people going missing somewhere in the Pacific Ocean and no evidence ever being found is overwhelmingly the most likely possibility (see also, that Malaysian Airlines flight where we—finally, after a year—got incredibly lucky and found a single bit of debris). Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Not finding evidence that she crashed into the ocean is entirely in line with what we would expect if she did, not evidence that she didn't crash into the ocean! [/mini rant] This twisting of logic to sell a story is seriously frustrating to me as a scientist.
- Status