HOW TO LOOK AND HOW TO SEE...
This image is that of a WW2 Mosquito, what does that have to do with the Somerton Man? Everything and nothing!
What you are looking at is the result of a Navy analysis of where this aircraft type received most hits from attacking fighters.
The Navy analysts were proud of their work and from this effort, they put forward a recommendation that the locations marked should be where they added armour to protect their aircraft. They were set to reinforce the wing tips, the elevators and the mid-upper body.
ONE SMALL PROBLEM
It all sounded logical, in many ways much of what has been written on the Somerton Man case can also sound logical. People out there faithfully trudge the path of history and the sometimes lurid details of the personal lives of their targeted subjects and in which they seem to take great delight. There are some who race away and get fired up with a theory and jump immediately to a conclusion only to have it all fall flat. That's what happened to this Mosquito aircraft and its studious analysts.
You see, the aircraft that these well-meaning men and women examined, were the ones that returned to base, badly shot up but the point is they got back, they survived.
You see, the aircraft that these well-meaning men and women examined, were the ones that returned to base, badly shot up but the point is they got back, they survived.
What they should have been analysing were the wrecks of such aircraft that didn't make it home, the ones that were destroyed by enemy action, not the ones that survived.
Had they taken that approach, they would have added armour to the nose, the cockpit area and immediately behind it, the engines and mid fuselage to tail.
Thankfully a Mr. Abraham Wald, a statistician, saw the real problem and the remedy was applied.
The Mark XV111 was an example of the results of his work, it had 410 kg of armour added within the engine cowlings, under the cockpit floor and around the nose. 3 out of 4 isn't bad.
The Mark XV111 was an example of the results of his work, it had 410 kg of armour added within the engine cowlings, under the cockpit floor and around the nose. 3 out of 4 isn't bad.
THE LESSON?
Look outside the dots! Don't pursue the apparent logical answer without addressing the whole issue. A classic example is the code page.
Everyone was talking about the Navy code crackers and others apparently failing to crack the 'code' and thought they would try to do it themselves. The right answer, which I am personally confident that the Navy knew, was to ask the question, if the letters aren't the code, then where is the code? As we all now know, the code was, as Detective Brown put it, 'in really tiny lettering beneath the code.'
Everyone was talking about the Navy code crackers and others apparently failing to crack the 'code' and thought they would try to do it themselves. The right answer, which I am personally confident that the Navy knew, was to ask the question, if the letters aren't the code, then where is the code? As we all now know, the code was, as Detective Brown put it, 'in really tiny lettering beneath the code.'
Don't rely on mysticism, don't be fooled by your own limitations of thought, accept the fact that there is almost always another answer and one that will challenge your thinking. If you don't have the necessary knowledge to pursue the less obvious, then get someone who does or set about learning how.
JS, As you will read in the update, the Mosquito Mk XV111 did indeed have armour fitted and to 3 out of the 4 areas indicated by the above post with thanks to the effort of Mr. Wald.
ReplyDeleteIn fact what you have done is to reinforce the message behind the analogy, don't limit your thinking to the extent of your current knowledge, by only doing partial research you ended up with a completely incorrect answer which reflects poorly on your apparent level of understanding.
I don't happen to think of you as being foolish, I do think that by taking a little more time to verify your information that would dramatically raise the standard of your work and you would 'get it right' far more often than you currently do. You have the ability to make a real, positive contribution to this subject and if there's anyway I can help you with that task I will.
A great little book on a related topic, 'Tuesdays With Morrie', I highly recommend it. Tell me what you see.
JS, I have kept this next comment separate for fear of clouding both messages. You have asked a couple of times about the file for Major William Jestyn Moulds.
ReplyDeleteLet me explain, the approach I have been using has not been an 'all out' attack on the information available or hidden in the hope that one day it will somehow magically all fall into place. To do so would be akin to throwing your weeks laundry into the washing machine in the hope that it will somehow come out clean, dry and freshly pressed. It won't. (Maybe one day soon that technology will be available but as things stand..) My approach is more that of a builder, foundations first, add the walls and the roof and then the fit out in that sort of order.
To Major Jestyn's file, its contents will be added where when it fits in the build schedule, not before. Having said that it shouldn't be that far away, just a matter of being patient JS :)
JS, you do make me smile :) Let me just put you right about the Mosquito, 1. There were a number of variants of the Mossie including long nosed versions, these had space for radar, there was a version with a mid upper gun turret, it was constructed as a test, 3 aircraft were fitted and tested. This type a variant of the DH Mosquito TR33, a sea mosquito, it was designed to protect convoys and as an anti ship attack aircraft. The type was developed into the Sea Hornet, complete with mid upper operator dome. Others had bomb aimers positions in the nose, once again extending it as you might expect. So, simple really, just a matter of recalling some long ago learnt skills in aircraft recognition and then refresh them. No more time to chat John, lots to do. Good luck and all the best! Oh, nearly forgot, here's a link to one of the 'long nose' mossies http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/weapons/guns/mosquito.jpg
ReplyDeleteHi JS, well, sad to say, you were 'caught out' on the armour plate and you were caught out on the long nose versions of the Mossie plus wrong yet again on the mid upper turret, I have a pic by the way.
ReplyDeleteWhat I have noticed is that you have an unfortunate tendency to resort to insult and abuse? Why is that JS? Do you ever ask yourself that question? Is it that you are attempting to demean and belittle others again? Do you imagine that your words will in some way intimidate your target? Wrong on that score too JS. It's rather reminiscent of the time I politley pointed out that your comments regarding the conditions on Sydney Harbour, the winds etc. For my troubles you launched into a most unusual tirade, then again I did ask about your credentials which you seemed to be genuinely fearful about. Let me put your mind at rest, rather than attack you over whatever it is that you feel you need to hide, I would acknowledge you for having what it takes to overcome your issues in regards to credentials.
In the meantime JS, why not try and be a little more human, civility is a real asset and will gain you recognition and acknowledgements.
Oh, by the way if you go back to the post subject of this comment, you'll see that it was all about ways of thinking. Abraham Wald was a well recognised statistician and economist and his work did at one stage focus on the gunfire patterns on shot up aircraft. My post was about his ability to take things outside the dots and see what the real message was. Speaking of dots, the latest post highlights some fascinating historical facts that, in my humble view, have a bearing on the SM case as the majority of these posts do.
Big day ahead so I must go. I wish you well John.