Advanced search  
Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: The origin of 2-2-V-1  (Read 5151 times)

Darren Cubitt

  • T1
  • *
  • Posts: 3
The origin of 2-2-V-1
« on: February 06, 2016, 10:14:51 PM »

Hi All,

First post here but let me cut to the chase:

I'm unconvinced 2-2-V-1 is the panel from the Electra, but for the sake of argument I will assume it is.

I was wondering under what circumstances it could have become detached from the aircraft in such good condition. The thought occurred to me that perhaps it was deliberately removed by Earhart or Noonan for use as a signalling mirror - what better situation to need one? It also seems a pretty obvious candidate if you are in need of one in their (hypothesised) situation.

Is their any evidence on the remaining fragment that the piece had been removed with deliberate force? Is there any chance it could have remained hidden on the island somewhere without being "washed up" (as I find it unlikely a piece of metal would be washed up from the depths).

Just a thought.

Darren.
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 5258
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: The origin of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #1 on: February 07, 2016, 07:55:21 AM »

I'm unconvinced 2-2-V-1 is the panel from the Electra, but for the sake of argument I will assume it is.

Okay.  I think we can all agree that it came from somewhere. Any observation we can make about how the piece was detached tells us something about its history.


I was wondering under what circumstances it could have become detached from the aircraft in such good condition. The thought occurred to me that perhaps it was deliberately removed by Earhart or Noonan for use as a signalling mirror - what better situation to need one? It also seems a pretty obvious candidate if you are in need of one in their (hypothesised) situation.

Maybe, but if I wanted to detach a piece of the airplane to use as reflecting signaling device I would try to remove the hinged hatch over the cockpit rather than break out a riveted section of the fuselage.
[/quote]

Is their any evidence on the remaining fragment that the piece had been removed with deliberate force?

Yes. What we take to be the bottom edge and the rear edge seem to have failed from natural forces but the top edge appears to have been hacked free leaving only the forward edge still attached.  With three sides detached, the sheet was then worked back and forth until the forward edge failed from fatigue.
So it does appear that somebody completed its removal from whatever airplane it was attached to through the application of considerable force.  Logically, whoever did it must have been motivated to go to so much trouble. Also, the airplane, or at least part of the airplane, had to be above water and accessible.

 
Is there any chance it could have remained hidden on the island somewhere without being "washed up" (as I find it unlikely a piece of metal would be washed up from the depths).

Not the depths but I can easily see how a lightweight sheet of metal in shallow water could be moved along the reef and washed up through the landing channel .  Or - it could have been buried in the beach and missed by our 1989 expedition despite an intensive metal detector search of the beach.  The storm that hit the island prior to our 1991 visit scoured the beach clean of sand and may have uncovered the artifact and washed it inland to where we found it among washed-up palm fronds and cocos - but it's hard to imagine how it could have been "hidden" somewhere in the village and ended up where we found it.
 [/quote]
Logged

Bob Smith

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 245
  • Are We There Yet?
Re: The origin of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #2 on: February 07, 2016, 05:36:20 PM »

I thought I was over this, had almost convinced myself the 22v1 was from something else, but here it comes back, and still very intriguing, isn't it? Like Ric says, somebody had to have a passion of the moment to want to attack that piece of metal so viciously to be able to free it from whatever it was attached to! If we take it back to the simplest view of the whole analysis of the artifact 22v1 and put aside trying to figure out WHO removed it, or HOW it was removed, or WHAT is was used for afterward, and just focus on the fact (or the indication) that it was there, on the island -- It didn't just grow there, the Boobies didn't lay it, and whether or not it was used for a clambake or a signaling device, it was there! And it is extremely unlikely, in my mind, that it bubbled up from the depths or floated or washed ashore fromanother remote location. Meaning 22v1 had to be there and removed from whatever it was attached to at a time it was accessible (above water) and maybe removed in a panic before something else happened, like the plane was sinking and the tide was rising.
  Since nothing else yet has been found on the island in a large enough chunk to be identified (OK maybe the Plexiglas was a window that was tried first to be knocked out) the rest of the plane must have vanished over the side of the reef. Got those subs ready yet, Ric?
Bob S.
 
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
 

Copyright 2018 by TIGHAR, a non-profit foundation. No portion of the TIGHAR Website may be reproduced by xerographic, photographic, digital or any other means for any purpose. No portion of the TIGHAR Website may be stored in a retrieval system, copied, transmitted or transferred in any form or by any means, whether electronic, mechanical, digital, photographic, magnetic or otherwise, for any purpose without the express, written permission of TIGHAR. All rights reserved.

Contact us at: info@tighar.org • Phone: 610-467-1937 • Membership formwebmaster@tighar.org

Powered by MySQL SMF 2.0.15 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines Powered by PHP