TIGHAR

Amelia Earhart Search Forum => Alternate Lines of Inquiry => Topic started by: Tim Mellon on November 24, 2012, 11:15:39 AM

Title: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tim Mellon on November 24, 2012, 11:15:39 AM
Through the open pilot's hatch that I identified in Reply #35 to the "Landing near the Norwich" thread, I think I am able to identify the following instruments (see time 13:41:53, frame 12 of the subject video, upper righthand quadrant):

Eyebrow Panel -

   #9 Direction finding control apparatus (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1006.msg21971.html#msg21971) (the reference number is to the Harney drawings)

   #4 Left and right thermocouple switches

 Main Panel -

   #4 Left and right manifold pressure guages (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1006.msg21317.html#msg21317)

   #5 Left tachometer (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1006.msg21319.html#msg21319)

   #11 Bank and turn indicator

   #12 Rate of climb

   #26 Autopilot RUD and AIL adjustment knobs (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1006.msg21314.html#msg21314)

   #26 Autopilot directional gyro (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1006.msg21314.html#msg21314)

   #16 Wing tanks fuel guage (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1006.msg21313.html#msg21313)

   #25 Selector switch for wing tank guage (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1006.msg21312.html#msg21312)

   #18 Sensitive altimeter (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1006.msg21310.html#msg21310)

Knee panel -

    Ignition switches

    4 slots, 2 each for Throttle and Mixture levers, partially obscured by pilot's wheel

    Pilot's wheel (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1006.msg21322.html#msg21322) is seen now to be in the neutral position, not turned 80 degrees to the right, as I thought several days ago.

    Western Electric 27A Remote main dial with
 
    FREQ knob (lower left) and AUDIO GAIN knob (lower right) (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1006.msg21320.html#msg21320)

    2 of 5 toggle switches (REC/OFF and DAY/NITE)

    Co-pilot's wheel (not the Western Electric 9A Remote (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1038.msg22711.html#msg22711), as I originally thought, which was later found elsewhere)

    Pilot's seat cushion (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1006.msg21321.html#msg21321), which appears to have the standard "cut-out" in the middle of the forward edge (not shown in Harney drawing)

Aircraft exterior -

    The rectangular cover to the fueling port (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1006.msg21771.html#msg21771) for the left forward cabin fuel tank can also be seen (faintly) aft of the rear edge of the open pilot's hatch.


I think the time has come to summarize the components that can be seen in the High Definition video from 2010. Starting with the various items in the cockpit (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1006.msg21328.html#msg21328), which I have included above by Quote from Reply #54, I can see:

 1. Top of right wing, with the numerals "0" and "2" (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,571.msg20689.html#msg20689),

 2. Wingtip of right wing, with position light (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1006.msg21497.html#msg21497),

 3. Underside of left wing without aileron and right rudder (revised) 2010 (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1038.msg22998.html#msg22998), and 2012 (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1038.msg23011.html#msg23011)

 4. Bottom of the star in the Lockheed logo from the outside of the right rudder Withdrawn: both rudders are elsewhere. (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1006.msg21528.html#msg21528)

 5. Possible headset and wire seen as the "squiggle",

 6. HF antenna cable and insolators, 2010 and 2012 (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1048.msg22680.html#msg22680)

 7. Engine and propeller (John Balderston) (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,571.msg18667.html#msg18667),

 8. Tailwheel and tailcone (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1006.msg21546.html#msg21546),

 9. Battery (probably auxiliary), 2010 and 2012 (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1038.msg22460.html#msg22460),

10. Top of fuel tank with filler pipe from port in side of fuselage (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1006.msg21749.html#msg21749),

11. Landing gear assembly with upside-down fender in 2010 and 2012 (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1038.msg22477.html#msg22477),

12. Numerous pieces of sheet metal evidencing man-made characteristics, such as straight edges, 90 degree corners, round holes, etc. (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1006.msg21671.html#msg21671)

13. Co-pilot's windows (https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1038.msg22070.html#msg22070)

14. HF transmitter, tubes showing in 2010 (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1038.msg22648.html#msg22648) and also in 2012 (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1048.msg22679.html#msg22679)

15. Fuselage fuel tank selector (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1006.msg21971.html#msg21971)

16.  Toilet compartment, with dorsal vent (not a "position light") in 2010 (https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1038.msg22093.html#msg22093) and again in 2012 (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1048.msg22582.html#msg22582)

17. Pelorus and Navigator's desk in 2010 (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1038.msg22219.html#msg22219) and in 2012 (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1038.msg23112.html#msg23112)

18. A-7 Octant in 2010  (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1038.msg22222.html#msg22222)and in 2012 (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1038.msg23112.html#msg23112)

19. Fred Noonan, Navigator (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1038.msg22229.html#msg22229)

20. The Pilot (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1038.msg22269.html#msg22269)

21. Sextant and triangle (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1038.msg22296.html#msg22296)

22. Fuselage fuel tank (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1048.msg22377.html#msg22377)

23. Severed hand (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1038.msg22416.html#msg22416)

24. Key (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1038.msg22437.html#msg22437)

25. Left rudder as seen in 2010 (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1048.msg22584.html#msg22584) and again in 2012 (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1048.msg22584.html#msg22584)

26. Banjo with case, violin with case, and guitar (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1038.msg22860.html#msg22860)

27. Five sacks of spare parts and bottles (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1038.msg22738.html#msg22738)

28. Nose compartment (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1038.msg22739.html#msg22739)

29. Second landing gear assembly, possibly the Bevington Object, as seen in 2010 (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1038.msg22746.html#msg22746) and  in 2012 (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1038.msg23122.html#msg23122)

30. Left shoe  (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1038.msg22758.html#msg22758)and right shoe (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1038.msg22757.html#msg22757)

31. Spare tail wheel and tire (2012 only) (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1048.msg22778.html#msg22778)

32. Kodak Duo Six-20 camera, with flash attachment in 2010 (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1038.msg22870.html#msg22870) and flash attachment only in 2012 (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1038.msg23114.html#msg23114)

33. Bausch & Lomb Field Glasses in 2010 (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1038.msg22873.html#msg22873) and in 2012 (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1038.msg23114.html#msg23114)

34. Bracelet with ridged panels (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1038.msg22928.html#msg22928)

35. Fly swatter (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1038.msg22969.html#msg22969)

36. Ballentine's Ale can and toilet paper rolls (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1038.msg22978.html#msg22978)

37. Right rudder, including ground-adjustable trim tab (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1038.msg22996.html#msg22996)

38. Grayce lubricating gun (P-600) (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1038.msg23078.html#msg23078)

39. Elevator, including center lifting section (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1038.msg23080.html#msg23080)

No doubt, there will be more to follow.
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tim Mellon on November 24, 2012, 12:02:02 PM
Closer examination of the co-pilot's side window earlier posted shows that the lower right-hand corner of the window has been sheared away from the remainder. Since the two parts are in close proximity to one another, I would assume that the shearing action took place at the final impact.
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tim Mellon on November 24, 2012, 12:31:46 PM
There is little doubt in my mind now concerning the cable (not rope) being the dorsal HF antenna. Each of the two strands at the bottom of the slope have what I assume to be an insulating ring between the antenna portion and the metal attachment flange (seen as a flat piece of metal on the left strand). The Harney diagram shows a similar insulator in front of the mast, where the antenna is attached to the top of the fuselage.
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Will Hatchell on November 24, 2012, 12:39:34 PM
Tim,

Correct me if I'm mistaken, but isn't that also a metal flange along the right strand (about right center of the image)?

Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tim Mellon on November 24, 2012, 01:25:53 PM
Tim,

Correct me if I'm mistaken, but isn't that also a metal flange along the right strand (about right center of the image)?

Could very well be, and logically should be. Kind of fuzzy to be sure of it.
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Will Hatchell on November 24, 2012, 01:34:44 PM
Tim,

Correct me if I'm mistaken, but isn't that also a metal flange along the right strand (about right center of the image)?

Could very well be, and logically should be. Kind of fuzzy to be sure of it.

Well, it's not all that fuzzy looking to me, at least, and it is definitely attached to the wire and is on the right strand, not the left. It has distinctive corners and edges, very metallic in appearance compared to other items in view.
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tim Mellon on November 24, 2012, 01:43:59 PM
Well, it's not all that fuzzy looking to me, at least, and it is definitely attached to the wire and is on the right strand, not the left. It has distinctive corners and edges, very metallic in appearance compared to other items in view.

Hatch, go back and look at the second take: much clearer, and confirms your opinion.

Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Will Hatchell on November 24, 2012, 02:08:47 PM
Well, it's not all that fuzzy looking to me, at least, and it is definitely attached to the wire and is on the right strand, not the left. It has distinctive corners and edges, very metallic in appearance compared to other items in view.

Hatch, go back and look at the second take: much clearer, and confirms your opinion.

If we're talking about the same tag-like item along the right strand which in the second take is closer down to the lower-right corner of view?

Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tim Mellon on November 24, 2012, 02:42:13 PM
If we're talking about the same tag-like item along the right strand which in the second take is closer down to the lower-right corner of view?
Precisely.
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Jeff Palshook on November 24, 2012, 03:20:17 PM
Tim Mellon,

In the image you've posted in your Reply #2 above, you say you are seeing a cable/wire on the left and a cable/wire on the right.  Have you even considered the possibility that what you're calling the cable/wire on the right isn't a cable, wire, or rope at all?  Have you even considered the possibility (I would say likelihood) that it is simply the shadow of the higher portion of the coral/rock ledge pretty distinctly visible in the the lower right portion of the image.  The shadow of the upper part of the ledge is being cast on to the lower part of the ledge.  Note how your right-hand "cable/wire" bends as you approach the lower right portion of the image, and this bend matches the bend in what pretty obviously to me is the face of the rock/coral ledge.  Your right-hand "cable/wire" is actually this shadow.

Frankly, looking at the left-hand cable, it's not so obvious that it is a cable at all, either.  It could be the shadow cast by another small step/ledge in the rock.

Evaluating where the light source is in an image and evaluating the resulting shadows is very important in analyzing an image.  How do I know this and know to be wary of shadows that might look like physical objects?  I have looked at hundreds of underwater images from electronic still cameras and still captures from underwater video cameras, all taken using artificial light.  I work with a group of people who collectively have looked at tens of thousands of such images.  They all agree with me that what you see as a "cable" on the right side of this image is really a shadow cast by the rock/coral.

Jeff P.
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tim Mellon on November 24, 2012, 03:29:39 PM
They all agree with me that what you see as a "cable" on the right side of this image is really a shadow cast by the rock/coral.

Jeff P.

Sorry, Jeff, but if you wind the film back to 13:38:12;11 you will see that the right cable passes directly in front of the left cable. This is a straight on view with the ROV lights pointing straight ahead.

Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Chris Johnson on November 25, 2012, 01:20:30 AM
Its been mentioned before but the 'clam' shell is the only item on the video that can help with scale.

Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tim Mellon on November 25, 2012, 05:39:51 AM
  He identified item 2 as a dead fish..."yuk says he"! 

Bob, you don't suppose, do you, that it's the same fish that was jumping in the Bevington photo?
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tim Mellon on November 25, 2012, 08:49:45 AM
The accompanying shot I think shows a narrow section of fuselage behind the main entrance door (not in picture). What is labeled the red position light on top of the fuselage is apparently a vent for the WC compartment, even though not shown as such on the Harney drawing.

Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Bob Lanz on November 25, 2012, 05:02:16 PM
  He identified item 2 as a dead fish..."yuk says he"! 

Bob, you don't suppose, do you, that it's the same fish that was jumping in the Bevington photo?

Don't you be tryin' to git me in truble by suggestin' what I thank aboot thet Bevington foto ther dude.  ;D
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tim Mellon on November 25, 2012, 07:05:07 PM
 :)

  Now to the gist of the matter.  NR16020 never had, to the best of my knowledge and anti-collision light or any other light on the top of the fuselage.  There was a place for it but never installed that I can see.  If you can show me a picture of one on Amelia's Electra, I surely would like to see it.  So I would consider Mr. Harney's drawing moot with respect to NR16020.  Not only was the red lens missing, the whole light was. IMO
:)
Here. 
 
Actually, your second photo shows it too.                                                     :)
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tim Mellon on November 25, 2012, 07:22:24 PM

Think "scale".

 
.                         

Actually, Jeff, I've come to the conclusion that this "scale" thing is a crock. In my estimation, what is important is pattern, especially in comparison with known images, such as photos and drawings. Because 2D cannot provide depth, there is no way to scale anything, save by comparison to other items assumed to be related and inhabiting the same realm. IMHO, of course.                                                                        :) :)
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Dan Kelly on November 25, 2012, 08:27:34 PM

Think "scale".

 
.                         

Actually, Jeff, I've come to the conclusion that this "scale" thing is a crock. In my estimation, what is important is pattern, especially in comparison with known images, such as photos and drawings. Because 2D cannot provide depth, there is no way to scale anything, save by comparison to other items assumed to be related and inhabiting the same realm. IMHO, of course.                                                                        :) :)

Scale a crock? What about the clam shell clearly seen in one of the pics. It alone shows just how close the camera is to the all that coral gravel and sand. Then of course Mr Gillespie has pointed out time and time again the closeness of the camera to the things it was filming.

I would politely suggest that if you don't understand how necessary a scale or some object of known size is for determining the size of unknown objects in a photo or a video then I really don't think that you should be bothering either Mr Gillespie or Mr Glickman.   
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tim Mellon on November 25, 2012, 11:24:35 PM
Tim, just where do you see a light where you circled.  You circled what appears to be a patch with a slight impression of a circle on the fuselage.  What is that?  And no, neither of my photos show a light on top of the fuselage as Harney depicted it.

Old picture, Bob, circle shows WC window covered. Light is dark spec on top of fuselage. :)
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tim Mellon on November 25, 2012, 11:36:55 PM
What about the clam shell clearly seen in one of the pics. It alone shows just how close the camera is to the all that coral gravel and sand.
 


So, just how big IS that scallop shell, Dan?

Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Dan Kelly on November 26, 2012, 04:19:06 AM
:)
What about the clam shell clearly seen in one of the pics. It alone shows just how close the camera is to the all that coral gravel and sand.
 
:)

So, just how big IS that scallop shell, Dan?

 :)

I'd say about 2 1/2 to 3 1/2  inches at the widest part at best.
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tim Mellon on November 26, 2012, 04:29:07 AM
In my lifetime I've seen scallop shells anywhere from quarter inch across (baby) to 8 or 9 inches across. So for me the shell doesn't tell me all that much, except it does verify that the water is quite clear.

Now a good square corner, that tells me a lot.

 :)
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: JNev on November 26, 2012, 06:58:49 AM
I guess we can all have our ideas as to what a crock might be.  'Scale' may be inconvenient, but I don't think it's a crock.  However, I certainly have my own ideas about what a crock is.  Like I said...
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tim Mellon on November 26, 2012, 08:02:14 AM
Tim, just where do you see a light where you circled.  You circled what appears to be a patch with a slight impression of a circle on the fuselage.  What is that?  And no, neither of my photos show a light on top of the fuselage as Harney depicted it.

Old picture, Bob, circle shows WC window covered. Light is dark spec on top of fuselage. :)

Man, you are really grasping at straws to be right on this forum.  You didn't even know the difference between a position light and an anti-collision light.  Especially one that isn't even there.  Keep cheating your mind about these things Tim, I am done with it.
.                                       
Sorry, Bob,  I'm only using the descriptor from the Harney drawing. Perhaps you should vent your rage against the draftsman.

 :)
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tim Mellon on November 26, 2012, 08:32:59 AM

When I get home I will try to get a better picture for you.

 :)
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Chris Austin on November 26, 2012, 08:40:51 AM
The accompanying shot I think shows a narrow section of fuselage behind the main entrance door (not in picture). The red position light on top of the fuselage can also be seen on the Harney drawing.

Edit: Maybe the red lens is not missing after all. The top looks appropriately rounded.


The toilet seat was raised - Fred must have been the last to use it.
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Bob Lanz on November 26, 2012, 10:25:52 AM
Jeff,

Can you say "pile of silt" ten times real fast?  ;D
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Greg Daspit on November 26, 2012, 11:51:51 AM
Funny that toilet fixture talk came up. I saw something earlier in the 2012 Debris Field video  (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1014.0.html)that could be toilet or sink but don’t know what they should look like. Mostly I just find myself saying "what the hell is that?" like from the SNL skit with Steve Martin (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RV7Qz640OeM)
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Bob Lanz on November 26, 2012, 12:02:16 PM
Funny that toilet fixture talk came up. I saw something earlier in the Debris field that could be toilet or sink but don’t know what they should look like. Mostly I just find myself saying "what the hell is that?" like from the SNL skit with Steve Martin (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RV7Qz640OeM)

Greg, do you mean the thing I have circled.  That's a turtle doncha know.  Don't you know the difference between a toilet seat and a turtle?  Oh heck, let's wait, Tim will figure it out.
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tim Mellon on November 26, 2012, 12:26:59 PM
  NR16020 never had, to the best of my knowledge and anti-collision light or any other light on the top of the fuselage.  There was a place for it but never installed that I can see.  If you can show me a picture of one on Amelia's Electra, I surely would like to see it.  So I would consider Mr. Harney's drawing moot with respect to NR16020.  Not only was the red lens missing, the whole light was. IMO

http://tinyurl.com/d79f8w9

The second of your two photos seems to show the light in question. Do you think it could possibly be an air vent instead?
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: JNev on November 26, 2012, 12:52:22 PM
  NR16020 never had, to the best of my knowledge and anti-collision light or any other light on the top of the fuselage.  There was a place for it but never installed that I can see.  If you can show me a picture of one on Amelia's Electra, I surely would like to see it.  So I would consider Mr. Harney's drawing moot with respect to NR16020.  Not only was the red lens missing, the whole light was. IMO

http://tinyurl.com/d79f8w9

The second of your two photos seems to show the light in question. Do you think it could possibly be an air vent instead?

Good photo catch, Tim.

Yes, I really do think that is a vent placement.  There are several overhead vents running down the spine of the Electra.  I meant to point that out - they tend to look like reverse 'scoops' when installed and match to overhead air outlet escutcheons in the cabin headliner.  I think there was one right over the lavatory and it seems like it may have been slightly smaller / maybe even in the 'postive' (forward scooping) orientation as compared to the forward two or three examples (over main cabin), not sure but close examination of some more pictures may reveal that to be true.

The vent 'scoops' do 'protrude' - not quite as much but in similar fashion to how a beacon would protrude into the air passage.
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tim Mellon on November 26, 2012, 01:38:38 PM
Then we all agree it could be a vent. That was easy enough. I will change the description accordingly. Thanks for your help, Bob and Jeff.

 :)
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: richie conroy on November 26, 2012, 02:06:07 PM
Hi All

Anyone know what these man made objects i have highlighted, Could be off i.e boat plane car etc  :)
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: richie conroy on November 26, 2012, 02:09:40 PM
Funny that toilet fixture talk came up. I saw something earlier in the Debris field that could be toilet or sink but don’t know what they should look like. Mostly I just find myself saying "what the hell is that?" like from the SNL skit with Steve Martin (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RV7Qz640OeM)

Greg, do you mean the thing I have circled.  That's a turtle doncha know.  Don't you know the difference between a toilet seat and a turtle?  Oh heck, let's wait, Tim will figure it out.

Really a turtle  ;D
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Bob Lanz on November 26, 2012, 02:14:29 PM
Funny that toilet fixture talk came up. I saw something earlier in the Debris field that could be toilet or sink but don’t know what they should look like. Mostly I just find myself saying "what the hell is that?" like from the SNL skit with Steve Martin (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RV7Qz640OeM)

Greg, do you mean the thing I have circled.  That's a turtle doncha know.  Don't you know the difference between a toilet seat and a turtle?  Oh heck, let's wait, Tim will figure it out.

Really a turtle  ;D

You know it Richie, and keep on keeping on posting those pictures of the Gardner City Dumpsite.  Tim has a lot of work to do before his meeting with Jeff Glickman ;D
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tim Mellon on November 26, 2012, 02:22:55 PM
Funny that toilet fixture talk came up. I saw something earlier in the Debris field that could be toilet or sink but don’t know what they should look like. Mostly I just find myself saying "what the hell is that?" like from the SNL skit with Steve Martin (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RV7Qz640OeM)

Greg, do you mean the thing I have circled.  That's a turtle doncha know.  Don't you know the difference between a toilet seat and a turtle?  Oh heck, let's wait, Tim will figure it out.

Really a turtle  ;D

You know it Richie, and keep on keeping on posting those pictures of the Gardner City Dumpsite.  Tim has a lot of work to do before his meeting with Jeff Glickman ;D

No, I'm absolutely positive those parts come from the Spirit of St. Louis...
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Bob Lanz on November 26, 2012, 02:26:28 PM
Funny that toilet fixture talk came up. I saw something earlier in the Debris field that could be toilet or sink but don’t know what they should look like. Mostly I just find myself saying "what the hell is that?" like from the SNL skit with Steve Martin (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RV7Qz640OeM)

Greg, do you mean the thing I have circled.  That's a turtle doncha know.  Don't you know the difference between a toilet seat and a turtle?  Oh heck, let's wait, Tim will figure it out.

Really a turtle  ;D

You know it Richie, and keep on keeping on posting those pictures of the Gardner City Dumpsite.  Tim has a lot of work to do before his meeting with Jeff Glickman ;D

No, I'm absolutely positive those parts come from the Spirit of St. Louis...

Now yur makin' sense Tim.  Glad you have a sense of humor.  Any chance you can swing by and pick me up in the Limo on your way to Woodinville, I'm only 15 minutes from SEA.  We can sip the bubbly along the way.  I promise I won't say a word when you're viewing the videos with Jeff. :)
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: richie conroy on November 26, 2012, 02:31:57 PM
 :) Bob, Tim has a real chance to show Jeff there is debris in the 2010 video in which the result's could be of benefit to Tighar.

I just hope Tim can handle what Jeff has to say on what he see's   ;)
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on November 26, 2012, 02:43:19 PM
Yes, I really do think that is a vent placement.  There are several overhead vents running down the spine of the Electra.

Photos of air scoops on this page about 2-1-V-1 (http://tighar.org/wiki/2-2-V-1).
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Bob Lanz on November 26, 2012, 02:49:15 PM
Yes, I really do think that is a vent placement.  There are several overhead vents running down the spine of the Electra.

Photos of air scoops on this page about 2-1-V-1 (http://tighar.org/wiki/2-2-V-1).

Marty, I think that Jeff was referring to the fact that is where a vent would have been placed if one were there.  The pics you show I believe were on the side or underside of the fuselage, not on top.  The three on top were of a different shape.
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on November 26, 2012, 04:05:34 PM
Marty, I think that Jeff was referring to the fact that is where a vent would have been placed if one were there.  The pics you show I believe were on the side or underside of the fuselage, not on top.  The three on top were of a different shape.

I don't know for sure.

I thought that this picture was called "Top" because it is on top of the fuselage.

(http://tighar.org/aw/mediawiki/images/3/37/Top%282%29.png)

This one seems to be on top, looking over the top of the wings:

(http://tighar.org/aw/mediawiki/images/thumb/7/74/NEAM_15.JPG/800px-NEAM_15.JPG)

I grant that I have never been inside an Electra, but my offhand view is that this is more likely to be a picture of an overhead air scoop than one underneath the aircraft:

(http://tighar.org/aw/mediawiki/images/thumb/b/b5/NEAM_09.JPG/800px-NEAM_09.JPG)

Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Bob Lanz on November 26, 2012, 04:08:24 PM
Quote from: Martin X. Moleski, SJ link=topic=1038.msg22138#msg22138 date=1353971134
[quote author=Bob Lanz link=topic=1038.msg22137#msg22137 date=1353966555
Marty, I think that Jeff was referring to the fact that is where a vent would have been placed if one were there.  The pics you show I believe were on the side or underside of the fuselage, not on top.  The three on top were of a different shape.


Can't argue a point I am not sure of Marty.  It is what it is.  :)
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: John Joseph Barrett on November 26, 2012, 04:35:53 PM
Not saying it is or it isn't, but does anyone know which way the toilet faced when mounted (in the plane  ;D, not when in use)? The one in my boat just sits in a rather small area and can face whichever way you want. Generally it faces the bow so you sit with your back to the rear bulkhead. I've found that reduces unexpected movements  ;D as the boat is under weigh. The reason I ask is simple, IF what resembles a toilet in the photo is not facing where it would be in the Electra than it either is NOT a toilet or it was moved about for some reason. I can't imagine that it would not have been mounted to the deck in some fashion to keep it from moving about and wither damaging the plane or worse, spilling its contents. IF it is a toilet in the photo it appears to face toward the rear of the plane which doesn't make sense to me as the lid wouldn't stay up when the plane was on the ground, unless there was a hook or something.  LTM- who always loved a straight flush  ;D
-John
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Dan Kelly on November 26, 2012, 05:13:47 PM

Now a good square corner, that tells me a lot.

 :)

Well Mr Mellon it tells me that it is just a bit of coral that's got a bit of a squarish edge after it broke. Fine grained rocks do that sort of thing. 
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: richie conroy on November 26, 2012, 05:28:54 PM

Now a good square corner, that tells me a lot.

 :)

Well Mr Mellon it tells me that it is just a bit of coral that's got a bit of a squarish edge after it broke. Fine grained rocks do
that sort of thing.

I find it odd all these odd angles have left angles right angles

But no even angles. dya get it  :D
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Dan Kelly on November 26, 2012, 07:10:32 PM

Well Mr Mellon it tells me that it is just a bit of coral that's got a bit of a squarish edge after it broke. Fine grained rocks do
that sort of thing.

I find it odd all these odd angles have left angles right angles

But no even angles. dya get it  :D

Well you must have sharper eyes than me Mr Conroy - I just see all sorts of odd angles, and none of them particularly sharp.
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tim Mellon on November 26, 2012, 07:22:09 PM
Not saying it is or it isn't, but does anyone know which way the toilet faced when mounted (in the plane  ;D, not when in use)? The one in my boat just sits in a rather small area and can face whichever way you want. Generally it faces the bow so you sit with your back to the rear bulkhead. I've found that reduces unexpected movements  ;D as the boat is under weigh. The reason I ask is simple, IF what resembles a toilet in the photo is not facing where it would be in the Electra than it either is NOT a toilet or it was moved about for some reason. I can't imagine that it would not have been mounted to the deck in some fashion to keep it from moving about and wither damaging the plane or worse, spilling its contents. IF it is a toilet in the photo it appears to face toward the rear of the plane which doesn't make sense to me as the lid wouldn't stay up when the plane was on the ground, unless there was a hook or something.  LTM- who always loved a straight flush  ;D
-John
.                     

According to (partially discredited) Harney drawings, potty was situated back to port fuselage, facing to starboard. No mention of cover position. I am only reporting what my own tired eyes can see.                                             
                                                                 :) :)
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Greg Daspit on November 26, 2012, 08:13:59 PM
Regarding the accuracy of the Harney drawings. The landing gear shown in the cutaway section seems to be the later adopted articulated version of the landing gear and not the older type on AE's Electra.
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tom Swearengen on November 27, 2012, 05:24:15 AM
Guys---it doesnt matter what we THINK it is, it only matter what it REALLY is. The debate back and forth isnt getting the results necessary for a positive identification. And, IMHO, it doesnt matter how good a photo specialist is, the only way to KNOW for sure is to go get some of this stuff.
Yeah, I know, it takes $$$$$$$$$, and there have been numerous expeditions. But we are saying the same things that have been said long since before I became a member several years ago. Yes we have some awesome underwater video. Thats great for Discovery, and Nat Geo, and the Travel Channel, but in the overall scheme of things, is Tighar any closer to its goal? Personally, I dont think so.
I was under the impression (falsely as it turned out) that the ROV's were going to raise something for identification. If THAT turned out to be positive, then a full scale salvage undertaking would proceed. Now, we still have this huge debate whether anything was found or not. $2.2 Million, and not getting anywhere, except some great footage of a reef, and ALOT of ruffled feathers.

I purpose that we take the 2010 video, the coordinates from the Naia', and try to pinpoint the area where the 2010 video was taken. I say that, because that appears to be a good starting point.
Until Tighar can get the proposed location into a smaller box, we are not making any headway.
Tom
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: JNev on November 27, 2012, 06:32:45 AM
Well, I wouldn't go too hard on the Harney Drawings - they are terrific as a pictoral guide, an illustration of what we're about here in the general sense.  But it is true that a grain of salt is needed before plunging into considering them authoritative - the articulated gear that Greg noticed is another good example of why.  In no way do I wish to criticize the drawings - merely for us to keep our balance here, that's all.

I also don't care to criticize Mr. Mellon in his enthusiastic search, or others similarly motivated.  I merely mean to encourage critical depth as these things are analyzed.  I came to this place for edification and to have a bit of fun, so I hope that is never forgotten.  I think the more serious we are about learning to apply more critical skills to this the more we all gain from it.  I admire that Tim went back and read the entire original ROV Stills string (well over 100 pages) to catch up on what many of us went through before on this very kind of thing - that can only add perspective.

I wish I could see the same things others do - and often I can see the shapes and understand 'how' they see them I guess.  But it seems like a lot of ground has been covered since I started to realize what effects things like scale, shadowing and natural formations have on the lens and the human eye and mind.  When some 'thing' is pointed out, I do 'look' - I don't just dismiss - but so far I am critically seeing more what Dan described above than 'airplane' after all (and anyone can go back and see what enthusiastic things I had to say about some early 'finds', like the gear and 'squiggly').

I'm also appreciative of Tim going to Jeff Glickman to see what they might find together.  I don't have really high hopes, but I think it is grand that both are willing to do that together.  The point of it is people trying their best to find things out if it can be found out.  I think I'll choose not to judge motives there, etc. but leave it as being that simple.  At the end of it, if they 'see something', I'm still free to judge for myself.

Which brings me to where I see all this at this point in time: we still have an interesting set of 'markers' (from 'on land' IMO, not so much under the sea as I can see it) and depending on one's reading of their import, one may draw a conclusion (AE there yea or nay), or one may feel the matter remains unproven (I am there but lean toward Niku as a 'very interesting prospect').

Sorry to go on so - we see so many words and exchanges here, but for me that is the 'summary of debris' to-date.  I think I'll watch here for a while now...
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tim Mellon on November 27, 2012, 11:41:34 AM
I just hope Tim can handle what Jeff has to say on what he see's   ;)

Richie, do you have this expression in Liverpool?

"You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink."

Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Bob Lanz on November 27, 2012, 01:19:53 PM
I just hope Tim can handle what Jeff has to say on what he see's   ;)

Richie, do you have this expression in Liverpool?

"You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink."

Tim, do you know why they named that Liverpool?  A pool of liver, what a sobering thought!  What were they thinking?  ;)
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tim Mellon on November 27, 2012, 01:45:20 PM
Mersey me...
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: JNev on November 27, 2012, 02:33:16 PM
Oh Tay, you two are killin' me...
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Bob Lanz on November 27, 2012, 03:40:29 PM
Oh Tay, you two are killin' me...

Don't worry dude, we ain't gonna eat ya. :-\
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Alan Harris on November 27, 2012, 04:03:46 PM
Oh Tay, you two are killin' me...

Spoken like a true Gulfstream fan . . . or at least a R-R Rivers aficionado.  Why they think their engines are all wet is beyond me . . .   :D
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: richie conroy on November 27, 2012, 04:19:48 PM
I just hope Tim can handle what Jeff has to say on what he see's   ;)

Richie, do you have this expression in Liverpool?

"You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink."

Depend's whether u intend to lead with hand or by rope  ;D
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Dan Kelly on November 27, 2012, 04:21:19 PM
I just hope Tim can handle what Jeff has to say on what he see's   ;)

Richie, do you have this expression in Liverpool?

"You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink."

Yes, but even a horse has to be sure it is water it is seeing.
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: richie conroy on November 27, 2012, 04:23:01 PM
I just hope Tim can handle what Jeff has to say on what he see's   ;)

Richie, do you have this expression in Liverpool?

"You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink."

Yes, but even a horse has to be sure it is water it is seeing.

Would a thirsty horse need to be lead  :)
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Dan Kelly on November 27, 2012, 07:19:11 PM
Oh my, the blind leading the blind.  ;)

 ;D
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tim Mellon on November 28, 2012, 07:02:02 AM
I have identified here what I think are components of the Navigator's Station, which sits just forward of the WC compartment. The view is from above, looking down and aft. Note in the second picture the hole in the side of the Pelorus, into which the upright rod fits.
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tim Mellon on November 28, 2012, 08:11:05 AM
Just on the far side of the Peloris looks like the A-7 octant. A photograph of one can be compared.
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tim Mellon on November 28, 2012, 08:29:08 AM
Tim, are you suggesting that paper charts would survive 75 years in salt water?

Why not?
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tim Mellon on November 28, 2012, 09:04:24 AM
WARNING: THIS IMAGE IS NOT APPROPRIATE FOR CHILDREN.

Fred Noonan, Navigator, lies by his Navigation table, resting on his right side with his right foot draped over the ankle on his left leg. (IMHO).

Rest In Peace.
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Norman Daly on November 28, 2012, 09:26:06 AM
I'm sorry, these are the kind of posts that led me to ask Marty months ago if there was a way for forum members to block specific threads from appearing in their "inbox". Mr. Mellon's positing that paper charts (assumedly unprotected) could survive in water after 75 years is, well, hardly creditable to say the least.

I have yet to see any of the Electra parts that others claim to see on the coral-encrusted reef face. I believe Ric called it "camels in the sky"...especially since the artfully annotated screenshots posted by the camel gazers are so low-def and out of focus...it's be interested to know how much bandwith this nonsense is utilizing...
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Chris Austin on November 28, 2012, 09:42:33 AM
I'm sorry, these are the kind of posts that led me to ask Marty months ago if there was a way for forum members to block specific threads from appearing in their "inbox". Mr. Mellon's positing that paper charts (assumedly unprotected) could survive in water after 75 years is, well, hardly creditable to say the least.

I have yet to see any of the Electra parts that others claim to see on the coral-encrusted reef face. I believe Ric called it "camels in the sky"...especially since the artfully annotated screenshots posted by the camel gazers are so low-def and out of focus...it's be interested to know how much bandwith this nonsense is utilizing...

You mean you can't see the birth certificate trapped under the body of the 9000 year old woman?

I keep having the tune to "The Emperor's New Clothes" go through my head. ::)
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tim Mellon on November 28, 2012, 10:12:34 AM
Mr. Mellon's positing that paper charts (assumedly unprotected) could survive in water after 75 years is, well, hardly creditable to say the least.


The Titanic sank a quarter century prior to the Electra.
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: richie conroy on November 28, 2012, 10:39:51 AM
Hi Tim

That is a very interesting find, Specially the pelvis area

Good job job  :) 
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Chris Austin on November 28, 2012, 10:45:13 AM
Mr. Mellon's positing that paper charts (assumedly unprotected) could survive in water after 75 years is, well, hardly creditable to say the least.


The Titanic sank three decades prior to the Electra.

That paperwork was found inside an alligator skin handbag. Are the charts you see in a leather chart case?
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tim Mellon on November 28, 2012, 11:04:47 AM
That paperwork was found inside an alligator skin handbag. Are the charts you see in a leather chart case?

Oh, you mean one of those water-tight alligator skin handbags?
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Lauren Palmer on November 28, 2012, 11:28:06 AM
I still have trouble navigating TIGHAR's site - where can I see this 2010 video?
Lauren  :)
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tim Mellon on November 28, 2012, 11:32:39 AM
I still have trouble navigating TIGHAR's site - where can I see this 2010 video?
Lauren  :)

Try this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9NXJnwJmRY&feature=youtu.be

Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Lauren Palmer on November 28, 2012, 11:38:08 AM
Thanks! :)
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Chris Johnson on November 28, 2012, 02:36:14 PM
That paperwork was found inside an alligator skin handbag. Are the charts you see in a leather chart case?

Oh, you mean one of those water-tight alligator skin handbags?

I don't think it needs to be water tight, just enough of an obstruction to keep the paper from expanding by the wood fibres absorbing water.  If the paper is prevented from expanding then the fibres won't pull apart and the sheets turn to mush.
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Chris Johnson on November 28, 2012, 02:37:31 PM
to the untrained eye the map in Tims photo looks more like a cabin window with its slight curve.
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tim Mellon on November 28, 2012, 03:05:58 PM
Can I let Dominick vote for me? 

Vote away, Dominick!
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Dan Kelly on November 28, 2012, 04:08:48 PM

Tim, Dominick says your poll is not fair because the scallop shell you show in post 24 is not the same one he picked out in post 12.  And he says :P to you.  Ah, the impetuousness of youth.

I think someone has been watching too much Pirates of the Caribbean  ;D
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tim Mellon on November 28, 2012, 04:37:37 PM
Tim, Dominick says your poll is not fair because the scallop shell you show in post 24 is not the same one he picked out in post 12.

Life is just not fair, Dominick! Good thing you are learning this at age nine.

Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tom Swearengen on November 28, 2012, 05:03:44 PM
9 years old and learning about Amelia? WOW-----isnt that what this is about?
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: richie conroy on November 28, 2012, 05:11:16 PM
I Believe, the object is only shell shaped

Look at attached image. Were the shell is mounted an look to right an u see the same kind of mount except the shell is missing.

I think it might be a pull lever of some kind.

I have added red lines to highlight shape
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Bob Lanz on November 28, 2012, 05:57:32 PM
9 years old and learning about Amelia? WOW-----isnt that what this is about?

Yes it is Tom, and he is writing his version of the story for his class project.  He won't tell me how it ends.  The little stinker.  Maybe Tim can talk him into it.
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Dan Kelly on November 28, 2012, 06:15:26 PM
Tim, are you suggesting that paper charts would survive 75 years in salt water?

Why not?

Mr Mellon, those skeletons were buried and from what I can read were excavated by maritime archaeologists - your "skeleton" of Fred or Amelia is lying exposed. Not an expert but lying in the sea water like that would probably expose the corpse to all sorts of maritime creatures. Just watch when you are at a beach how quickly a big dead fish disappears. As for the paper survival if I have read that correctly the paper was in an oxygen free environment which apparently, and again I'n no expert, would limit decay. I think it's called anaerobic. Folks who know better correct me if I'm wrong.
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tim Mellon on November 28, 2012, 06:34:58 PM
Just watch when you are at a beach how quickly a big dead fish disappears.

Never been to a beach 800 feet below sea level, Dan. In the video, 8.55 minutes, I never saw even one fish, let alone shark.

Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Dan Kelly on November 28, 2012, 07:01:33 PM
Just watch when you are at a beach how quickly a big dead fish disappears.

Never been to a beach 800 feet below sea level, Dan. In the video, 8.55 minutes, I never saw even one fish, let alone shark.

Don't know why not Mr Mellon - you've seen everything else down there except Judge Crater.  ;D
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tim Mellon on November 29, 2012, 05:42:06 AM
- you've seen everything else down there except Judge Crater.  ;D

Different Aquarium. Smaller fish.
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tim Mellon on November 29, 2012, 06:07:40 AM
As a professional and by your TIGHAR # with an R it is incumbent upon you to be accurate in your descriptions of these items.  In my humble opinion you are very premature in identifying that "skeleton" as that of Fred Noonan without the benefit of a DNA Match.

Bob, "There you go again..."

As the TIGHAR diagram below shows, "Researcher" is a level of membership.
I am not a professional researcher.
I am not a professional academic.
I am not a professional detective.
And I do not represent TIGHAR, as Ric has explained.

I am a professional pilot (ATP).
I am a professional computer programmer.
I am a professional farmer.

I don't see that a DNA test is in order here: this is not a homicide case. People are mainly interested (in my opinion) where Amelia Earhart ended her journey; the "preponderance of the evidence" is sufficient standard, while "beyond a reasonable doubt" might be a stretch. The sooner we can answer this question, the better, because (again, in my opinion) there are too many other important problems to solve in this world. Wasting alot more time, effort, and treasure on absolute certainty in the Earhart quest (let alone on expeditions that produce no results) is neither particularly prudent nor honorable.
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tim Mellon on November 29, 2012, 08:54:24 AM
WARNING: THIS IMAGE IS NOT APPROPRIATE FOR CHILDREN.

What I did not notice yesterday, but what I think I can clearly outline now, is a second body lying just to the right of the Navigator in the attached frame.

Refined analysis:
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Will Hatchell on November 29, 2012, 09:25:57 AM
The left skull would appear to be covered by what might be a flight cap (can see the edge of it along the forehead), and of course fully clothed which may account for the unusual degree of preservation (?); the right skeleton less well preserved, perhaps smaller in size, more delicate looking to my non-expert eye. Perhaps someone here with some medical background should comment? Anyone? I still find this rather astounding, and generally I'm at a loss for words.  :o

Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tim Mellon on November 29, 2012, 11:00:25 AM
I disagree vehemently that preponderance of the evidence, is sufficient to prove the Hypothesis without "verifiable" evidence, be it Fred Noonan's skeleton, an "identifiable" part of Amelia Earhart's Lockheed Electra L-10E or "verifiable" land evidence that proves that Amelia Earhart and Fred Noonan landed on Nikumaroro. 
 

So, we disagree.
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tom Swearengen on November 29, 2012, 11:14:48 AM
ok---let me see if I get this--Tim 'sees' 2 potential bodies. Will thinks one has a cap or something in the skull.
Might I interject that this ( if it is infact 2 bodies in an aircraft fuselage) that they may not be our explorers, but an undocumented military plane loss.
This is EXACTLY why I've been such a pain about positive identification of 'Electra' parts. We dont know whats there, and are still  (sorry Ric) speculating.
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tim Mellon on November 29, 2012, 01:00:22 PM
Heads, world hunger, tails, Earhart...

Heads it is.  Sorry lady.

Jeff, I will miss your excellent writing, healthy skepticism and civilized tone.

Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Will Hatchell on November 29, 2012, 01:33:07 PM
Heads, world hunger, tails, Earhart...

Heads it is.  Sorry lady.

Jeff, I will miss your excellent writing, healthy skepticism and civilized tone.

Tim,

I heartily second your motion per Jeff!  8)
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: richie conroy on November 29, 2012, 03:22:50 PM
Bob Lanz

This image is for you  :)

As you can see in image, The letter C is visible.

Well it's the closest thing i can find at min, That is actually visible an easy to see

Jeff Nevill

Please reconsider on what you stated you might do, Your a valued an well respected person on this forum and i would be sad if you let something annoy you to the point of leaving  :(
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tom Swearengen on November 29, 2012, 03:37:49 PM
Richie, I do see a 'C". This appears to be from the NC wreckage??
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: richie conroy on November 29, 2012, 03:46:31 PM
No Tom

This is from the high def video 2012

 It is in the vicinity of debris field, An my image is at very beginning, Here is link to video http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=cmz2m0jSUTE
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Dan Kelly on November 29, 2012, 03:56:02 PM
... generally I'm at a loss for words.  :o

As are we all.
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: richie conroy on November 29, 2012, 05:50:11 PM
Ok i may have been quick to assume it was the letter C.

However in my defense u can see were i made mistake in this image  :)

 
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: richie conroy on November 29, 2012, 05:51:39 PM
Also the unedited image
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: richie conroy on November 29, 2012, 06:08:32 PM
Also as seen in above image's you see wire/plant stalk

If you take this image into account the shape of wire/stalk on instrument panel.

I hope Ric may forward these to Jeff Glickman as i find it to alike to be random coral  :)
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tim Mellon on November 29, 2012, 06:10:29 PM
This is from the high def video 2012

 It is in the vicinity of debris field, An my image is at very beginning,

Richie, can you identify the run by date or time stamp, so there is some reference to Norwich City or Nessie?
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: richie conroy on November 29, 2012, 06:15:26 PM
This is from the high def video 2012

 It is in the vicinity of debris field, An my image is at very beginning,

Richie, can you identify the run by date or time stamp, so there is some reference to Norwich City or Nessie?

Hi Tim

I have in reply 111 which is 5 above this one to Tom, The still image is at very start of video
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Michael Elliot on November 29, 2012, 07:35:41 PM
Richie,

First, Your “C” seems to me to be a curved cut between two tabs, each of which may have a mounting hole for rivet or bolt. There are two others opposite. There also may be a circular hole in the middle of this. It might be a control cable guide fitting that was originally fastened to a sheet of something like a bulkhead, or floor panel or wing rib/spar, etc. From the size of the holes in the tabs (think partly occluded rivet holes, original size about 3/16") it looks about 4"-5" square. At that scale, the cable size is about right for a control cable.

Second, Directly below that center hole, and apparently in front of the fitting is what looks like a sheave viewed from the side with two arms holding the axle which is 10 oclock - 4 oclock in the pic.
   
Third, behind the fitting, in a 10 oclock direction and away from the viewer, is what might be a tube with a square cross-section on the outside (see why TIGHAR needs the blueprints?) And at the back of that tube is what might be a circular mount. I can see this fitting bridging a space between two bulkheads, or between two wing sections.

Fourth, while it’s probably nothing at all, just coincidence, the “V” in the cable resting on something could be one of those fittings that allows a change in the direction of a control cable.  All this stuff together is certainly man-made. All this stuff together says maybe airplane. But, that’s all it says

Control cable guide sounds good. Which one is anyone’s guess. There could be 20 or 30 such guides in an L-10.

BTW, the control cables were almost certainly steel. Much of the sheaves and yokes and arms were also likely to have been steel. Al is too soft in this usage. And, almost all of that steel would have had corrosion protection because passing between the plane and its control surfaces opens the system to rain. Also, builders would have avoided direct contact between steel and aluminum because of potential galvanic action and associated corrosion -- a second argument for protecting the steel. Which may explain the apparent lack of marine growth on these few parts.
                                 
Last, if it's not a CS fitting, it might be a fitting exiting from a fuel tank but I’d expect both ends to be circular to hold gaskets, and I’d expect more than 4 fasteners. So, I'd put this probability at the low end.

Regards to all
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tim Mellon on November 30, 2012, 06:06:07 AM
to the untrained eye the map in Tims photo looks more like a cabin window with its slight curve.

After further examination, I agree with Chris Johnson's assessment. Specifically, the corners of the object are rounded, and the size (2 ft x 1 ft) fits by comparison to other objects in the field.

The new analysis, below, shows a possible sextant and also a draftsman's triangle (appears to be 30-60-90). Pencil box and triangle were both listed in the Luke Field Inventory.
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tim Mellon on November 30, 2012, 06:24:16 AM
Below, the first picture is from the underwater frame, the next two are pictures taken prior to the flight. To my eye, they show the same belt buckle.
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: richie conroy on November 30, 2012, 12:54:38 PM
Hi Micheal

Thank's for the input  :)
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: william patterson on November 30, 2012, 01:11:16 PM
Tim, after reading lots of interesting archive material,
I found this thread (frankly stating some incredible claims),and you seem to be the number one poster, with a large number of members saying you are not seeing right,  so can I ask that you perhaps use another forma,t besides .png? I cannot seem to open them or if someone can explain how?
The JPEGS of course I can open easily, and honestly I don't see one plane part, or body, nothing but silt and coral rock. Maybe the PNG files show something I am missing. thank you.
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tim Mellon on November 30, 2012, 02:49:53 PM
William, the .png files are the output of FastStone Capture app, which is the only such tool I am able to use. I either click on the photo I-D under the picture or on the picture itself, and always get the expanded image. It may loose some definition from the original. Other than that, I'm afraid I can't help. :)
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Will Hatchell on November 30, 2012, 03:09:52 PM
William--

You should be able to set your system's image reader app (Adobe Photoshop, Image Viewer, etc.) to automatically open and view .png files, whether you have a Mac or PC, and it should work by default. Check your settings/preferences, or get some geek's assistance if you know one. Good luck.  :)

Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Doug Giese on November 30, 2012, 03:33:16 PM
Maybe the PNG files show something I am missing. thank you.

Download and install xnview at xnview.com. It's a great FREE viewer. Handles almost all common formats.
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: william patterson on November 30, 2012, 03:50:48 PM
William--

You should be able to set your system's image reader app (Adobe Photoshop, Image Viewer, etc.) to automatically open and view .png files, whether you have a Mac or PC, and it should work by default. Check your settings/preferences, or get some geek's assistance if you know one. Good luck.  :)

I did and thanks. For some reason my setup didnt have a png file association. I can finally view these images. Appreciate all the help.
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Will Hatchell on November 30, 2012, 04:45:55 PM
My pleasure, and welcome to the forum!  :)
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: richie conroy on December 06, 2012, 04:25:21 PM
Sorry but when did we start advertising non Amelia Earhart related products ?
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tim Mellon on December 06, 2012, 05:25:18 PM
Sorry but when did we start advertising non Amelia Earhart related products ?

Richie, surely you can see that Amelia and Fred both wore UGGs (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1038.msg22269.html#msg22269)!
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: richie conroy on December 06, 2012, 07:18:46 PM
Maybe so Tim

But it has nothing to do with search, So unless Tighar has give approval i.e sponsor wise.

It's irrelevant an should be put under say, the membership etc group

In my opinion  :) 

 
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tom Swearengen on December 12, 2012, 03:38:25 PM
Rain, cold. nothing else.
Tom
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tom Swearengen on December 13, 2012, 06:15:40 AM
LOL!!!!!!
I was talking about SC Jeff!!!!!!
Yep  bet it was cold and raining in Seattle too.
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tim Mellon on December 13, 2012, 06:24:12 AM
It was rainy and cold in Seattle on Tuesday, but Jeff Glickman's welcome and hospitality could not have been warmer. Having spent an entire day with him reviewing various facets of the Nikumaroro search, I am of the opinion that Jeff is not only extremely talented and intelligent, but also of the highest integrity and honor. We both are of like mind on many issues, including those unrelated to TIGHAR.

I certainly do not want to put words in Jeff's mouth, but I did conclude after all those hours of study that his mind was totally open to the possibility that some of the components we studied together were potentially identifiable as parts from a particular aircraft. Because Jeff uses a rigorous and complicated methodology to ascertain the authenticity of anything he is studying, he naturally needs time to perform all the appropriate reviews in a careful and unrushed manner. I think he has prioritized in his own mind which components will be the most easy to reach a considered judgement. I was heartened, as the day passed, that Jeff was able to incorporate new information and agree in real time that his particular opinion might have to undergo change.

As I do not feel that it would be fair to Jeff for me to disclose in any greater particularity what aspects might be at the top of his priorities, I shall not elaborate in greater detail here. But I will say again that my trip to Seattle was definitely worth the time and effort, as I do hope that the more information is brought to bear in the resolution of the Earhart mystery, the sooner a final answer can be attained.
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Ric Gillespie on December 13, 2012, 07:55:54 AM
I have spoken with Jeff and I entirely concur with Tim's excellent characterization of the meeting.
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tim Mellon on December 13, 2012, 08:12:29 AM
And now, back to work.

If the attached picture shows a detached human hand, then it certainly gives scale to the HF antenna cable.

I found the fingers; someone else I know found the thumb.
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tom Swearengen on December 13, 2012, 09:01:04 AM
Ok Tim. But where are some main components of the airframe? Oh---the ones that arent covered by debris, or look like other things.
Seeing 'fingers' that are on a submerged rock,( or other formation) is fine. So---is the other parts of identifiable airframe at a much lower depth?  I know you cant divulge what Jeff may have seen, but in the interest of logic, I dont think you can base a new expedition on a pic of presumed fingers. Because, if that were the case, you couldnt go retreve them anyway. As a potential gravesite, I really think you would have to have alot more factual evidence before you can convince the Kiribati Govt that you need to get the bones for possible DNA extraction.  Maybe i'm out out of line here.
Tom
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tim Mellon on December 13, 2012, 09:20:16 AM
Tom, I think John Balderston's November 25 report documents "major airframe" components: engine mount, right wing, etc. I don't know if this has been made accessible to the Forum yet. I would assume the cockpit, with instrument panels, as well as a landing gear, also count as major components.

In the end, logic dictates that only one certifiably NR16020 part need be identified to prove the Nikumaroro Hypothosis. Naysayers, on the other hand, must be able to demonstrate that EVERYTHING asserted to be a part of this aircraft, MUST be something else instead. I am betting on the liklihood of the first.

Ric maintains that TIGHAR's agreement with Kiribati already covers the right to examine and recover both airplane and human remains. The question you pose, nonetheless, I infer to include a more profound component: even if legally recoverable, is it morally and ethically permissible to disturb a gravesite? I would hope that Father Moleski could help us out on this one.
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tom Swearengen on December 13, 2012, 09:23:51 AM
Tim---the gravesite prospect was what I was referring to. This story is bigger than we think.
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Ric Gillespie on December 13, 2012, 10:31:38 AM
If human remains were conclusively identified on land or underwater we would certainly expect to recover them using rigorous archaeological protocols for return to next of kin.
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: JNev on December 13, 2012, 11:13:25 AM
Tom, I think John Balderston's November 25 report documents "major airframe" components: engine mount, right wing, etc. I don't know if this has been made accessible to the Forum yet. I would assume the cockpit, with instrument panels, as well as a landing gear, also count as major components.

In the end, logic dictates that only one certifiably NR16020 part need be identified to prove the Nikumaroro Hypothosis. Naysayers, on the other hand, must be able to demonstrate that EVERYTHING asserted to be a part of this aircraft, MUST be something else instead. I am betting on the liklihood of the first.

Ric maintains that TIGHAR's agreement with Kiribati already covers the right to examine and recover both airplane and human remains. The question you pose, nonetheless, I infer to include a more profound component: even if legally recoverable, is it morally and ethically permissible to disturb a gravesite? I would hope that Father Moleski could help us out on this one.

I don't know if I am categorized as a 'naysayer' or not by others (eye of the beholder I suppose) but for my part, which I think is reasonable, ANYTHING that can be definitively shown to be of Earhart, Noonan or their airplane would suffice.  IMHO that would include even a humble shred of sheet metal that bore all the right signature 'proof' elements - type, vintage, thickness, distinctly identifiable fastener pattern, etc.  That's a little stretch maybe and just for the sake of illustration, but the point is I think your 'logic' is 'logical' in terms of what it would take to demonstrate a presence of our lost aviators beyond reasonable doubt.

And 'beyond reasonable doubt' is of course one thing, while an opinion based on perusal is quite another; I well respect that each of us may draw our own conclusions based on that perusal.  I would hope that one perhaps having a more stringent standard than another wouldn't necessarily relegate the former to the status of 'naysayer', but YMMV, of course.  For me, silt covered patterns among the rocks and growth on the sea floor so far don't provide enough information for a conclusive perusal. 

I make the distinction merely because I find the 'either fer me or agin me' argument, so easily attached to that prospect, to be a nonstarter.  I'm sure that's not the intent, but occasionally find it worthwhile to reflect on that distinction for the sake of clarity: some of us may simply believe more is needed before we call it a day and lay any wreaths in a certain place.
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tim Mellon on December 13, 2012, 02:16:06 PM
Do you see the shoe sole with a heel still attached in this same photo?

IF it's a shoe, it's from the left foot.
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tim Mellon on December 13, 2012, 06:20:38 PM
Man, you're good!  ;)
Just trying for that fourth star!
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: william patterson on December 13, 2012, 06:54:51 PM
Do you see the shoe sole with a heel still attached in this same photo?

IF it's a shoe, it's from the left foot.

Man, you're good!  ;)

How about sick?
If these were human remains, which I strongly doubt, the glee and references to getting a "4th star" for finding a "hand", or a "foot", or "I have found some fingers, somebody else found a thumb,  is hideous.
Sorry, but to encourage this mental illness is illness itself.
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tim Mellon on December 13, 2012, 07:04:15 PM
How about sick?

Lighten up. Don't you know it's all just coral?

Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Dan Kelly on December 14, 2012, 02:05:19 AM
And now, back to work.

If the attached picture shows a detached human hand, then it certainly gives scale to the HF antenna cable.

I found the fingers; someone else I know found the thumb.

A human hand? Yes Tim, anything you say  ::)
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tim Mellon on December 14, 2012, 07:00:27 AM
One extra item I noticed while looking at the High Definition monitor in Seattle was what appeared to me to be a housekey. It is much more difficult to see in the attached clip, but the axis of the key is in line with, and below, the red arrow.
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Will Hatchell on December 14, 2012, 07:21:20 AM
Tim,

Based on your study of the video footage, do you know the approximate distance from the detached hand-thumb and shoe, key, etc. to the back end of the fuselage and WC where you spotted AE and FN?

Kind thanks,


Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tim Mellon on December 14, 2012, 07:37:22 AM
the approximate distance from the detached hand-thumb and shoe, key, etc. to the back end of the fuselage and WC where you spotted AE and FN?


Between hand and skull, approximately 6 feet.

Key looks to be in Fred's trousers.
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Will Hatchell on December 14, 2012, 08:54:11 AM
So, would you say that the 6-ft. are still within that starboard slab of the fuselage or outside of the fuselage? I believe you've identified that general section in and around the navigator's table and the WC? Obviously, these human body parts have not moved far from their source.

Thanks Tim.
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tim Mellon on December 14, 2012, 11:48:18 AM
Hatch, I would characterize what is up-slope of the Navigation station and WC as kind of a mish-mash: fuel tank, battery, landing gear, and who knows what else.  Nothing is orderly and readily mapable.
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Monty Fowler on December 14, 2012, 11:49:28 AM
Having pondered at length Tim's rather interistingly thought out postings and pictures and red lines and such, I am reminded of a poem I had to memorize as a teen:

    "Know, stranger, that all you will confront is strange -
      and in your own image."


And that's all I've got to say about that.

LTM, who doesn't see Elvis in all his piles of paper,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 CER
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tim Mellon on December 14, 2012, 12:03:55 PM
    "Know, stranger, that all you will confront is strange -
      and in your own image."



Fact can often be stranger than fiction.
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: richie conroy on December 14, 2012, 12:52:59 PM
Hi All

In the attached images

Object A, Can anyone else see the word RAISE ?

Object B, Looks like a carved letter D

Object C, Appears  to be box like object with tube coming from it ?

Thank's Richie

 
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Will Hatchell on December 14, 2012, 01:04:00 PM
Hatch, I would characterize what is up-slope of the Navigation station and WC as kind of a mish-mash: fuel tank, battery, landing gear, and who knows what else.  Nothing is orderly and readily mapable.

Then, considering the types of items found (generally small, personal effects, in addition to the bodies being found together), it would appear that the fuselage moved relatively intact downslope, beginning to break up on its way down, and the positions of those items relative to one another (including the mishmash, landing gear, fuel tank, etc.) are entirely what one would expect, would you agree, Tim? The fuselage may or may not have hung up for any length of time on the higher shelf before sliding on down?

Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Chris Johnson on December 14, 2012, 01:12:52 PM
If and thats a BIG IF there were two sets of remains where does that leave the casterway?
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tom Swearengen on December 14, 2012, 01:41:45 PM
Chris----I would say that IF there IS 2 sets of remains, it 'probably isnt" the target we are looking for.
AGAIN----Identifyible evidence of NR16020, and not something the we dont know about.
Tom
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Chris Johnson on December 14, 2012, 01:54:46 PM
Remains don't seem likly anyway unless enclosed in sediment or other conditions such as found on the Mary Rose or Hunley.  No visible remains with the titanic, Bismark or Hood, just clues such as boots and gas masks.
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tim Mellon on December 14, 2012, 01:56:47 PM
Then, considering the types of items found (generally small, personal effects, in addition to the bodies being found together), it would appear that the fuselage moved relatively intact downslope, beginning to break up on its way down, and the positions of those items relative to one another (including the mishmash, landing gear, fuel tank, etc.) are entirely what one would expect, would you agree, Tim? The fuselage may or may not have hung up for any length of time on the higher shelf before sliding on down?

Hatch, the scenario that keeps coming to mind for me is one whereby the aircraft, because of an extra high tide or swell or storm surge, floats off of the reef westward, then gradually looses boyancy when the fuel tanks take on salt water through their air vents. It starts to sink straight down, picking up speed as the air tanks are crushed by increasing water pressure, then breaks up only when it hits the bottom at 800 feet, leaving most of the internal contents in relatively the same proximity to one another. But then, it's just a guess.
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Will Hatchell on December 14, 2012, 02:38:02 PM
Sounds plausible and I have no problem at all with the mechanics of washing off the reef and sinking, however, for the life of me, I can't understand what accounted for it locking up on that steep slope and not continuing on down. That's a steep underwater slope!  :o



Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tim Mellon on December 14, 2012, 03:06:18 PM
If and thats a BIG IF there were two sets of remains where does that leave the casterway?

It is certainly possible that Fred, injured as he seems to have been, may never have left the aircraft; and Amelia may have left only once or twice to scout out the shoreline. She was, after all, tending to the radio transmissions when the water was low, at least for the first three days. And it is no easy trek over those very slippery and pocked reef surfaces for the 50 yards (or so) to shore, even at low water. If she couldn't help Fred from the plane, it stands to reason that they would stay together in the relative safety of the aircraft, just hoping to be seen by a rescue plane. (All, of course, IMHO).
 
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Dan Kelly on December 14, 2012, 05:40:39 PM
Hi All

In the attached images

Object A, Can anyone else see the word RAISE ?

Object B, Looks like a carved letter D

Object C, Appears  to be box like object with tube coming from it ?

Thank's Richie

 

No.
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Dan Kelly on December 14, 2012, 05:49:42 PM
If and thats a BIG IF there were two sets of remains where does that leave the casterway?

It is certainly possible that Fred, injured as he seems to have been, may never have left the aircraft; and Amelia may have left only once or twice to scout out the shoreline. She was, after all, tending to the radio transmissions when the water was low, at least for the first three days. And it is no easy trek over those very slippery and pocked reef surfaces for the 50 yards (or so) to shore, even at low water. If she couldn't help Fred from the plane, it stands to reason that they would stay together in the relative safety of the aircraft, just hoping to be seen by a rescue plane. (All, of course, IMHO).

Mr Mellon does your confident identification of the skeletons on the reef mean that you are definitely ruling out Dr Burns' identification of the castaway skeleton as possibly being Earhart, which would also exclude the associated objects found at and around the Seven Site which have been proposed as evidence of Earhart being on Nikumaroro. That includes the camp fire debris and the claims by professional anthropologists that some of the fish and clam remains indicate eating by non-islanders. Does that then mean that you agree with folks who have posted disputing the links as unproven.
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tim Mellon on December 14, 2012, 06:14:03 PM
Mr Mellon does your confident identification of the skeletons on the reef mean that you are definitely ruling out Dr Burns' identification of the castaway skeleton as possibly being Earhart, which would also exclude the associated objects found at and around the Seven Site which have been proposed as evidence of Earhart being on Nikumaroro. That includes the camp fire debris and the claims by professional anthropologists that some of the fish and clam remains indicate eating by non-islanders. Does that then mean that you agree with folks who have posted disputing the links as unproven.

"Female Caucasian" and "possibly being Earhart" are not quite the same (not withstanding a prior expert opinion of male non-Caucasian). I also seem to recall that the administrator Gerald Gallagher set up a weekend retreat somewhere down-island (I won't speculate how he may have used the rouge...).

 My eyes believe more what they see than they believe reports with hypothetical conclusions, so I would sum it up: 90% skeletons, 10% circumstantial evidence. My own view only, of course.
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Dan Kelly on December 14, 2012, 07:23:04 PM

"Female Caucasian" and "possibly being Earhart" are not quite the same (not withstanding a prior expert opinion of male non-Caucasian). I also seem to recall that the administrator Gerald Gallagher set up a weekend retreat somewhere down-island (I won't speculate how he may have used the rouge...).

 My eyes believe more what they see than they believe reports with hypothetical conclusions, so I would sum it up: 90% skeletons, 10% circumstantial evidence. My own view only, of course.

Thank you Mr Mellon - who do you think is responsible for the Seven Site objects? 
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tim Mellon on December 15, 2012, 12:50:00 AM
To me "circumstantial" does mean "unproven" in the stricktest sense. But other explanations like flotsam and/or jetsam from the aircraft may be involved. Or Gallagher, as mentioned. Or even Coast Guard (or their "invitees"). Others may propose additional possibilities.
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: John Joseph Barrett on December 15, 2012, 06:47:46 AM
There is some irony that the items recovered at the 7 site may indeed have no connection to our lost heroes, or maybe some other unucky soul found them washed ashore and put them to use there before dying. The short time frame between the disappearance and the colonization does seem to limit that possibility. There are myriad explanations as to what could have happened. IF, and I agree with Chris, it is a BIG IF, that is wreckage of the Electra with crew still aboard, then the remains found at the 7 site are someone else altogether. Going down with the plane would seem to fit with Betty's notebook and the comments about rising water, needing to get out, and putative struggles/argument with Fred. That is, of course, if you accept the notebook as legit. Having policed for a bit over 23 years I've seen quite a few investigations take strange twists and turns on the way to the truth, and those are of recent occurances. 75 years later? Yeah, there will be twists and turns here too. For the record, I see possible remains, including the key, as Mr. Mellon points out. Is that what they are? I don't know as I don't know what human remains do in those conditions. I wouldn't bet either way without knowing that. It does present an interesting twist though. I wonder how many more there will be?  LTM- Who always loved a good puzzle.  -John
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tim Mellon on December 15, 2012, 11:18:33 AM
Here is another object, the battery previously documented, as seen in both the 2010 HD video (from below), and then again in the 2012 pass (from above). The position of the HF antenna seems to have shifted slightly with respect to the battery. I think this HF antenna has always been under tension from below, which may also explain why the 2010 video shows channels that the antenna has worn.
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: william patterson on December 15, 2012, 10:44:12 PM
To me "circumstantial" does mean "unproven" in the stricktest sense. But other explanations like flotsam and/or jetsam from the aircraft may be involved. Or Gallagher, as mentioned. Or even Coast Guard (or their "invitees"). Others may propose additional possibilities.

Ric Gillespie himself said the Artifact evidence and archaeolgy evidence was so great it was like the TV commercials for phone service, where Tighar is saying "can you hear me now, can you hear me now?" and this evidence has become too hard to ignore, hence, can you hear Tighar now? The evidence of a castaway(I thought) pointed to AE, since this was the only white European woman lost in the area. Likewise the seven site had documented substantial evidence of a 1930's woman castaway.
I guess we are on a new track now.

The eyes of Mr. Mellon ignore all of the hard work, and focus in on Freds pants at 800 ft and skeletons that look like rocks, fingers, and now housekeys.
So since 20 years of Archaeology is being ignored and labeled Flotsam, or Coast guard generated, let's all use our eyes are evidence.
I personally see in the lambrecht photo Amelia and Fred waving near a coconut tree with a sign saying they were rowing to Fiji in one of the lifeboats. The sign says "dont worry, we are in love, heading to Fiji, LTM", Yes, I can see that as well as any rock Mellon states shows a fuselage.
If we are going to speculate based on someone's poor eyesite, let's all pick a picture and interpret it at will, to hades with the archaelogical evidence I thought Tighar was based on.
They went to Fiji. 90% Fiji, 10% Mellons skeletons.
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tim Mellon on December 15, 2012, 10:58:45 PM
Mr. Patterson, I think it is both fair and accurate to say that neither TIGHAR nor I have ever yet called anything related to things at Nikumaroro "proof".
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: JNev on December 15, 2012, 11:11:51 PM
How about sick?

Lighten up. Don't you know it's all just coral?

Sorry William, coulda passed but have to say I'm with Tim on this (and he already knows I view this stuff as 'highly likely coral' but has the unfailing good manners to treat me as a gentleman none-the-less) -

Given the odds as I see them, for now at least I think I am safely more more tongue-in-cheek than 'sick' - but mean not to offend, certainly.  However, if we find those are human remains I'll be among the first to straighten up and pay proper respects; good raising requires nothing less, of course...

Meanwhile, however, a seeming minor genetic defect otherwise appears to prevent my escape from taking a poke at the 'bones' by throwing a 'shoe' onto the rock pile... nothing major I trust, just a mischievous streak shared by a mad uncle or two that seems to require a minor social atrocity on occasion -

And I appreciate Tim's humoring that slight flaw.  If Tim can humor it, I pray of you to forgive it - and to not really see it as a serious illness.

Now as to the twitch... :P
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: william patterson on December 16, 2012, 05:14:08 AM
Mr. Patterson, I think it is both fair and accurate to say that neither TIGHAR nor I have ever yet called anything related to things at Nikumaroro "proof".

No, Tighar has never used words like proof. Unlike yourself who has made numerous claims of positive underwater identifications. However, That has zero to do with this mess created on mere speculation while dismissing possible viable evidence. The truth is if you were not a high dollar donor your actions would have consequences. Certainly, this irresponsible "seeing" project you are on would not be allowed. Now, it's to a new level where two decades of archaeology is dismissed with no supporting documentation. First build an argument, then support that argument. Merely saying "I am Tim Mellon, and I see it, so I trust my eyes, forget the seven site evidence", would get the normal poster in hot water very quick. I understand your value to Tighar, however to make dismissing claims about the seven site evidence and it being coast guard related needs support. Those claims should not be thrown asunder in a speculative sentence. Others have spent time and effort if critical of Tighar's evidence, or it was not allowed to be presented. Period. It was bad enough this seeing bodies out of rocks at 800 feet,but now trashing Tighar's work,(and make no mistake you were being dismissive because it doesn't fit your personal views) is plain wrong.
However, I expect nothing will be said to you, so no worries.
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: william patterson on December 16, 2012, 05:19:21 AM
How about sick?

Lighten up. Don't you know it's all just coral?

Sorry William, coulda passed but have to say I'm with Tim on this (and he already knows I view this stuff as 'highly likely coral' but has the unfailing good manners to treat me as a gentleman none-the-less) -

Given the odds as I see them, for now at least I think I am safely more more tongue-in-cheek than 'sick' - but mean not to offend, certainly.  However, if we find those are human remains I'll be among the first to straighten up and pay proper respects; good raising requires nothing less, of course...

Meanwhile, however, a seeming minor genetic defect otherwise appears to prevent my escape from taking a poke at the 'bones' by throwing a 'shoe' onto the rock pile... nothing major I trust, just a mischievous streak shared by a mad uncle or two that seems to require a minor social atrocity on occasion -

And I appreciate Tim's humoring that slight flaw.  If Tim can humor it, I pray of you to forgive it - and to not really see it as a serious illness.

Now as to the twitch... :P

"I found 4 fingers, somebody found a thumb" is poor taste. If that is Mr.Mellon's "humor", and you like it, that is your perogative of course.
I do not think the reality of lost lives and suffering deserve that level of humanity. There are still grandchildren alive, relatives alive that may actually read the forum for Tighar updates.
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tim Mellon on December 16, 2012, 05:35:30 AM
No, Tighar has never used words like proof. Unlike yourself who has made numerous claims of positive underwater identifications. However, That has zero to do with this mess created on mere speculation while dismissing possible viable evidence. The truth is if you were not a high dollar donor your actions would have consequences. Certainly, this irresponsible "seeing" project you are on would not be allowed. Now, it's to a new level where two decades of archaeology is dismissed with no supporting documentation. First build an argument, then support that argument. Merely saying "I am Tim Mellon, and I see it, so I trust my eyes, forget the seven site evidence", would get the normal poster in hot water very quick. I understand your value to Tighar, however to make dismissing claims about the seven site evidence and it being coast guard related needs support. Those claims should not be thrown asunder in a speculative sentence. Others have spent time and effort if critical of Tighar's evidence, or it was not allowed to be presented. Period. It was bad enough this seeing bodies out of rocks at 800 feet,but now trashing Tighar's work,(and make no mistake you were being dismissive because it doesn't fit your personal views) is plain wrong.
However, I expect nothing will be said to you, so no worries.

Mr. Patterson, I am sorry that you mischaracterize my posts and misquote me all together. You, of course, are entitled to your opinions about everything that is said on this Forum. But I think that resorting to vituperation and trashing efforts of others is neither productive nor helpful to this cause.

Why don't you go out and find something that adds to the effort of proving or disproving the Hypothesis?
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tim Mellon on December 16, 2012, 07:14:53 AM
I find it extraordinary that Seer Jeff Neville (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,239.msg2080.html#msg2080) contemplated almost two years ago the very scenario that we seem to see today unfolding before our eyes.
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Ric Gillespie on December 16, 2012, 10:08:19 AM
However, I expect nothing will be said to you, so no worries.

Tim Mellon, like anyone else on this forum, is free to disagree with any or all of TIGHAR's views on the available evidence. And like everyone else, if he expects to be taken seriously he will have to produce more than personal opinion and he cannot argue his case with invalid methodology. There's nothing new about seeing shapes in the coral.  Jeff Victor Hayden, Richie Conroy and others expounded for months about objects they see in underwater imagery before Tim began posting. 

Tim Mellon has been a generous supporter of TIGHAR's efforts to solve the Earhart mystery.  Without him, the 2012 underwater video that is the subject of so much controversy would not exist. Tim sees things that I don't see, but I can't prove that he is wrong. Jeff Glickman is now familiar with what Tim sees but he needs to do more analysis before he can offer an opinion.  Yes, Tim's generosity buys him some special courtesies, such as meeting with Jeff Glickman, but Tim has often made it clear that his views are his own, not TIGHAR's.

For the record, TIGHAR has not changed its view that the best explanation for what has been found at the Seven Site - from 1940 to the present - is that the site is where Amelia Earhart spent her final days.  The available evidence points overwhelmingly to the Electra having landed on the reef north of Norwich City and sent radio distress calls for several days before being washed over the reef edge.  What happened then remains a mystery that we hope to be able to solve through more research, analysis, and field work.
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tim Mellon on December 16, 2012, 11:24:04 AM
For the record, TIGHAR has not changed its view that the best explanation for what has been found at the Seven Site - from 1940 to the present - is that the site is where Amelia Earhart spent her final days. 

I agree that this may be the best available explanation, but not necessarily the only explanation.
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tim Mellon on December 16, 2012, 11:52:56 AM
The landing gear assembly, in my opinion, is another component common to both 2010 and 2012 High Definition videos. The 2010 is seen from directly above, looking down (fork visible to the right), while the 2012 shows the object somewhat down the hill (no fork visible). I think that the distictive upside-down configuration of the fender is an important clue, as hard as it might be to explain how it got that way.

CORRECTION: The 2012 SD video shows the fender to be in the proper position, and not inverted as previously thought.
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Ric Gillespie on December 16, 2012, 09:11:39 PM
I have removed a whole string of posts that are off-topic for this thread and beneath the dignity of this forum. 
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tim Mellon on December 17, 2012, 01:24:12 AM
Well done, including some of my own - thanks!

Back to the summary...
.                   

Ditto.                                   
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: John Joseph Barrett on December 17, 2012, 05:19:20 AM
Tim,

If that is a fender turned backward on a gear assembly, it is not unreasonable to think that it may have occurred during the landing itself. Picture this:   After finally spotting some place dry to set down our duo circles the island looking for what they feel is the best place to try to land. Deciding to put down near the Norwich City they make their approach. On touch down or roll out one of the wheels hits something sharp and blows. The tire is shredding and the plane moving at a fair speed, causing the shreds to grab the rear of the fender and pull it forward as the tire rolls. With the tire deflated, or maybe even a big hole in it or chunk gone, the fender tears loose and flips without being totally destroyed and ends up inverted and somewhat distorted. Just a possibility if what it looks like it might be really is.  LTM- John
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tom Swearengen on December 17, 2012, 07:20:42 AM
John---that scenario is very plausible to me. We all see what kind of damage a blown tire can do on race cars, and even our own passenger cars (ask me how I know). So, landing the Electra on a reef, and then hitting something could be catastrophic for the tire, and for even a possible take off in the even that AE was found on Niku, and fuel was transported to her.
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tim Mellon on December 17, 2012, 09:05:08 AM
This all makes good common sense to me. Good thinking.

From having been on the reef, I can report there is no shortage of potholes that could cause this type of damage.
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Bob Lanz on December 17, 2012, 09:37:22 AM
Tim,

As a pilot, and having seen the reef, would you land an Electra L10-E on the reef gear up or down?
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tim Mellon on December 17, 2012, 10:08:36 AM
Tim,

As a pilot, and having seen the reef, would you land an Electra L10-E on the reef gear up or down?

If the radio were essential to my survival, as it was for hers (she may have thought), then gear down. Otherwise, probably gear up, unless I had thoroughly inspected the reef beforehand. YMMV.
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tom Swearengen on December 17, 2012, 10:42:23 AM
Ok-----so we know the reef has some problems, because you guys have walked on it. Bob makes a very good point, because I would think that you probably cant see any of those issues by doing a low approach. Same issue for a lagoon landing. So----risk the gear down, so you can use the radio and engine combination, and possibly be able to take off again, OR risk tearing the gear off, or punchering a tire on rollout due to something on the reef.
Guess you would have had to have been there at the time before you could make that decision.
Tom
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tom Swearengen on December 17, 2012, 11:37:21 AM
I hate this speculation stuff! Ric is going to scold me BUT________ IF on roll-out, she did contact something that blew the left main, and on deflation, the gear was damaged, or torn off the airframe, that might account for the odd looking thing we cal the Bevington Object. We are trying to visualize what it is supposed to be, not what it is NOW.

Another thought---how many of you would attempt the landing she did---not know what was there? It wasnt a grass strip, or even a nice asphalt runway. Might look good from a low pass perspective, but you cant tell alot at 10 feet, and 90 knots. Some of yo pilots weigh in on that. OOPS----wrong thread-----Tom
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Ric Gillespie on December 17, 2012, 12:08:19 PM
A couple of quick reminders for the speculators. 

- We've surveyed the reef where we think the landing took place.  There are no pot holes. There are classic spurs and grooves out where the waves break at low tide but the plane couldn't be out there and send radio messages.

- We have a contemporary example of an aircraft similar in size to the Electra making a successful wheels-down landing on a reef.
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Dan Swift on December 17, 2012, 12:38:07 PM
And what we know about AE's personality, based on her flight history and the amount of $$ and reputation riding on this world flight, she wouldn't have wanted to give up on completing the flight.  Gear up....it's over. 
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: JNev on December 17, 2012, 12:43:05 PM
A couple of quick reminders for the speculators. 

- We've surveyed the reef where we think the landing took place.  There are no pot holes. There are classic spurs and grooves out where the waves break at low tide but the plane couldn't be out there and send radio messages.

- We have a contemporary example of an aircraft similar in size to the Electra making a successful wheels-down landing on a reef.

How I wish we could go after that old Croydon - because it is a 'known' - AND

- Her remnants may just be down that slope somewhere, and
- Finding out how it came to rest might give us a model of what to go after.

AND -

The idea is of course ridiculously expensive for little more than to establish a possible 'model'.

But what do we have to relish if we can't dream a bit? 

Now if those guys had vanished but we had some fair reasons to believe they might have come to rest on that reef before being washed away...

That's one of the differences in this whole game, isn't it?  Mystery has such a flavor, gotta love it.
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tim Mellon on December 17, 2012, 01:38:52 PM
There are no pot holes.

But Amelia Earhart wouldn't have known that.

If there were potholes, as there are on the other South side of the NC, even at low tide they would have been filled with water and therefore appeared flat.
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tom Swearengen on December 17, 2012, 02:03:44 PM
Thats true Ric, and thats true Tim. AE wouldnt have known what Ric and others found out on previous expeditions.
This is the wrong thread for this---maybe someone could put it where it belongs.
tom
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: John Joseph Barrett on December 17, 2012, 04:07:46 PM
Actually Tom, I think it's still ok here, a slight twist off course but related to my post about how the possible fender might have gotten inverted. Ric, no potholes doesn't mean that there wasn't a chunk of coral or other debris that could have been run over and holed the tire. Flailing tire shred can tear up metal and could easily have inverted the fender. Now, back to our regularily scheduled thread about possible debris in the 2010 video......   LTM-  John
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tom Swearengen on December 18, 2012, 07:13:47 AM
LOL---yep---gear up wold make a bad day even worse
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Will Hatchell on December 18, 2012, 08:54:52 AM
Flailing tire shred can tear up metal and could easily have inverted the fender.

The left landing gear assembly (with inverted fender) would then be expected to match Glickman's observed characteristics found in the photo analysis of the Bevington Object, correct? Does Glickman's analysis in fact suggest the fender inversion?  :-\



Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Bob Lanz on December 18, 2012, 09:25:25 AM
Flailing tire shred can tear up metal and could easily have inverted the fender.

The left landing gear assembly (with inverted fender) would then be expected to match Glickman's observed characteristics found in the photo analysis of the Bevington Object, correct? Does Glickman's analysis in fact suggest the fender inversion?  :-\

No it doesn't Hatch, nor does it represent an inverted gear of an Electra L10-E.  The components in that presentation are positionally incorrect and where he placed the retracting gear on the tire is impossible as it would have been underwater on the strut.
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Will Hatchell on December 18, 2012, 09:29:12 AM
Flailing tire shred can tear up metal and could easily have inverted the fender.

The left landing gear assembly (with inverted fender) would then be expected to match Glickman's observed characteristics found in the photo analysis of the Bevington Object, correct? Does Glickman's analysis in fact suggest the fender inversion?  :-\

No it doesn't Hatch, nor does it represent an inverted gear of an Electra L10-E.  The components in that presentation are positionally incorrect and where he placed the retracting gear on the tire is impossible as it would have been underwater on the strut.

Thanks for the clarification, Bob. That's what I recalled but wasn't sure and hadn't taken time to review all posts re Bevington. So, that leaves more intrigue...



Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Ric Gillespie on December 18, 2012, 10:28:11 AM
The components in that presentation are positionally incorrect and where he placed the retracting gear on the tire is impossible as it would have been underwater on the strut.

As I think I've mentioned previously, our understanding of the wreckage visible in the Bevington photo has evolved since Jeff's presentation.  There will be a full explanation in the new TIGHAR Tracks (if I can ever get the darn thing finished).
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Will Hatchell on December 18, 2012, 10:55:08 AM
The components in that presentation are positionally incorrect and where he placed the retracting gear on the tire is impossible as it would have been underwater on the strut.

As I think I've mentioned previously, our understanding of the wreckage visible in the Bevington photo has evolved since Jeff's presentation.  There will be a full explanation in the new TIGHAR Tracks (if I can ever get the darn thing finished).

Ric,

Kind thanks for reminding us of the upcoming revamped explanation. We all look forward to that when completed!  :)

Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tim Mellon on December 18, 2012, 11:10:27 AM


The left landing gear assembly (with inverted fender)...

.                               

Hatch, how did you determine that it was the left gear?                                                  :)
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Bob Lanz on December 18, 2012, 11:36:46 AM
The components in that presentation are positionally incorrect and where he placed the retracting gear on the tire is impossible as it would have been underwater on the strut.

As I think I've mentioned previously, our understanding of the wreckage visible in the Bevington photo has evolved since Jeff's presentation.  There will be a full explanation in the new TIGHAR Tracks (if I can ever get the darn thing finished).

None to soon Ric, none to soon, and if that gear was disconnected from the strut as it appeared in the presentation, it would have sunk like a rock.  You're right, someone (Mr Glickman?) has some "esplainin' ta doo Lucey".
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Will Hatchell on December 18, 2012, 12:42:37 PM


The left landing gear assembly (with inverted fender)...

.                               

Hatch, how did you determine that it was the left gear?                                                  :)

Tim, I haven't determined that actually; that's clearly flawed thinking on my part, and conflating the suspected left-gear landing damage with what more likely could have happened as the plane broke up before and after going over the edge. Unless you can clearly determine from the underwater footage whether it's a left or right strut that the inverted fender is attached to, I'm at a loss to say, and certainly retract my statement that it was the left side mechanism. Thanks for bringing this up, by the way.

Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Albert Durrell on December 18, 2012, 02:16:54 PM
All of the "sightings" among the debris got me to thinking - if the debris is the Electra, what might the remains tell us of what actually happened?  Perhaps the accident investigators could give us some ideas of how they would go about investigating this scene?  What would they look for to determine if it was wheels up or down?  Would any of the switch or gauge settings left on equipment possibly give us clues as to radio settings, gaslevel, etc?  Is there any chance after this length of time that anything could be gleaned from the debris?
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tom Swearengen on December 18, 2012, 02:26:55 PM
Hi Albert!
" All of the "sightings" among the debris got me to thinking - if the debris is the Electra, what might the remains tell us of what actually happened?  Perhaps the accident investigators could give us some ideas of how they would go about investigating this scene?  What would they look for to determine if it was wheels up or down?  Would any of the switch or gauge settings left on equipment possibly give us clues as to radio settings, gaslevel, etc?  Is there any chance after this length of time that anything could be gleaned from the debris?"
Well, IMHO, I dont think it will tell us alot. I say that because there arent any major parts that have been 'spotted' yet. Tim and others see very small parts, scattered over a reef slope. So finding out if the gear was torn apart during the landing, when the electra went over the reef edge, or during the drop to the debris field might be as big a mystery as what happened to AE in the first place.
BUT----if you 'were' to find instruments, then yeah that would be useful information, I would think. Others may disagree with me.
Tom
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tim Mellon on December 18, 2012, 03:28:39 PM
Bob's right that much has been made over this 'thing', so the awaited update will be welcome, I'm sure.


As I told Jeff Glickman, I think the aggregation of images in the "Balderston Debris Field" gives more credence to the notion that the Bevington Object is perhaps an Electra component than the Bevington Objects suggests that the Electra washed over the reef at that point along the shoreline.

Jeff laughed heartily.
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: JNev on December 18, 2012, 03:35:16 PM
Bob's right that much has been made over this 'thing', so the awaited update will be welcome, I'm sure.


Like I told Jeff, I think the aggregation of images in the "Balderston Debris Field" gives more credence to the notion that the Bevington Object is perhaps an Electra component than the Bevington Objects suggests that the Electra washed over the reef at that point along the shoreline.

Jeff laughed heartily.

Well, like I said, Tim - to each his own, no matter what the experts or others say.  But for me, that 'fork' in the 'Bevington Object' is the most compelling piece of photo evidence I personally have seen, in my judgment... and it could still be something else (or nothing at all...).  But - part of my attempt at 'illustrating' this whole thing may be taken as demonstrating that it remains highly subjective, IMO.

And it should be fun as well - I don't see the problem with us doing our best to sleuth out what we think we can.  For me, after all I've thought about it all, TIGHAR's helped give me a big ol' puzzle to work at when I can.  I still have time for world hunger on a different stage...  ;)
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Dan Kelly on December 18, 2012, 05:03:37 PM
The components in that presentation are positionally incorrect and where he placed the retracting gear on the tire is impossible as it would have been underwater on the strut.

As I think I've mentioned previously, our understanding of the wreckage visible in the Bevington photo has evolved since Jeff's presentation.  There will be a full explanation in the new TIGHAR Tracks (if I can ever get the darn thing finished).

Mr Gillespie as someone who does not see anything in that Bevington Object that resembles any undercarriage components, I am worried that the revised explanation of what it is will not be any more reliable than the first simply because it is composed in answer to the criticisms of the first. The first interpretation has been used to attract donations - so if the first was able to do that successfully why is it necessary to alter what is an exceptionally subjective interpretation and replace it with a second equally subjective interpretation? Also will the second interpretation be then offered to independent analysts to compare it with the first and also to give an independent assessment. Just because people donate money based on such claims does not in itself make the claim correct.
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: richie conroy on December 18, 2012, 05:30:48 PM
Hi Dan

While i agree with your logic, I believe a YEAR  from now we will, Yet again re evaluate the Bevington image, Simply due to advances in technology.

However at this current time Jeff Glickman is using best equipment/software available to interpret the image, Also bare in mind The states best forensics have agreed with Jeff Glickman What it appears to be, Am waiting patiently to View new analysis   
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Greg Daspit on December 18, 2012, 05:44:02 PM
It is possible components of what may be both the left and right landing gear could be in The Bevington Photo (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iLxjEU1VJHA).
One strut in foreground:  Inverted, minus tire and fender, but still with hub.
One strut in the background: Possibly broken in two pieces similar to the Luke Field crash. Tire and fender partially above water.
A possible scenario could be that after their wing tie downs broke, they scavenged  some cable from N.C.  to stake the wheels down but could not cut the cable so just looped both wheels on the same length of cable. The two struts ended up tangled together after the reef and surf tore up the plane. Or the two main gears stayed staked to the reef and the plane tore lose. Maybe that cable is the one you see in the video?  However the age looks too new for 1929. Was cable from the N.C. seen in its debris field so we can see for an aging comparison? IMHO it also looks way too thick to be an aerial
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tim Mellon on December 18, 2012, 05:57:07 PM
And it should be fun as well - I don't see the problem with us doing our best to sleuth out what we think we can.  For me, after all I've thought about it all, TIGHAR's helped give me a big ol' puzzle to work at when I can.  I still have time for world hunger on a different stage...  ;)

This is the essence, Jeff. Thank you for reminding us.
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Ric Gillespie on December 18, 2012, 06:50:33 PM
None to soon Ric, none to soon, and if that gear was disconnected from the strut as it appeared in the presentation, it would have sunk like a rock.  You're right, someone (Mr Glickman?) has some "esplainin' ta doo Lucey".

The strut is part of the landing gear assembly.  By "gear" do you mean the wheel and tire?  Bear in mind that where the object was on the reef the water was only a few inches deep at that time.  There was no place for anything to sink to.
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Dan Kelly on December 18, 2012, 07:25:37 PM
The components in that presentation are positionally incorrect and where he placed the retracting gear on the tire is impossible as it would have been underwater on the strut.

As I think I've mentioned previously, our understanding of the wreckage visible in the Bevington photo has evolved since Jeff's presentation.  There will be a full explanation in the new TIGHAR Tracks (if I can ever get the darn thing finished).

Thank you Mr Gillespie. For some reason my reply to you was removed, I know not why so let me ask the question again. Will the new interpretation be offered for independent analysis as was the first.
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Bob Lanz on December 18, 2012, 08:19:25 PM
None to soon Ric, none to soon, and if that gear was disconnected from the strut as it appeared in the presentation, it would have sunk like a rock.  You're right, someone (Mr Glickman?) has some "esplainin' ta doo Lucey".

The strut is part of the landing gear assembly.  By "gear" do you mean the wheel and tire?  Bear in mind that where the object was on the reef the water was only a few inches deep at that time.  There was no place for anything to sink to.

No, I meant the retracting rotating gear attached to the strut which Mr. Glickman placed beside the tire.  If it had dis-articulated from the strut, It wouldn't have been where it was placed but likely sunk whether in a few inches of water of more.  If the landing gear assembly was only in a few inches of water, it would have been lying on it's side not floating straight up as has been suggested.
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Ric Gillespie on December 18, 2012, 09:03:16 PM
No, I meant the retracting rotating gear attached to the strut which Mr. Glickman placed beside the tire.  If it had dis-articulated from the strut, It wouldn't have been where it was placed but likely sunk whether in a few inches of water of more.  If the landing gear assembly was only in a few inches of water, it would have been lying on it's side not floating straight up as has been suggested.

Okay, I understand.  In my interpretation of the image the worm gear is not disarticulated from the strut. I showed my interpretation to Jeff and asked if it works forensically.  He replied. "Yes, this does work forensically, and I find it to be an improved parsing."
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Ric Gillespie on December 18, 2012, 09:06:25 PM
Will the new interpretation be offered for independent analysis as was the first.

Yes.
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: John Joseph Barrett on December 19, 2012, 05:20:10 AM
Jeff N.   Thanks for the crayola outlines. Your interpretation fits with what I believe I see as well. One question about the possible shadow. For those who have been there, is the shadow consistent with where the sun would have been positioned when Bevington was at the island? Most especially, if there is anyway to know what time of day, approximately, that the photo may have been taken. Since the beach can be seen in the background I would think that establishing the general direction of the sun, and from that where a shadow should fall, shouldn't be too difficult. If the shadow is wrong then the object may be just a flaw. My opinion, I see a gear. But, I've been wrong before. At least I thought I was, turns out I was wrong. LTM  -John
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Ric Gillespie on December 19, 2012, 04:31:26 PM
I locked the Bevington Object thread because I haven't yet provided everyone with all of the information that is available and needed for an informed discussion. 
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: JNev on December 20, 2012, 05:43:21 AM
I understand, Ric, no problem here. 

What I wrote above is of course only from my own observations and thoughts based on what I've seen to-date.  Subjective conjecture on my part, no doubt, but I hope with a few observations that may be useful to those interested in this item.  Thanks for allowing it under this string - I think there is a relationship to the 'summary of debris'.
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tim Mellon on December 20, 2012, 11:51:03 AM
These two bottles lie just forward of what I percieve to be the Navigator's Station. Obviously, they didn't necessarily arrive by plane, but the coincidence is interesting.
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tim Mellon on December 20, 2012, 12:00:57 PM
Actually, there seems to be more here than I originally noticed....
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Norman Daly on December 20, 2012, 05:29:14 PM
These photos postulating the existance bottles and tins are so out of focus on my high def screen...why post them this way?
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tim Mellon on December 20, 2012, 05:44:49 PM
These photos postulating the existance bottles and tins are so out of focus on my high def screen...why post them this way?

If you click on the paperclip and not on the photo, the definition improves. In any case I have nothing but a Dell 15" monitor and the definition, though not perfect, is certainly adequate. YMMV.
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tim Mellon on December 20, 2012, 05:53:44 PM
WITHDRAWN:  After looking at this frame over 50 times, I have decided it is NOT the other landing gear assembly.

Thie item seems to be part of  the ventilation/heating system, some sort of manifold with one inlet and three outlets. I canot find any reference to it in the Harney drawings, and have not seen anything similar in any of the photos I have reviewed. A shot from the right is attached.

Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: william patterson on December 22, 2012, 11:23:44 AM
I locked the Bevington Object thread because I haven't yet provided everyone with all of the information that is available and needed for an informed discussion.

Obviously a locked thread hasnt stopped the dissection,,i.e., more consultant posts above. To honor the intent of the lock I will make no comment or question at this time.
Since so many have geospatial questions, and film questions, it would be great if Ric and Jeff Glickman planned a time and date event where short, real time Q&A on the Bevington photo analysis could be addressed. A "live with tighar" type of thing. Something to perhaps consider, would be a lively thread I am sure.
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tim Mellon on December 22, 2012, 02:15:44 PM
Now I'm beginning to wonder about the weight and balance....
(These pictures are from 13:36:31;15).
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: richie conroy on December 22, 2012, 02:20:16 PM
Tim

I think we need the type of computer your using as i dont see what your seeing

Thanks Richie
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tim Mellon on December 22, 2012, 02:26:13 PM
I think we need the type of computer your using as i dont see what your seeing


Richie, I have an old seond hand HP Compaq desktop with a Dell monitor (854x480). Nothing special.
Also, maybe you're too young to know what a 6 ounce Coke bottle looks like (green, very thick glass, and "shapely")!
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: richie conroy on December 22, 2012, 03:04:44 PM
Hi Tim

I would expect any bottle to have a scale in size of attached image
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tim Mellon on December 22, 2012, 03:25:41 PM
Richie, does this help?
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tim Mellon on December 22, 2012, 03:31:35 PM
Can anyone see old-fashioned radio components through this hole? Tubes, rectifiers, or whatever they were called?
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: richie conroy on December 22, 2012, 03:45:55 PM
Hi Tim

I have outlined what could be a possible bottle but your arrows are way short of the object, Which led me to question what you see.

Also attached is an image i believe headphone's connection is clearly visible   
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Will Hatchell on December 22, 2012, 03:48:50 PM
Can anyone see old-fashioned radio components through this hole? Tubes, rectifiers, or whatever they were called?

I can make out what is possibly a glass radio tube from 3:00-5:00, but can't quite tell what the object is at 12:00-1:00. What do you think this "hole" is, Tim? Are we looking through a hole in the fuselage, or a hole in a radio box itself?

Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tim Mellon on December 22, 2012, 05:18:08 PM
I have outlined what could be a possible bottle but your arrows are way short of the object, Which led me to question what you see.


You are correct about that bottle you outlined. My arrows referred to the bottle just to the left.
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tim Mellon on December 22, 2012, 05:23:00 PM
Can anyone see old-fashioned radio components through this hole? Tubes, rectifiers, or whatever they were called?

 or a hole in a radio box itself?

The latter. Do you see anything 6:00 to 8:30?
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tim Mellon on December 22, 2012, 05:27:23 PM
Also attached is an image i believe headphone's connection is clearly visible

This one is not so clear to me.
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tim Mellon on December 22, 2012, 05:56:19 PM
I can make out what is possibly a glass radio tube from 3:00-5:00

Inasmuch as it appears that several of these radio components are vertical and therefore parallel to one another, I believe we are looking at the insides of the HF radio transmitter with its corner conveniently removed. The shiny domed object on the right side of the hole looks distictly like the top of a vacuum tube to me too, Hatch. This transmitter, according to the Harney diagrams, sat beneath the Navigator's table in the rear compartment, just forward of the auxiliary battery, which is also in close proximity in the 2010 HD video.
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tom Swearengen on December 24, 2012, 07:47:02 AM
Guys----you are looking for small objects---can you please find something LARGER??? I dont think that you can justify another expedition because of a coke bottle, or what you think are radio tubes. You cant positively tie those pieces to NR16020, which, IHMO, is what you should be looking for. But also IMHO, you wont find that evidence at the 800 foot level. 3000+ maybe (probably). But Tighar didnt have the assets to go that deep, and respectfully, I question that. WE talked about that possibility in DC. I'll go back and research the expedition assets again. I must have missed something.
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tim Mellon on December 24, 2012, 10:35:41 AM
Patience, Tom, bigger things may be on the way.

And Merry Christmas!
                                                    :)
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Chris Johnson on December 24, 2012, 11:34:43 AM
Patience, Tom, bigger things may be on the way.

And Merry Christmas!
                                                    :)

Look what I found  ;)
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Bob Lanz on December 25, 2012, 12:07:19 AM
Merry Christmas all.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UpH6zVqHpGo
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tim Mellon on December 25, 2012, 07:47:26 AM
For those interested in how control cables are attached, I think I have found an example in this photo of the instrument panel (2010 HD video at time 13:41:53, frame 27). Although obviously out of place, I believe this may be part of the steering mechanism that came from the base of the pilot's control wheel column. Other instrument panel components are identified for reference.
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tim Mellon on December 25, 2012, 04:00:27 PM
WITHDRAWN: This instrument appears to me to be the Western Electric 9A Remote indicator from the far right side of the knee panel. Its top is to the left, and the needle would indicate it is pointing to the "DAY" position, which means the 6210 frequency.

Closer examination using High Definition equipment reveals this item to be but a collage of unrelated parts, including probably coral.

Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Ted G Campbell on December 25, 2012, 07:44:12 PM
Tim,
Would share with us the equipment i.e. graphics program, object inhancing tools, etc. that let you see things that we can't see in your postings.

Thanks,
Ted Campbell
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: richie conroy on December 25, 2012, 09:24:13 PM
HI

What does Tim have to share ?

Bare in mind these images are boarder line with vintage optical illusion toys,

You really do have to pay attention an focus to be able to interpret what you are seeing, However over the top u see them

Thanks Richie
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tim Mellon on December 25, 2012, 10:23:40 PM

You really do have to pay attention an focus to be able to interpret what you are seeing, However over the top u see them


.     
And, kidding aside, it does help to back your eyes away from the screen a ways. Also advancing the video the shortest amount and making an object move helps determine what is part of it and what is not. With practice I have been able to advance as little as 5 frames with each double click on the screen. Jeff Glickman has a toy that allows advancing one frame at a time.                                     

The Harney drawings are also essential when comparing details, even though they are not 100% accurate.                                        :)
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Randy Conrad on December 26, 2012, 01:04:19 AM
Tim....Hi! Was wondering where you're getting all these neat pictures at? Been trying to locate these on the webiste but haven't found them yet. I was looking at this latest picture, but was wondering if its possible to place them into green or blue color. Kinda of like the first pictures of the possible hot spot that Ric and the gang had on the recent expedition to Niku!
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tim Mellon on December 26, 2012, 01:13:45 AM
Randy, I have been using FastStone Capture (app you pay for) to annotate anything I find on the YouTube footage posted by TIGHAR. I don't know whether they can be found by a Search Engine, but I somehow doubt it.

As to color, I think that would make things even harder to recognize. And it would not be realistic because there is no natural light at 800 feet down.

 :)
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Bob Lanz on December 26, 2012, 07:46:07 AM
http://www.faststone.org/download.htm
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Bob Lanz on December 26, 2012, 08:23:17 AM
Free Screen Capture Add-On for Firefox, Chrome and Safari. 

http://awesomescreenshot.com/
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Bob Harmon on December 26, 2012, 01:41:16 PM
Advancing a video frame-by-frame in Windows Media Player (Windows XP) is very easy.
With the video loaded and paused:
Click "Now Playing", Enhancements, Play Speed Settings
Click on the little square right-arrow button to advance one frame at a time.

Bob Harmon
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Randy Conrad on December 26, 2012, 04:38:37 PM
Tim....Hi! Finally, got to see a few of the videos that you captured the stills from. As I was glancing at the video, I did capture a few things that I personally found interesting. As many like myself agree, that indeed it looks or appears to be
that of rope material. I find it highly unlikely that steel cable would survive that environment for over 75 years. What captivated me though was how the rope strand went from one strand into two. As if someone tied a doubleknot. At first, I personally thought after reading the Norwich City storm accounts from survivors that it indeed was the rocket launchers that were the remnants of the ropes lying there as we speak..But, after seeing the ropes in a new way...I'm beginnning to wonder.
   In this particular video, another thing that really has me baffled is how large chunks of coral, were just laying there. As if someone had torn up a concrete slab or something. Now, I've seen the pictoral diagrams that the team has thought that the Electra slipped into these crevices...which is most likely. But, is it possible that the Electra weakened part of the reef area where it landed? In June, when I attended the symposium a couple that had been to the island had shown a picture of the reef area where Amelia might have possibly landed. From looking at the photo it shows quite definate that it is flat and smooth. But, what was it like underneath? How far down did the rock go before it hit bottomed out? After seeing the rock debris in the video...I'm beginning to believe that Amelia and Fred made a hard landing and a quick one....At the time of the landing...she landed the Electra with such force that it jolted the shelf in such a way, that it may indeed had cracked that particular area. Over the next several days, from the force of the high tides and waves, the force of tides above and below, eventually broke the shelf away and the Electra fell into the cracks. Over time, coral began to pile ontop of the Electra and covered it for its watery grave. I believe with this kind of force, that it didnt take long before it was covered!!!!
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tim Mellon on December 26, 2012, 06:00:22 PM
Randy, I somehow doubt her landing was as bad as this scenario suggests. After all, they apparently were able to run the engines to charge the battery for several days of radio transmissions. Also, she had especially large tires for off-airport landings, which would have had a large surface contact area. I do not thing that volcanic outflow is particularly crumbly either.

I think most of the coral you are seeing has aggregated on the various surfaces over the years, leaving some thickly encrusted and others not covered at all (especially any surface that ended up in a vertical position). Some coral debris may have followed the Electra in time, but I believe most was already there in 1937.
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tim Mellon on December 26, 2012, 06:06:36 PM
And speaking of vertical surfaces, here is another view of what I think is the rear edge, including aileron, of the outer end of the right wing. Again, the bottom of a digit, either the "6" or the first "0", is partially visible. Note that the skin has been torn away from the aileron, leaving some ribs visible. The ubiquitous squiggle sits perched on the outer edge.
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: richie conroy on December 26, 2012, 07:48:39 PM
Hi All

I believe the attached image could possible show the right side of mono tail, If you study the pattern it is a possibility

Thanks Richie   
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tim Mellon on December 26, 2012, 11:06:18 PM

Tim, you must have 20/10 vision to see anything in that dark clip.  How about this one, do you see it any better now?  You have an incredibly vivid imagination if you do.     

 
.                                             
 
Yes, I see it just as well, even on my tiny Blackberry screen.                           :)
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tim Mellon on December 26, 2012, 11:19:34 PM
 :)

I believe the attached image could possible show the right side of mono tail, If you study the pattern it is a possibility


.         
Can you include the time stamp please, Richie?       :)
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: william patterson on December 27, 2012, 05:59:26 AM
Hi All

I believe the attached image could possible show the right side of mono tail, If you study the pattern it is a possibility

Thanks Richie   

Photoshop or other image color manipulation, as well as cropping? Sure appears that way to me.
 
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tim Mellon on December 27, 2012, 08:12:18 AM
In the area of the loose bottles downhill a bit from the Navigator's station, lie what appear to be four more gunny sacks of what I assume must be various supplies, perhaps edible, perhaps spare parts for the aircraft. The Luke Field Inventory  (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Luke_Field.html)lists several bags and sacks. Also on the left below the bottom of the tailwheel appears to be a kit box of some sort: note the metal corners typical of small boxes of that era.
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tim Mellon on December 27, 2012, 09:27:22 AM
At time 13:37:09, frame 06, I think we can see straight aft into the nose compartment. Two of the three horizontal tubes and the gas bottle are shown clearly in the Harney drawings, as is the port landing light opening. The bottle I believe contained nitrogen for the struts. The two guages likely measure pressure and volume in the bottle. The three tubes I have no idea (maybe brake fluid?).
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: richie conroy on December 27, 2012, 11:31:17 AM
Hi Tim

Here is single frame with time stamp, of tail close up

I use http://www.serif.com/free-panoramic-photo-stitching-software/ to stitch images together simple to use

thanks richie
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Chris Johnson on December 27, 2012, 12:06:21 PM
See Doc's (Bob L's) photo below for two 'objects' that look less coral like than the other coral like objects  ;)
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tim Mellon on December 27, 2012, 12:16:03 PM
At time 13:37:09, frame 01, I think we can see straight aft into the nose compartment. The three horizontal tubes and the gas bottle are shown clearly in the Harney drawings, as is the port landing light opening. The bottle I believe contained nitrogen for the struts. The three tubes I have no idea (maybe brake fluid?).

Tim, this is what I get at 13:37:09:01 with the time stamp on it.  You ask richie to put a time stamp on his pics, yet you don't.  Can you re-edit your pic with the time stamp on it.  I just don't see what you see, if this is what you are referring to.

I put the time stamp in the reply itself, otherwise the forum won't accept a full-screen view. I have outlined the area of the nose compartment on your reply frame.
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tim Mellon on December 27, 2012, 12:40:25 PM
Here is single frame with time stamp, of tail close up


Richie, the first picture below is of your tail along with the wire loop.

In the last minute of the 8.55 minute 2010 ROV HD video, the ROV bumps against the loop (intentionally, in my opinion) and causes it to fly off away from the camera. It happens to land on the fuselage just behind what I believe is the open pilot's hatch to the cockpit. Through that hatch one can see the pilot's steering wheel (whitish), which measures no more than 15 inches in width (between the two red arrows), per the Harney drawings. So the loop diameter I estimate, by comparison, to be about 11 to 12 inches.

Therefore, comparing the loop to the tail in the first picture would lead one to conclude that the "tail"-like object is not nearly as large as an Electra rudder.
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tim Mellon on December 27, 2012, 12:51:29 PM
See Doc's (Bob L's) photo below for two 'objects' that look less coral like than the other coral like objects  ;)

I concur with the bottle and wire. There is also alot more stuff of non-coral character.
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tim Mellon on December 27, 2012, 01:45:33 PM
Those enamored of the Bevington Object may take some solace from the attached frame, which comes from the very up-hill-most part of the 2010 HD video. I don't know if the layout of the components of a second landing gear assembly as I see them bears any relationship to either the original or modified interpretations entertained by TIGHAR. The cylinder stretches out to the right from the Y-shaped support braces. I will note that the tire, although quite flat and shredded, appears to be the same pinkish color as the tire in the landing gear assembly identified further down-slope (second photo, at time 13:37:16, frame 06).

Question: if this is a second landing gear assembly, is it really possible that it could also be the Bevington Object? If so, it would mean that the aircraft first sank 800 feet to its present position and then, sometime later, the Bevington Object was washed off the reef and just happened to land on top of the previously deposited debris field. After thinking about this for a day, it seems to me that the probability would be reasonably good if the "arroyo" containing this debris field extended upward pretty much all the way to the edge of the reef.

EDIT: I have substituted a much better frame showing all the components (time 13:37:16, frame 15).


Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Dan Swift on December 27, 2012, 02:34:11 PM
Tim, you are right about "non-coral character" objects.  BUt the ones that stand out the most to me are the perfect right angle objects (top left) of Bob's picture.  That would have to be man made....or it would seem to me.     
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tim Mellon on December 27, 2012, 02:40:44 PM
Tim, you are right about "non-coral character" objects.  BUt the ones that stand out the most to me are the perfect right angle objects (top left) of Bob's picture.  That would have to be man made....or it would seem to me.   

Without question. Yet so many things aeronautical are rounded because they pass through the air more efficiently.
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tim Mellon on December 27, 2012, 05:27:58 PM
Tim, howsabout' a time stamp on the last two pics above.

Done. Thanks.
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tim Mellon on December 28, 2012, 07:56:06 AM
At the very beginning of the 8.55 minute HD video from 2010, I think I can discern a right shoe, just next to the HF antenna cable. There may be a sock stuffed in the top. Most of the bottom of the rear part of the shoe is encrusted in coral. But the toe shows it to be made of a light colored leather.

Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tim Mellon on December 28, 2012, 08:17:33 AM
Perhaps this shows the matching left shoe, just "uphill" from the right shoe. The antenna cable goes over the toe.
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tim Mellon on December 28, 2012, 10:44:34 AM
I can speculate about things down there too.  Landing gear and tire assy.  My gosh it must be Nessie!!

Perhaps, Bob.
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tim Mellon on December 28, 2012, 06:15:40 PM
Now here is the second landing gear (and perhaps the Bevington Object) as seen from up-hill in the 2012 HD video. Actually the strut is obscured, and only the tire and rim are showing. The other landing gear assembly further down-hill is indicated on the left.
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tim Mellon on December 28, 2012, 06:41:51 PM
Also way down-hill on the right (in the 2012 HD video) we find our old friend the squiggle, still sitting on the trailing edge of the right wing near the wingtip. No doubt now, in my mind, that all these duplicate finds between 2010 and 2012 mean that the Earhart Electra is at the spot identified as Location #1 in the Phoenix table in Bulletin #63.
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: John Balderston on December 28, 2012, 10:13:37 PM
Hi all, very glad to be home and have the opportunity to catch up on the forum.  Lots here to think about.

After reading the discussion on rope vs. antenna cable in both the 2010 and 2012 video threads, I wanted to provide some food for thought.  Immediately adjacent to the "end of the rope" there is what appears to be man-made debris that appears to resemble dorsal antenna rigging.  Images attached.
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tim Mellon on December 29, 2012, 06:05:57 PM
The 2010 HD video has been referred to as "Wire and Rope". The wire was a coil, about 300 degrees of a circle, that was perched on top of a pile of rubble found in 2010. The ROV, in the last minute of the 8.55 minute video, nudged this wire (on purpose, in my opinion) so that it flew off the debris pile and landed just behind the open pilot's hatch above the Electra cockpit.

The debris pile from whence came the wire is represented by the first photo. The second photo shows the same debris pile from up the hill in the 2012 HD video.


 
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: richie conroy on December 30, 2012, 08:55:19 AM
Hi All

Tim Have you took note of these objects ?

In box on left u can see top half of metal circular object possible joins 2 objects together

In box to right the object looks like a car dip stick for checking oil 

Thanks Richie
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tim Mellon on December 30, 2012, 11:01:16 AM
In box on left u can see top half of metal circular object possible joins 2 objects together

I think that is what is left of the battery terminal post.
Quote
In box to right the object looks like a car dip stick for checking oil 

The ring looks to be the base of one of the 9 cylinders, where it attaches to the cranckcase. The black line underneath I don't think is related, but just a separation between two other pieces of material.
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: richie conroy on December 30, 2012, 03:25:28 PM
Hi All

Thought i would post this

Coral shaped window

Also wondering what the black object is in the second image as it doesn't fit with it's surroundings

Thank's Richie
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: John Balderston on December 30, 2012, 07:56:55 PM
" . . . Coral shaped window . . . "

Hi Richie,

For your consideration, a comparison of 2010 ROV image of the area containing the "coral shaped window" vs. an image of L-10E NR16020 underside of inner wing during construction in Burbank, 1936.

FYI, it was  your observations of wreckage captured in snapshots "a13.jpg" and a15.png" in "Still from ROV Video" thread, post #1705, dated 11/13/12 (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,571.msg21529.html#msg21529) that got me scrutinizing this area. 

Cheers, John
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tim Mellon on January 01, 2013, 03:57:08 PM
With the benefit of the HD video in hand and a HD monitor, I have been able to identify what I think is a sewing kit next to the hand and fuel cap. There are two pairs of scissors, and one can actually see needles in the pin-cusion.

Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: John Balderston on January 01, 2013, 09:58:57 PM
". . . Also wondering what the black object is in the second image as it doesn't fit with it's surroundings. . . "

Hi Richie,

A thought on the second part of your post.  To me the black object looks like an old-school wiring harness bundle of discrete DC-voltage wiring - perhaps cockpit instrument wiring and such.  The bundled end (on the left) would be attached to the electrical load panel; the separated end (on the right) would be wires distributed to the individual pieces of equipment.  I've included a frame from just a bit later in the 2010 ROV footage.  Note that there is a major chunk of "snow covered" wreckage above the "black object" - many apparently man-made objects jumbled together.  I've looked at this for a long time and can't make sense of it.  Maybe a big piece of the wrecked forward or center fuselage that came to rest bottom side up??

Cheers, John
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: John Joseph Barrett on January 02, 2013, 05:07:47 AM
John,

What do you make of the box-like object at the left end? A junction box or load panel possibly?  LTM   -John
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: richie conroy on January 02, 2013, 11:06:54 AM
Hi John B

There is loads of man made objects down there, But due to poor image quality it makes our work harder to discern what is coral and what isn't

Aldo I am having sum luck with new poss wire/rope video 2012

Will try posting some more images later  :)
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: John Balderston on January 02, 2013, 03:53:25 PM
John,

What do you make of the box-like object at the left end? A junction box or load panel possibly?  LTM   -John

Hi John,

A truly insightful question - got me looking at the "black object" with a fresh set of eyes.  I'm now seeing this object as the filler neck for the #2 fuselage fuel tank.  Please see attached image comparison - with image contrast dialed up I believe we can also see the structure for the three fuel fillers aft of the #2 filler - plumbing is no longer attached.

Really interesting and pretty darned configuration-specific. 

Sincerely, John

p.s.  Here is a link to TIGHAR Earhart Project Research bulletin "The Fuel System of NR16020" (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/61_FuelSystem/61_FuelSystem.htm) for reference.
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tim Mellon on January 02, 2013, 06:08:45 PM
"Possibly" Amelia Earhart, a close-up from the 2010 HD video:
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: John Joseph Barrett on January 03, 2013, 05:09:17 AM
John,

It does look like it may be a fuel filler. Looking at it from that perspective and comparing the cabin photo you posted, it appears that the vent line may be visible just underneath the filler. There appears to be a line originating from what would be the tank end of the filler and extending toward the port end of the filler. Not perfectly formed as when installed, but connected nonetheless. Also, the shadowing running in a straight line from the area of the proposed filler and down to the right reminds me of the strips mounted across the tops of the tanks to support the platform allowing the crew to crawl back and forth over the tanks. This object, and the snow covered jumble nearby, may just be the cabin fuel tanks.  LTM- John
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tim Mellon on January 03, 2013, 06:45:13 AM
JB and JJB, good morning!

Is it possible that you have found all four aux fuel tanks? The first, with the intact fill pipe has been dragged down about 20 degrees by the weight of the attached fuselage section, while the other three (at the top of the attached frame, each arrow pointing at the neck) remain in line as indicated. I think that one of the three missing fill pipes is up the hill by one of the landing gears (see second shot).


Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tim Mellon on January 03, 2013, 06:14:07 PM
Further analysis of the 2010 HD video suggests the possibility of various items (including a Remington flare pistol, Item #23 on the Luke Field Inventory (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Luke_Field.html)) on or near the body of Fred Noonan, the Navigator. Additional items may become apparent to other eyes.
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: John Joseph Barrett on January 03, 2013, 07:36:33 PM
John,

I can't seem to get the picture to post here, but in the link you provided to the bulletin on the fuel system, there is a picture which shows the filler ports before the headliner was installed (left picture immediately under the full sized one of AE standing near the plane around July 1936 w/ports circled in white). In that picture you can clearly see a box-like structure at the outer end of the filler pipe alongside the fuselage wall. This looks very similar to the box on the end of the purported filler pipe in the dive video. between that and the two differing colors that appear to be rings around the object and are quite possibly the hose clamps/rubber fittings attracting different marine organisms, I would bet that the object is a fuel port, filler tube, and auxilary tank. If these were unique to the Electra, or at least not common to other aircraft, this might be an object worth recovering. LTM,   -John     Edit- apparently I DID get it to attach.   :)
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tim Mellon on January 03, 2013, 11:14:26 PM

Tim, who, where or when was it verified that the object you see is in fact Fred Noonan?  I think it presumptuous of you to continue your personal observation without verification or proof.  I believe the forum policy is that you provide that  unless this is just your CWAG.
.                         

Bob, my opinion is suggested by the word "suggests" in the post.

Happy New Year.

 :)
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: JNev on January 04, 2013, 05:06:06 AM
Not meaning to dampen the spirit in the least, but you folks do realize that for all these components you are 'finding' to be real Electra stuff the airframe would have to have been nearly completely disassembled and her various elements laid bare in 2D near-orthographic fashion along the bottom, don't you? 

How likely is that?  I've never seen a wreck in-situ like that, short of a deliberate hangar-floor reconstruction after the retrieval of widely scattered debris.

Many of the things mentioned also have substantial 3 dimensional bulk - how is it that we'd see so many representative features at essentially one level of 'dirt'?  If we see a filler neck for example, where is the balance of the tank?  Conveniently buried?  If so much bulk is buried, then how did so many other things come to rest in full view?

Think about it...
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tim Mellon on January 04, 2013, 06:37:27 AM
I've never seen a wreck in-situ like that, short of a deliberate hangar-floor reconstruction after the retrieval of widely scattered debris.


Jeff, here are three.
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tim Mellon on January 04, 2013, 07:46:24 AM
Jeff, the scenario that seems most likely to me is that the Electra was swept off the reef, essentially intact, by a large wave or swell. It floated out for a short while, pushed away from the shore by the easterly trade wind, as it gradually took on more and more water. Loosing bouancy, it began to sink almost vertically. Gaining vertical descent speed as more and more air was forced from any remaining pockets, the aircraft fell 985 feet (the depth shown on the 2010 SD video) and, intact until contact, hit the bottom. Then minimal displacement of objects took place, being that many components were tied together by control wires, HF antenna cable, conduits, fuel lines, electrical lines, and stringers.

But, of course, other scenarios may be possible. And if what appear to be two bodies are actually those of the crew, it begs the question of when and how they met their demise.
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tim Mellon on January 04, 2013, 07:56:57 AM
The more 'detail' I see suggested here the more questions arise in my mind, and I see more of a natural scattering of natural elements than anything else.

Of course, Jeff, if you are correct that these elements are all natural, then we need not worry about how they became distributed, as Nature did all that work.

Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tim Mellon on January 04, 2013, 08:54:11 AM
I've never seen a wreck in-situ like that, short of a deliberate hangar-floor reconstruction after the retrieval of widely scattered debris.


Jeff, here are three.

Tim, I don't see how you can compare a C-17A at 282,000 lbs empty weight and 585,000 lbs max weight to an Electra at 15,000 lbs. 

Only pointing out wrecks in situ, Bob.
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tim Mellon on January 04, 2013, 09:00:50 AM
Now for one of the most surprising discoveries (IMHO, Bob): two musical instruments, a violin lying on Amelia Earhart's shoulders, and a banjo sitting on Fred Noonan's left side. The banjo case is by Amelia Earhart's left arm. I don't see a violin case yet.

The second picture shows an entry from Wikipedia that documents Amelia Earhart's playing the banjo.

EDIT: The third picture shows both instruments and both cases.
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: william patterson on January 04, 2013, 09:45:48 AM
Now for one of the most surprising discoveries (IMHO, Bob): two musical instruments, a violin lying on Amelia Earhart's shoulders, and a banjo sitting on Fred Noonan's left side. The banjo case is by Amelia Earhart's left arm. I don't see a violin case yet.

The second picture shows an entry from Wikipedia that documents Amelia Earhart's playing the banjo.

So Earhart purged all extra weight at Lae, but kept some musical instruments?
Why exactly would these have been on board?
To play when bored perhaps?

 Then the "banjo case" survived decades underwater?
I keep waiting for you to say "just kidding folks, this is all a joke", but the punchline never comes....
I believe you are serious and that is just a bit disheartening.

If this is all the "evidence" of a man made aircraft debris field, it might be time to find another field.
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tim Mellon on January 04, 2013, 10:53:44 AM
william and Bob: you two are about the only people here with such constantly negative thoughts.

I don't plan to dignify any of these rants with further replies. Sorry to waste your valuable time.
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tim Mellon on January 04, 2013, 11:22:17 AM
To anyone who does not believe there is a banjo lying at 985 feet below sea level, please explain why (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1006.msg21689.html#msg21689).
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: John Balderston on January 04, 2013, 11:53:50 AM
Many of the things mentioned also have substantial 3 dimensional bulk - how is it that we'd see so many representative features at essentially one level of 'dirt'?  If we see a filler neck for example, where is the balance of the tank? 

Hi Jeff,

A little more help please.  In your opinion how much dimensionality should we be seeing from the aux fuel tank arrangement?  Should the internal baffles and braces maintain the integrity of these empty aux fuel tanks from surface battering of an indeterminate length down to a resting place at 300 meters?   On a related note, as we consider a potential NR16020 debris field, should we consider the postulate that a fuel tank was removed and used for water collection? 

Sincerely, John
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tim Mellon on January 04, 2013, 02:35:18 PM
The item in the first photo bears a striking resemblance (to me) to the Kodak Duo Six-20 camera referred to (Item #18) in the Luke Field Report (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1038.msg22860.html#msg22860) as shown in the second picture. A flash attachment sits just to the right of the camera. These appear in the 2010 High Definition video at time 13:37:22, frame 01.
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: JNev on January 04, 2013, 04:52:08 PM
Many of the things mentioned also have substantial 3 dimensional bulk - how is it that we'd see so many representative features at essentially one level of 'dirt'?  If we see a filler neck for example, where is the balance of the tank? 

Hi Jeff,

A little more help please.  In your opinion how much dimensionality should we be seeing from the aux fuel tank arrangement?  Should the internal baffles and braces maintain the integrity of these empty aux fuel tanks from surface battering of an indeterminate length down to a resting place at 300 meters?   On a related note, as we consider a potential NR16020 debris field, should we consider the postulate that a fuel tank was removed and used for water collection? 

Sincerely, John

John,

I doubt I can help because I don't know how to explain the absence of an article from an area where... I see no other articles suggesting it should be there.  But -

Consider that if you 'see' a 'filler neck' or a 'wing' that yes, in all likelihood a fuselage tank (odds are at least one of them...) ought to still have some apparent bulk: yes, I suspect the tank structure was durable enough to sustain that form in large degree.  Why would I assume it had been crumpled to pulp while these other 'things' survive, as some see them?. 

Should it be considered that a tank may have been removed for water collection?  I do not see why that should be speculated at all but YMMV, of course.  I personally doubt that a thirsty pair of castaways would even possess the means, strength or desire - non-starter for me: I think it is more plausible that more manageable devices would be more attractive for that purpose for two stranded humans.

Consider too that if all these 'things' being 'seen' are lying about - how, pray tell, did the entire ship become so incredibly demolished as to disgorge so many sundry parts and pieces - and yet deposit intact 'bodies' replete with personal artifacts and other stuff like a radio, etc. in such close proximity with each other? 

In short I believe this seafloor has been keenly viewed and laid bare here for quite a while now with zero hard evidence of any Electra or occupant remnants truly being revealed.  That's my not-so-helpful opinion, I guess - again, YMMV.

And again, I'm not trying to rain on anyone's parade - but I do think critical thought is in order: the Electra won't be found by creative theory about what apparently natural formations seem to suggest as to wreckage.
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tim Mellon on January 04, 2013, 05:28:40 PM
Yet a little harder to make out, but only feet away from the camera, are what I percieve to be the Bausch & Lomb binoculars, listed as Item #15 in the  Luke Field Report. (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Luke_Field.html) A photograph of the real McCoy follows the 2010 HD video shot below.
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Will Hatchell on January 04, 2013, 07:07:47 PM
Yet a little harder to make out, but only feet away from the camera, are what I percieve to be the Bausch & Lomb binoculars, listed as Item #15 in the  Luke Field Report. (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Luke_Field.html) A photograph of the real McCoy follows the 2010 HD video shot below.

Yes indeed, and even the strap is visible. Nice find, Tim!  ;)
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Alan Harris on January 04, 2013, 07:57:27 PM
william and Bob: you two are about the only people here with such constantly negative thoughts.

Before falsely assuming that Bob's and William's willingness to post means they are alone in their "negativity", a few quotes are worth considering:

Thomas Carlyle:  "Silence is more eloquent than words."

Euripides:  "Silence is true wisdom's best reply"

Che Guevera:  "Silence is argument carried out by other means."

Plutarch:  "Silence at the proper season is wisdom, and better than any speech."

Those people happen to be dead, but live forum readers who share their views may be legion.  I am one.
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Dan Kelly on January 04, 2013, 08:02:02 PM
Nice amusing imaginary stuff from Mr Mellon - I suspect that he has a sense of humour and is quietly taking the mickey. The alternative is just too dire to consider.

But I would like to ask a serious question. It is clear that there are no man made objects apart from that odd bit of rope or cable, which obviously comes from a snagged line of a fishing boat, in the video. So my question concerns the location of the island's rubbish dump - obviously there would be no place on shore for a dump, and the islanders would simply toss the non recyclable trash in the ocean so where is that located if there was a regular spot? I can see the possibility that this trash like the debris field from the Norwich City which, despite claims to the contrary, remains largely ill-defined can be confused with aircraft parts by over eager amateur observers.
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on January 04, 2013, 09:31:46 PM
... my question concerns the location of the island's rubbish dump - obviously there would be no place on shore for a dump, and the islanders would simply toss the non recyclable trash in the ocean so where is that located if there was a regular spot? ...

I asked Emily Sikuli (http://tighar.org/wiki/Emily) that question in 2003.

The question seemed almost unintelligible to her.  "Non-recyclable trash" seemed not to be part of her world.

It may be that she was too young to be aware of a regular spot for getting rid of garbage.  I wasn't able to cross-check her answer with any other former Niku residents.
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: John Kada on January 04, 2013, 10:34:37 PM
Message to Jeff. (Session timed out before I could post, so had to take a picture of the Preview). Reference is to a post by Ric (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1006.msg21689.html#msg21689).

Tim, in your post you say:

“Doesn’t it seem odd to you that there are objects common to both the 2010 and 2012 High Definition videos that have been ignored by Tighar? Doesn’t it seem odd to you that Ric would take the word of a K-O-K crew member as to the identity of the squiggle rather than promoting independent investigation of the subject matter? Since a year ago the Forum’s inquisitive nature about the contents of the Wire & Rope video have been “dampened” by this gratuitous conclusion.”

Why would Ric/Tighar ignore an obvious piece of Electra debris? The whole point of the Earhart project, after all, is to prove the Niku hypothesis.

Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tim Mellon on January 05, 2013, 04:08:38 AM

Why would Ric/Tighar ignore an obvious piece of Electra debris? The whole point of the Earhart project, after all, is to prove the Niku hypothesis.
.                                       

Good question.                                           

Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tim Mellon on January 05, 2013, 05:01:30 AM
It is clear that there are no man made objects apart from that odd bit of rope or cable, which obviously comes from a snagged line of a fishing boat, in the video.

I had been led to believe that Ric does not approve of such conclusionary statements without the offering of evidence, or some semblance of proof, or at the very least an expression of the author's belief.
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tim Mellon on January 05, 2013, 07:22:23 AM
Jeff, thank you for your very thoughtful, and as usual, well scripted reply.

No, I don't feel that camps are appropriate here, either, and I know everyone is making his own honest effort towards the same ultimate goal. Skepticism is essential in all such endeavors and your own trail of posts proves its efficacy in forcing eyes and minds to produce the very best possible answers.

I have tried here never to claim "proof" of anything, but only to bring out suggestions of what my own eyes see and how my own mind (for the purpose of discussion) sets thes various items in a logical context. But if my eyes "see" what looks to me like a banjo, and then I Google away and find (to my surprise) that Amelia Earhart played the banjo, which gives some credibility to the possibility that a banjo might be found in this context, then I don't feel that it is particularly useful for others to summarily dismiss the possibility just because Amelia Earhart was concerned about takeoff weight. More useful to the effort, in my opinion, would be to ask further why there might be a banjo there, and why would it be outside its case? I don't agree with Mr. Kelly, for instance, that "The alternative is just too dire to consider." Perhaps Mr. Kelly "can't handle the truth" as Jack Nickelson meant it, but I feel that we must let the questions lead us to further answers, not bury them to avoid difficult conclusions.

Let us all continue in good faith.
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: C.W. Herndon on January 05, 2013, 10:49:34 AM
BTW - I've found the need to overcome those occasional nasty 'time-out' message losses by simply copying my intended post before submitting it so that it is preserved for re-insertion on a new attempt.  That may help in case you encounter that jam again, but I could read your attachment fine, of course.

Just as a matter of information, I have discovered that when you get the "nasty 'time-out' message", if you return to the bottom of your message page and click on the "preview" button you  will, at least usually, get a "new time" while saving the already completed portion of your post.

Hope this helps.
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tim Mellon on January 05, 2013, 10:53:40 AM
Thank you Woody, I'll give that a try!
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: John Balderston on January 05, 2013, 05:25:10 PM
but I do think critical thought is in order: the Electra won't be found by creative theory about what apparently natural formations seem to suggest as to wreckage.

Thanks.
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: richie conroy on January 05, 2013, 07:28:33 PM
Hi Jeff Nevill

As far as am aware there is not another, Lets say situation were a search of a reef face for a lost plane has been conducted, of which results could be used to compare with what members of Tighar are trying to prove, We have nothing to go off as to scale, weather aluminum would still shine, steel cables corrode in this environment ?

I believe that what we are doing is the first of it's kind, An may well be used in future searches by other generations to come as an example

What i do believe though is that Tighar's speculation of what happened to plane when it went over edge is correct, that it got broken into piece's,

So until Tighar go back, Pick up one of the objects that are claimed to be there, We don't know who is right or wrong

And i will gladly hold my hand up an say i was wrong if that is proved the case.

However i Believe that ain't going to happen

Thanks Richie  ;)
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Dan Kelly on January 05, 2013, 08:06:38 PM
It is clear that there are no man made objects apart from that odd bit of rope or cable, which obviously comes from a snagged line of a fishing boat, in the video.

I had been led to believe that Ric does not approve of such conclusionary statements without the offering of evidence, or some semblance of proof, or at the very least an expression of the author's belief.

I don't know if you are aware of the conundrum Mr Mellon of trying to prove that something which isn't there isn't there. I said that apart from the rope/line/cable there are no other man made objects to be seen in the video. I'll stick with that assertion because I have identified the only man made object there - you have claimed that there are others.

I see your claims, like the bodies of Fred and Amelia, guitars, banjos, the whole string section of the Cleveland Orchestra, enough assorted airplane parts to build several Electras and a Hudson with the leftovers (alright I exaggerate) as simple whimsy  :) . But I am not condemning you at all in fact I rather enjoy your whimsical sense of fun as you happily claim to see things and watch as others agree with you. I presume at some time you must have had marketing and advertising experience because you sure do know how to play upon human psychology, so please keep finding these things. It is informative in the sense that it tells us what isn't there. So keep up the good work  :)
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tim Mellon on January 06, 2013, 02:57:27 AM
You might be right, Mr. Kelly.

But then again, so might I.

Let us agree to keep open minds.
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Dan Kelly on January 06, 2013, 04:48:19 AM
You might be right, Mr. Kelly.

But then again, so might I.

Let us agree to keep open minds.

Mr Mellon open minds are useful but in my case it isn't a question of being wrong - but I do enjoy your attempts to inject humour and an active imagination into the quest. The banjo was almost Seinfeldian in its conception. I'm surprised that so far you haven't spotted Amelia's copy of Murder on the Orient Express, now there was a complex piece of imagination - still keep looking I'm sure it's there.  :)
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tim Mellon on January 06, 2013, 05:53:59 AM
Just to humour you, Mr. Kelly, I think I have found Amelia Earhart's next-to-favorite bracelet in a bag of jewelry that lies close to the Kodak Duo Six-20 camera previously reported. A photograph of the same bracelet is shown for comparison. You will remember that her favorite good-luck bracelet is in a museum in Oklahoma City.
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: william patterson on January 06, 2013, 09:31:52 AM
You might be right, Mr. Kelly.

But then again, so might I.

Let us agree to keep open minds.

Ok we have open minds.
However, are we at the comedy zone now?
Is Mr.Kelly correct and this is nonsensical amusing(for a very few) coral gazing?

 I would like to ask Mr.Mellon some questions since he is the daily poster of coral gazing and has been identified as Tighar's chief sponsor for the last expedition.

1. Is he serious in his daily identification of keys, banjos, pin cushions, bones, belts, ect or is this
all a light hearted joke to amuse himself and a couple of others?
(BTW, Mr.Parks was correct, there are legion that think your posts are a joke and keep quiet. )
If you want to stick with the "we report, you decide" line, that is fine.
I have decided it's all ridiculous, and not sure why it continues.

2. Mr.Mellon responded to Mr. Kada implying a coverup by Tighar of 2010 findings, at least it sounded that way. Do you Mr.Mellon think Tighar has covered up or witheld any findings?
For what reason?

3. Mr.Mellon implied in another post that perhaps Jeff Glickman had a possible "CONFLICT OF INTEREST". This was the first I heard of any conflict of interest. Could he expound on that, and does he believe the photo analyst helping Ric and Tighar has a conflict of interest?
Where did that idea orginate for Mr.Mellon?
During his meetings with Mr.Glickman, were stills seen that showed a 2012 debris field and were individual items labeled by Mr.Glickman?
What is Mr.Mellon's impression of Glickman's 2012 work if that work was also reviewed?
Does Mr.Mellon still believe Mr.Glickman has some conflict of interest in the goal of Tighar to find AE?

4. What is Mr. mellon's 2013 goal in the investigation? As the Major sponsor of Tighar, will the sponsor continue to give daily updates of "coral gazing" finding more banjos, bracelets, furniture, bones, or is he taking serious steps such as the Red bull team has made recently in space exploration, to reach out and finance or underscore logisitics for another trip to Gardner?
Are there concerns or holds from accomplishing this in 2013 either with Tighar or privately without Tighar but in a quasi consultation role with Tighar?

Naturally while some find this daily video dissection amusing, others do not, and more importantly it accomplishes absolutely nothing in many minds. Therefore, as Bob Lanz asked earlier, do you Mr.Mellon plan on a trip to Niku soon to collect these amazing finds, or will you be limited in 2013 to daily postings of stills documenting your video dissection?
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tim Mellon on January 06, 2013, 10:39:39 AM
Respectfully, who cares, William? 

Exactly.
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Bob Lanz on January 06, 2013, 11:00:58 AM
william and Bob: you two are about the only people here with such constantly negative thoughts.

Before falsely assuming that Bob's and William's willingness to post means they are alone in their "negativity", a few quotes are worth considering:

Thomas Carlyle:  "Silence is more eloquent than words."

Euripides:  "Silence is true wisdom's best reply"

Che Guevera:  "Silence is argument carried out by other means."

Plutarch:  "Silence at the proper season is wisdom, and better than any speech."

Those people happen to be dead, but live forum readers who share their views may be legion.  I am one.

Depends on context, I believe.  In a place like this, silence is also highly subject to interpretation: it can also be construed as bearing witness, even affirmation.

There's nothing like a telegram for clarity, however.

Back to the topic:

The forum while often highly pedestrian is not beneath me after all - stop

I personally think we're seeing a pile of rocks rope or cable and shipboard gasket material - stop

I will do my best to be tolerant - end

(May be sung to the tune of "Amelia Earhart's Last Flight" as accompanied by the banjo)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0T6i_BWuWE

Or if you prefer a little harmony.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAdHkyST0-8

 ;) ;D
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: John Balderston on January 06, 2013, 01:25:23 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0T6i_BWuWE

Or if you prefer a little harmony.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAdHkyST0-8

 ;) ;D

Really like this, particularly Adcocks and Tom Gray - great bluegrass!  Thanks Doc Bob!
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tim Mellon on January 06, 2013, 01:36:41 PM
Is it a 5 string, or tenor, Tim?

L E F O D P C T

Oh, sorry Jeff N., that's the bottom line on the Snellen eye chart....

But while I was looking for the number of banjo strings, I discovered an additional instrument: a guitar lying upside down. Honestly.

Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Bob Lanz on January 06, 2013, 01:55:09 PM
You might be right, Mr. Kelly.

But then again, so might I.

Let us agree to keep open minds.

Mr Mellon open minds are useful but in my case it isn't a question of being wrong - but I do enjoy your attempts to inject humour and an active imagination into the quest. The banjo was almost Seinfeldian in its conception. I'm surprised that so far you haven't spotted Amelia's copy of Murder on the Orient Express, now there was a complex piece of imagination - still keep looking I'm sure it's there.  :)

It not somewhat Sigmoidoscopian, if motives must be pondered...  ;D

OH MY!! What a crappy thought!  ;D
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Ken Nielsen on January 06, 2013, 04:44:29 PM
...
The forum while often highly pedestrian is not beneath me after all - stop

I personally think we're seeing a pile of rocks rope or cable and shipboard gasket material - stop

I will do my best to be tolerant - end

(May be sung to the tune of "Amelia Earhart's Last Flight" as accompanied by the banjo)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0T6i_BWuWE

Or if you prefer a little harmony.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAdHkyST0-8

 ;) ;D

Great finds, Bob! 

I love the primitive banjo in the Ogg Creek version (my brother builds them as a hobby), and I always love Eddie and Martha Adcock (second link) - I've had the pleasure of seeing them live near here in Randy Wood's Pickin' Parlor.

My guess is Earhart would be pleased that she's still thought of.  Whether her banjo is down there or not (I have doubts...) I am reminded that we're searching for lost fellow human creatures and their story, and that it needn't be taken as a federal case.

Wow. Isn't it fascinating when you find that people in one area of interest to you share others with you as well? I'm very, very much into The Country Gentlemen and The Seldom Scene, and currently a little sad of hearing of the passing of Mike Auldridge a few days ago. Listening to the melancholic dobro of the live instrumental Lorena and other favourites will never be quite the same again.
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Bob Lanz on January 06, 2013, 05:03:18 PM
...
The forum while often highly pedestrian is not beneath me after all - stop

I personally think we're seeing a pile of rocks rope or cable and shipboard gasket material - stop

I will do my best to be tolerant - end

(May be sung to the tune of "Amelia Earhart's Last Flight" as accompanied by the banjo)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0T6i_BWuWE

Or if you prefer a little harmony.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAdHkyST0-8

 ;) ;D

Great finds, Bob! 

I love the primitive banjo in the Ogg Creek version (my brother builds them as a hobby), and I always love Eddie and Martha Adcock (second link) - I've had the pleasure of seeing them live near here in Randy Wood's Pickin' Parlor.

My guess is Earhart would be pleased that she's still thought of.  Whether her banjo is down there or not (I have doubts...) I am reminded that we're searching for lost fellow human creatures and their story, and that it needn't be taken as a federal case.

Wow. Isn't it fascinating when you find that people in one area of interest to you share others with you as well? I'm very, very much into The Country Gentlemen and The Seldom Scene, and currently a little sad of hearing of the passing of Mike Auldridge a few days ago. Listening to the melancholic dobro of the live instrumental Lorena and other favourites will never be quite the same again.

RIP Mike Auldridge

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEUQr8COakY
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tim Mellon on January 06, 2013, 07:02:27 PM
I realize this picture is confusing, but please bear with me: there are three instruments (banjo, violin, and guitar) and each has its own case. The neck of the guitar case is the only thing that looks like it has suffered damage. The extent of each instrument and case is marked by a pair of arrows, similar colors pertaining to each instrument.

This is not a joke. I didn't put these things there. I am only reporting what I can see. Please go to the indicated frame (13:36:58;07) for a clearer picture, as all these arrows are only meant as reference and they themselves obscure some of what is shown.
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tim Mellon on January 06, 2013, 11:09:36 PM
Of course, Jeff, I am willing to concede that those instruments might be a trompe l'oeil, or a clever hologram placed there by National Geographic....                                 

 :)
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: william patterson on January 06, 2013, 11:29:26 PM
You might be right, Mr. Kelly.

But then again, so might I.

Let us agree to keep open minds.

Ok we have open minds.
However, are we at the comedy zone now?
Is Mr.Kelly correct and this is nonsensical amusing(for a very few) coral gazing?

 I would like to ask Mr.Mellon some questions since he is the daily poster of coral gazing and has been identified as Tighar's chief sponsor for the last expedition.

1. Is he serious in his daily identification of keys, banjos, pin cushions, bones, belts, ect or is this
all a light hearted joke to amuse himself and a couple of others?
(BTW, Mr.Parks was correct, there are legion that think your posts are a joke and keep quiet. )
If you want to stick with the "we report, you decide" line, that is fine.
I have decided it's all ridiculous, and not sure why it continues.

2. Mr.Mellon responded to Mr. Kada implying a coverup by Tighar of 2010 findings, at least it sounded that way. Do you Mr.Mellon think Tighar has covered up or witheld any findings?
For what reason?

3. Mr.Mellon implied in another post that perhaps Jeff Glickman had a possible "CONFLICT OF INTEREST". This was the first I heard of any conflict of interest. Could he expound on that, and does he believe the photo analyst helping Ric and Tighar has a conflict of interest?
Where did that idea orginate for Mr.Mellon?
During his meetings with Mr.Glickman, were stills seen that showed a 2012 debris field and were individual items labeled by Mr.Glickman?
What is Mr.Mellon's impression of Glickman's 2012 work if that work was also reviewed?
Does Mr.Mellon still believe Mr.Glickman has some conflict of interest in the goal of Tighar to find AE?

4. What is Mr. mellon's 2013 goal in the investigation? As the Major sponsor of Tighar, will the sponsor continue to give daily updates of "coral gazing" finding more banjos, bracelets, furniture, bones, or is he taking serious steps such as the Red bull team has made recently in space exploration, to reach out and finance or underscore logisitics for another trip to Gardner?
Are there concerns or holds from accomplishing this in 2013 either with Tighar or privately without Tighar but in a quasi consultation role with Tighar?

Naturally while some find this daily video dissection amusing, others do not, and more importantly it accomplishes absolutely nothing in many minds. Therefore, as Bob Lanz asked earlier, do you Mr.Mellon plan on a trip to Niku soon to collect these amazing finds, or will you be limited in 2013 to daily postings of stills documenting your video dissection?

Respectfully, who cares, William?  Other than having been able and willing to be a generous donor, I fail to see that Tim has done anything different from what Richie or a few others (including myself at times) have done for a year or so. 

Just curious, but since you mentioned it - what 'legion'?  Interesting - if so, you've attracted a lot of company for someone who just registered on 11/29/2012 and has only 17 posts here.  Why don't they post, I wonder?  I don't see that. 

Since you've inquired of motives, I wonder what yours are?

Ah, off-topic... back to open-mindedness, supposed debris and... the banjo.  Is it a 5 string, or tenor, Tim?  I don't see it either, but hey - it's an open forum, praise be.

Respectfully Jeff, do you answer for Tim Mellon? Or do you answer for everyone?

I asked several questions of the major sponsor for the last expedition, and as the potential sponsor for  any upcoming expeditions, it is of interest if there will be more underwater adventures to perhaps really find a plane. Either with Tighar or without.
It's a legitimate question.
Also I had a question on his meeting with Glickman who we havent heard from.
I understand you have had an awakening of "who cares, life is fun", and enjoy talking about banjos and philosophy but that gets us no closer to the plane.

So will an expedition be led and funded by Mr.Mellon, who can solve this mystery fairly rapidly given the resources available, or is his contribution going to be exclusively confined to making a few Tighar forum readers laugh?
That is my agenda. The plane. What I thought Tighar was about, not finding non sensical musical instruments on old video.
Maybe Tim can answer for himself.
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: John Kada on January 07, 2013, 12:49:43 AM

Why would Ric/Tighar ignore an obvious piece of Electra debris? The whole point of the Earhart project, after all, is to prove the Niku hypothesis.
.                                       

Good question.                                           

Come now...

Good grief, Tim, surely if Ric could could prove the the Niku hypothesis he'd want to do so and move on to other profitable areas of aircraft recovery work that seem at the present time to be lesser priorities due to the effort going into the Earhart project.

Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tim Mellon on January 07, 2013, 04:35:29 AM
william patterson, I repeat (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1038.msg22863.html#msg22863)....
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tim Mellon on January 07, 2013, 04:49:44 AM
BTW, to whom it may concern, the rationale for now concentrating on cabin items such as bracelets is as follows:

(1) IMHO, most of the recognizable aircraft components have been identified, even if many are unable to see and identify them;

(2) Small items, such as octants and bracelets can be found in their entirety , having not been broken up in the fall;

(3) Small items can be measured and compared against actual photographs of the object, which is helpful to the forensic types;

(4) Small items, such as the Kodak camera, may have serial numbers (as does its lense) that can be compared to records;

(5) Small items in abundance, as they are seen distributed over the Navigator's station, provide insight into the motivations of the crew;

(6) Patterns of small items create their own aggregate probability of successful identification of the Earhart mission.

Not that I wouldn't like to find a complete engine, of course.


Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tom Swearengen on January 07, 2013, 07:04:51 AM
Hello all--
Yep Ive been absent for a bit. Gee---
Are we any closer to getting the evidence we need, or are we still looking around? I've noticed some posts of musical instruments. Not to question Tim, but I would think that AE might now bring something like that on the over the water leg. I dont know----see seemed to have made some other miscalculations, so I guess anything is possible.
So---where do we go from here?
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tim Mellon on January 07, 2013, 02:01:30 PM
I still believe the pictures are too obscure to tell natural from certain items of man at this point, IMO, but if a mission were formulated to go back, what breadth and depth of focus do you see as necessary?  A surgical focus in this area is high risk as I see it, for example, so do you see a need to keep the door open for another expanded search should these items prove 'natural' after all?

As you pointed out to "william" I have no position at TIGHAR, so I think any advice I might give would be gratuitous at best, and not based on all the information that is available to those who are officially engaged in the endeavor. That said, Jeff, I think my focus and yours might differ considerably so, luckily, you and I won't have to have a shoot-out with scissors-rock-paper! In any case, presuming there will be another mission might, at this stage, be slightly pre-mature. Much will certainly depend upon the considered studies and conclusions reached by Mr. Glickman, and how those, in turn, are packaged for "resale".

Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tim Mellon on January 07, 2013, 02:28:25 PM
Another small non-airplane item (undoubtedly without a serial number) that I was not able to fit into the picture of the instruments and cases: an old-fashioned fly-swatter that spans from the screen end sitting on the violin to the wire handle resting on the neck of the banjo. Just like the ones used to spank us in our youth. At first I was hoping this linear item would turn out to be the violin bow, but now I will have to search again.

I know, I know, all fly-swatters look just like camels, or coral.


Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Bob Lanz on January 07, 2013, 02:42:11 PM
Another small non-airplane item (undoubtedly without a serial number) that I was not able to fit into the picture of the instruments and cases: an old-fashioned fly-swatter that spans from the screen end sitting on the violin to the wire handle resting on the neck of the banjo. Just like the ones used to spank us in our youth. At first I was hoping this linear item would turn out to be the violin bow, but now I will have to search again.

I know, I know, all fly-swatters look just like camels, or coral.

Tim, you and I are the same age give or take a few months and I don't ever recall that I was ever spanked with a fly swatter.  Given that, I'd like to see a better pic of it.  Can you provide a time stamp for the Fly Swatter pic in the video?
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tim Mellon on January 07, 2013, 03:01:06 PM
I don't ever recall that I was ever spanked with a fly swatter. 

Can you provide a time stamp for the Fly Swatter pic in the video?

That's because you were such a good boy, Bob!

Time was 13:36:58, frame 09.
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: JNev on January 07, 2013, 04:04:48 PM
I still believe the pictures are too obscure to tell natural from certain items of man at this point, IMO, but if a mission were formulated to go back, what breadth and depth of focus do you see as necessary?  A surgical focus in this area is high risk as I see it, for example, so do you see a need to keep the door open for another expanded search should these items prove 'natural' after all?

As you pointed out to "william" I have no position at TIGHAR, so I think any advice I might give would be gratuitous at best, and not based on all the information that is available to those who are officially engaged in the endeavor. That said, Jeff, I think my focus and yours might differ considerably so, luckily, you and I won't have to have a shoot-out with scissors-rock-paper! In any case, presuming there will be another mission might, at this stage, be slightly pre-mature. Much will certainly depend upon the considered studies and conclusions reached by Mr. Glickman, and how those, in turn, are packaged for "resale".

Thanks Tim.  No, no shoot out is needed or wanted (I always lose at 'paper, rock, scissors' too...) - we share an interest in finding answers if we can, that's enough for me. 

Just wondering how you might view any further effort.  I guess it is fairly clear what I think would be needed, however impractical.  And I agree there are things going on in the background that might produce a smarter direction.

"Resale" is an interesting term...
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tim Mellon on January 07, 2013, 06:52:39 PM
At the top of frame 24, time 13:36:59 on the 2010 HD video, appears an object that looks to me awfully much like a Ballentine's Ale can. The three-ring logo is evident. Ale and beer were sold in cans starting in 1933. Camels don't drink ale that I know of.

Several rolls of toilet paper can be seen to the lower right.
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Chris Johnson on January 08, 2013, 01:12:58 AM
At least it seems that AE's undergarments remain hidden  ;)
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tim Mellon on January 08, 2013, 07:50:42 AM
In the 2010 HD video this morning I found what I think might be the upper portion of the second landing gear. It lies upside down ("V" brace pointing up) to the left and below the axle and deflated tire reported earlier. The first arrow points to the cross piece at the top of the "V"; the second to the cylinder, and the third to the axle and tire. Being in separate pieces like this is still not inconsistent with the configuration of the Bevington Object.

The second picture, taken from the 2012 Standard Definition video, shows the same parts (I think) somewhat the worse for wear, and more covered by the "snow".

Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tim Mellon on January 08, 2013, 08:24:56 AM
I am now thinking that the 2012 Standard Definition video shows more of the first landing gear assembly than at first apparent, namely the out-of-place worm gear lying at the bottom of the tire. The relative sizes of the wheel+tire and the worm gear compare favorably to those in the Harney diagrams.

The second picture shows the same 2012 view on the High Definition video. Fuzzier.

A small portion of the worm gear is also evident in the 2010 High Definition video (the remainder of the gear is obsucured by the tire due to camera angle). The third clip shows the teeth, the clamp holding the worm gear to the cylinder, and a portion of the displaced cylinder.

Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tim Mellon on January 08, 2013, 09:19:48 AM
"trompe l'oeil's"

I believe the plural is trompes d'oeil.

Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: JNev on January 08, 2013, 09:48:05 AM
Of course, Jeff, I am willing to concede that those instruments might be a trompe l'oeil, or a clever hologram placed there by National Geographic....                                 

 :)

Well, in my experience, mother nature is among the most clever of all illusionists - maybe if not deliberate, for no other reason than just because she has so much time, random forces and material on her hands.  And we, her step-children, have a long-imprinted view of patterns coupled with the sleek imaginations we were Graced with, all in SomeOne's great good humor...

I may be criticized for agreeing or disagreeing with this or that, or for being too light of heart about things (or harsh, at times), but I dare any to fault my finding the sheer joy in seeing a bunch of us 'kids' on a search such as this one.  So much to be discovered about so many things along the way for those who can appreciate a worthy distraction now and then.
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Bob Lanz on January 08, 2013, 10:12:19 AM
At least it seems that AE's undergarments remain hidden  ;)

We'd have it no other way for the lady, although by one account shared by Gary LaPook's sister at the symposium AE was anything but modest (and was reported to have resembled a "sack full of doorknobs" when stepping out of the shower...).

Oh my Jeff, now you have destroyed my image of that little cutie.  ;)
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Bob Lanz on January 08, 2013, 10:17:23 AM
"trompe l'oeil's"

I believe the plural is trompes d'oeil.

We're both wrong mon ami arche.  noun (plural trompe l'oeils pronunc. same )

Bad Bob, who was never spanked with a fly swatter.  ;)
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Bob Lanz on January 08, 2013, 10:45:46 AM
Of course, Jeff, I am willing to concede that those instruments might be a trompe l'oeil, or a clever hologram placed there by National Geographic....                                 

 :)

Well, in my experience, mother nature is among the most clever of all illusionists - maybe if not deliberate, for no other reason than just because she has so much time, random forces and material on her hands.  And we, her step-children, have a long-imprinted view of patterns coupled with the sleek imaginations we were Graced with, all in SomeOne's great good humor...

I may be criticized for agreeing or disagreeing with this or that, or for being too light of heart about things (or harsh, at times), but I dare any to fault my finding the sheer joy in seeing a bunch of us 'kids' on a search such as this one.  So much to be discovered about so many things along the way for those who can appreciate a worthy distraction now and then.

Ain't it the truth mein freund, and as you say, "It has to be fun or it isn't."
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tim Mellon on January 08, 2013, 11:16:31 AM
And here is a "randomly drawn" starboard rudder, all of the movable section and the bottom portion of the fixed section. It is distinguishable from the left rudder by the ground-adjustable trim tab, as opposed to the left rudder's movable trim tab. A section of the HF antenna trails off to the lower left. I have yet to discern any markings on the outer surface.
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: JNev on January 08, 2013, 01:20:30 PM
And here is a "randomly drawn" starboard rudder, all of the movable section and the bottom portion of the fixed section. It is distinguishable from the left rudder by the ground-adjustable trim tab, as opposed to the left rudder's movable trim tab. A section of the HF antenna trails off to the lower left. I have yet to discern any markings on the outer surface.

Scale check (dimensions, not fish...) - how big is that black 'squiggly' nearby?  If we can learn that then we might determine a reasonable size for the shape you've pointed out, Tim. 

The rudder and fin assemblies on an L10 were something close to 5 1/2 tall and 4 feet or so in cord I believe - big things, so that would have to be one big 'squiggly' (and rocks) to match up to that size, IMO.  Somehow I think we may be again looking at inches and not feet in that area, but if someone can help with some definitive scale to the contrary that would be great, of course.
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tim Mellon on January 08, 2013, 02:05:57 PM
Jeff, that shot (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1038.msg22996.html#msg22996) is from the tailwheel with the ferns on it (very foreground, inches from camera). The black strip (what I think you mean by "squiggly") is a void, not an object. The trim tab is, obviously, on the trailing edge of the rudder.

The rudder is sitting on top of a wing, very hard to see. Rudder and wing are yards away from camera. You Southern boys just aren't used to seeing things in the snow!

In the attached photo, the wing is outlined in green dots, the rudder in blue dots. The missing aileron slot is shown in red. The inner part of the wing and the engine mount identified by John Balderston are just out of the picture to the upper left.


Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: JNev on January 08, 2013, 04:12:40 PM
Jeff, that shot (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1038.msg22996.html#msg22996) is from the tailwheel with the ferns on it (very foreground, inches from camera). The black strip (what I think you mean by "squiggly") is a void, not an object.

Well, the squiggly doesn't look like a 'void', it has distinct characteristics like a physical object would have - varigated shades of black/dark grey, as if twisted and reflecting the light differently in different places; it appears hidden behind the 'tailwheel fern' (or whatever the 'gold stuff' is) in this, your second picture (different frame from first, of course).  I still think it may be a squiggly.

Quote
The trim tab is, obviously, on the trailing edge of the rudder.

I'm not disputing the shape that you see.

Quote
The rudder is sitting on top of a wing, very hard to see. Rudder and wing are yards away from camera.

Again, not disputing the shapes that you see, although YMMV compared to mine on that.

Quote
You Southern boys just aren't used to seeing things in the snow!

You are correct.  Many of us are, however, fairly sure-footed in a barnyard...

Quote
In the attached photo, the wing is outlined in green dots, the rudder in blue dots. The missing aileron slot is shown in red. The inner part of the wing and the engine mount identified by John Balderston are just out of the picture to the upper left.

All of which assumes you are really looking at such relative objects, and discounts any objective measure of scale - which is what I think would be required to give some traction to your 'theory of relativity' to these various things which are all so neatly stacked...

Which raises an old point of mine - "how could such a variety of articles - a wing, a fin and rudder and tab(s) all lie so flat / in 2-dimensional presentaion and also not have one little hint of some detail in the clear for us to see?"

I'll add another prospect to that -

Airplanes don't break-up very neatly as a rule - if we're looking at the parts you describe, all shorn away from their constituant main assemblage during some catastrophic blow or blows, why no rent edges stickin up here and there, or buckling and creasing causing a vally or ridge of metal here or there? 

Wings have thickness in camber, tail feathers as well to some degree (and not an insignificant degree on an L10); that suggests we should at least see a mild hump suggesting camber, and if such surfaces are subjected to break-up loads, significant buckling is typical.

I'm not saying you are wrong, Tim, just explaining my skepticism and trying to share what I think is a necessarily critical process of review.  I don't think it is negative, just critical because of my own experiences and understandings.  At the base of all my concerns I believe really is 'scale' - without an objective, clear means of scaling these things we don't know if they are even in the ball park: if looking at 'inches' and not 'feet', this 'sighting' is a non-starter.

That's all I can offer here.  Until at least some real scale can be favorably applied, IMO there is nothing to see in this 'pile' except rocks, squigglies, rope (or cable), coral and sediment.  Show that these 'things' are truly the 'right size' objectively AND in relation to each other, and then you MAY have a way to make a persuasive case about the relevant shapes... but I'd also be digging for 3-dimensional evidence - L10's are well-rounded for the most part.

Wish I could offer more, I'd love to find that bird too.
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tim Mellon on January 08, 2013, 05:44:34 PM
why no rent edges stickin up here and there, or buckling and creasing causing a vally or ridge of metal here or there? 


One point per reply, since I don't yet know how to capture multiple quotes in one reply.

Here's an entire bulkhead (aft of the toilet compartment) sticking up. Vent on top.

Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Bob Lanz on January 08, 2013, 06:11:24 PM
why no rent edges stickin up here and there, or buckling and creasing causing a vally or ridge of metal here or there?

One point per reply, since I don't yet know how to capture multiple quotes in one reply.

Tim, below the Post Reply box you will see the comment you want to reply to.  Copy and paste the item you wish to quote and then use the yellow Quote button and paste it there.  You can do this over and over, like this.  You can then make your reply comment after each quote.  Make sure you paste what you want to quote between the left and right brackets in the middle.  Hope this helps.

Bob

Example:
Quote
All of which assumes you are really looking at such relative objects, and discounts any objective measure of scale - which is what I think would be required to give some traction to your 'theory of relativity' to these various things which are all so neatly stacked...

Example:

Quote
Which raises an old point of mine - "how could such a variety of articles - a wing, a fin and rudder and tab(s) all lie so flat / in 2-dimensional presentaion and also not have one little hint of some detail in the clear for us to see?"

Example:

Quote
Airplanes don't break-up very neatly as a rule - if we're looking at the parts you describe, all shorn away from their constituant main assemblage during some catastrophic blow or blows, why no rent edges stickin up here and there, or buckling and creasing causing a vally or ridge of metal here or there? 
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tim Mellon on January 08, 2013, 06:13:11 PM
Wings have thickness in camber, tail feathers as well to some degree (and not an insignificant degree on an L10); that suggests we should at least see a mild hump suggesting camber, and if such surfaces are subjected to break-up loads, significant buckling is typical.


An example of wing-shaped object.

I don't think the muses had us in mind when they scattered these parts on the landscape. If most appear largely flat, that is because essentially they are fairly flat. Especially when covered with a snowy substance that removes all reflectivity.

Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tim Mellon on January 08, 2013, 06:23:27 PM
Well, the squiggly doesn't look like a 'void', it has distinct characteristics like a physical object would have - varigated shades of black/dark grey, as if twisted and reflecting the light differently in different places;

I see no variegated shades - all BLACK. Two overlapping sheets of metal forming a strip of black between them. YMMV.
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tim Mellon on January 08, 2013, 06:40:09 PM
all shorn away from their constituant main assemblage during some catastrophic blow or blows,

Jeff, this is merely your imagination of how things might have happened. I described an alternate scenario some time ago, but it never got a response.

Additionally, it is possible that the aircraft drifted to the bottom almost totally intact, and then over the years began to fall apart casting various pieces such as wings and landing gears to the side. This might explain why the contents of the cabin seem to have remained largely in coherence.
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tim Mellon on January 08, 2013, 06:47:00 PM
Tim, below the Post Reply box you will see the comment you want to reply to.  Copy and paste the item you wish to quote and then use the yellow Quote button and paste it there.  You can do this over and over, like this.  You can then make your reply comment after each quote.  Make sure you paste what you want to quote between the left and right brackets in the middle.  Hope this helps.

Bob


Like here? Copy and paste the item you wish to quote and then use the yellow Quote button and paste it there.

And here? Copy and paste the item you wish to quote and then use the yellow Quote button and paste it there.

Or in a quote?
Quote
Copy and paste the item you wish to quote and then use the yellow Quote button and paste it there.

Thanks, Bob.
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tim Mellon on January 08, 2013, 06:53:11 PM
Not to belabor the scale issue, but I rather thought the Ballentine's Ale can was a pretty darned good measuring stick. They do sell beer and ale in cans in Savannah, don't they?

Actually, in the lower-right corner of the clip one can also see, I believe, several rolls of toilet paper. Wouldn't you agree with me that the inner cardboard roll is usually about 1.5" diameter?



Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tim Mellon on January 08, 2013, 07:04:52 PM
which is what I think would be required to give some traction to your 'theory of relativity' to these various things which are all so neatly stacked...


Jeff, if you walked into a house of ill repute, would you expect to find a Lady? Or a landing gear? Or a neatly stacked ton of hay?

So when you walk onto a basketball-court-sized area filled with Electra parts, how can you use anything but Electra parts for scale?
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tom Swearengen on January 09, 2013, 05:16:23 AM
This has been fun to watch! WE can see all the stuff that our mind wants to see. But----are we any closer to finding the answers, and how would YOU guys suggest we do that? Now, now, dont say $$$, because we already know that. I meant the technical stuff!!
Tom
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tim Mellon on January 09, 2013, 06:21:14 AM
I believe that the two attached pictures both show the rudder-wing sandwich:

The first, from the 2010 HD video, points inboard from above and beyond the wingtip.

The second, from the 2012 SD video, points outward toward the wingtip and shows both the bottom of the rudder hinge and the space from which the aileron has disappeared.
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tim Mellon on January 09, 2013, 07:34:46 AM
And now, TOILET PAPER???  Gee whiz, even the old Soviet Union TP would dissolve down there after a month or so, roll, wrapper and all...  :P


Yes, Jeff, toilet paper (encased in celophane or the like); I've outlined a roll for you.

All of a sudden we all seem to be experts in underwater chemistry, 985 below sea level, near 12 decrees centigrade, 452 psi pressure. Are you sure you are not making a conclusion lacking the specific scientific knowledge?
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tim Mellon on January 09, 2013, 07:44:18 AM
I am quite sure I'm making a sound judgment based on direct observation

Well, that makes two of us.
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Alan Harris on January 09, 2013, 11:08:31 AM
. . . I cannot say it's not amusing to watch someone have $1.2M worth of fun!!!

I can say that: it's not amusing at all.  Of course all our mileages may vary.
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tim Mellon on January 09, 2013, 03:03:18 PM
unless of course "skid sheets" in those days were hermetically sealed in non biodegradable plastic.  Oh, and BTW Tim, "cellophane" is 100% biodegradable.

As you must know, Bob, cellophane is both waterproof and impermeable to microorganisms (http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/57853/36211730.pdf?sequence=1). Biodegradation, of course, requires the presence of microorganisms (see definition below), and probably some amount of oxygen. Both of these may be insufficient at 985 feet to do such rapid damage to cellophane. BTW, it appears to me that many of the "cellophane" packs have been heat-sealed. You may not be able to see such fine details unless you are able to take advantage of the 960x540 high definition version of the video.

Of course, maybe these bags were made of something even more durable that cellophane. We really don't know, do we?


Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Dan Kelly on January 09, 2013, 04:34:13 PM
Well Mr Mellon, after reading the last few pages of absolutely hysterical posts  ;D , I am more than ever than ever convinced that you like some others are quite doubtful of the reef theory and the aircraft parts and have simply been having a lot of fun with the many shapes that coral can assume. So it is good to see some fun and sense injected into these discussions. Toilet rolls, banjos etc. - all just show how simple it is to see shapes in coral lumps. :)   
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tim Mellon on January 09, 2013, 05:04:57 PM
you like some others are quite doubtful of the reef theory and the aircraft parts

Practically all the aircraft parts are at Phoenix Site #1, IMHO.

Quote
So it is good to see some fun and sense injected into these discussions.

Keep drinking the Kool-Aid, Mr. Kelly.
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tim Mellon on January 09, 2013, 06:34:51 PM
Nonetheless, Bob, the bags are still there. BTW, the last time I looked, coral was not highly mobile.
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Ric Gillespie on January 09, 2013, 07:30:55 PM
I've removed a couple of posts that lacked civility. 
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Dan Kelly on January 09, 2013, 07:40:21 PM
Nonetheless, Bob, the bags are still there. BTW, the last time I looked, coral was not highly mobile.

Nice lump of pink rock Mr Mellon - cellophane bags? Had a real good chuckle at that.  ;D
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Ric Gillespie on January 09, 2013, 08:36:01 PM
I'm not going to argue about what is and isn't uncivil.  No one is privileged.  If you guys can't disagree without insulting each other I'll simply lock the topic.
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Dan Kelly on January 09, 2013, 11:04:56 PM
I'm not going to argue about what is and isn't uncivil.  No one is privileged.  If you guys can't disagree without insulting each other I'll simply lock the topic.

Mr Gillespie I am very much concerned that what seems to have been a reasonably intelligent place for discussion of the Earhart mystery has over the last few months become dominated by various long threads in which there seems to be no content except some people competing to tell us what strange objects they can see in the coral lumps. In the past there were people contributing to this forum with clear expertise in a number of fields like navigation, flying, radio propagation, archaeology and a range of things. Now many of these people seem to have deserted the forum and everything is now dominated by these strange claims about there being imaginary toilet rolls, preserved bodies, bits of aeroplanes, banjos etc. Is this what this forum should be? - a place for nonsense. My view is that it should be a place where people like those who now no longer participate can discuss the evidence and comment while offering real insights based on their training and experience rather than bizarre guesses offered by people who seem to have lost touch with reality.
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Chris Johnson on January 10, 2013, 01:26:40 AM
OK in the 30's DID they wrap toulet roles in cellophane or paper wrappings?

As a young boy in the 70's in the UK I remember most 'loo' roles being packaged in paper/grease paper.  Only later did they come wrapped in plastic type film.

Beer Can - Is it empty or full?
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tim Mellon on January 10, 2013, 04:58:37 AM
Chris, there appear to me to be 3 rolls packed together along with some other smaller items in one cellophane supply pack.

Likewise, the beer can is not alone but packed with one or more like items in another package, so I reason the can is still full. The ale may be flat by now, though....


 :)
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tim Mellon on January 10, 2013, 06:12:58 AM
My view is that it should be a place where people like those who now no longer participate can discuss the evidence and comment while offering real insights based on their training and experience rather than bizarre guesses offered by people who seem to have lost touch with reality.

Please start a new thread, Mr. Kelly. Please offer us some real insights. Those of us who are trying to establish evidence of an Electra sinking off the shores of Nikumaroro can labor on in parallel. Your insights might very well help us in our efforts.
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Ric Gillespie on January 10, 2013, 08:19:07 AM
Mr Gillespie I am very much concerned that what seems to have been a reasonably intelligent place for discussion of the Earhart mystery has over the last few months become dominated by various long threads in which there seems to be no content except some people competing to tell us what strange objects they can see in the coral lumps.

Mr. Kelly, there is no requirement to read or worry about the various reef threads.  This forum has frequently wandered off into discussions which some have considered absurd.  Marty and I will come down hard on invalid methodology and misrepresentation of documented fact, but we try very hard not to squash the expression of opinion.  We respect the forum readers' and contributors' ability to make their own judgements about the validity of the opinions expressed.

I do share your concern that discussions of shapes seen in underwater video have come to dominate the forum.  Such discussions have value but there are many more of aspects of this immense project that need attention.  I'll open up a few new topics that I hope you and others will find worthy of attention.
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tim Mellon on January 10, 2013, 10:01:07 AM
At frame 15, time 13:37:08 on the 2010 High Definition video, near the top of the view, I believe we are looking at the Grayce lubricating gun (P-600) listed as item #41 in the Luke Field Inventory (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Luke_Field.html).
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tim Mellon on January 10, 2013, 01:38:37 PM
The elevator has been the most elusive control surface: I think the pattern of holes in the lifting center section, which only moved when the elevators go up, and is outlined by the red lines, is what makes the identification possible. This detail is shown clearly in the Harney diagrams. The black rubber gravel guard is also visible on the leading edge (right side). The entire elevator is outlined in small green dots. Both left and right moving sections seem to be askew and torn away from the fixed section. From the 2010 High Definition video.
 
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tim Mellon on January 10, 2013, 02:35:09 PM
Here is a (crude, I'm afraid) diagram of how the various Electra components are arranged over the landscape, as I have been able to interpret the scene. Top to bottom - Uphill to downhill - East to West.
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Will Hatchell on January 10, 2013, 04:21:06 PM
Here is a (crude, I'm afraid) diagram of how the various Electra components are arranged over the landscape, as I have been able to interpret the scene. Top to bottom - Uphill to downhill - East to West.
Tim, this is a most instructive contribution you've provided, and I realize it represents a lot of time, study and organization to place these items into perspective. You may agree that some of the items appear to demonstrate a very rough spacial relationship, for example, the battery and hd radio, while others are chaotic, as to be expected given the likely scenario of just how the Electra broke apart and slide or tumbled down the reef slope. Although I can add very little to the understanding of the debris, I will ask a question of you: based on your obvious rather intensive study of the debris field and on this schematic, can you further enlighten us on what the topography is like immediately beneath and around the various components shown here? In other words, are we looking at some kind of catchment basin, submarine canyon or gully, or at any topographic constraints which might explain how the debris came to rest as shown? Thanks again for all your hard work and invaluable reporting to the forum!
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Dan Kelly on January 10, 2013, 04:33:26 PM


I also want to thank Tim - we don't have to agree on his ideas for me to be grateful that he had a great deal to do with us even having much of this footage to study.  I might move on to other things, but I am choosing to not be offended by his own explorations or activities either. 

Just my thoughts, others' MMV, of course.

With due respect Mr Nevill, I see no reason to thank Mr Mellon for his "observations" which at best can only be described as mischievous and at worse simply disruptive. I made my point plain in my post and he still continues to post his imaginary objects. This simply has added more dross to what was a very unhelpful and unproductive line of discussion to begin with.

TIGHAR's project is foundering in this silliness - where on the other hand your suggestion regarding more detailed investigation of the village site, in another thread, offers an intelligent approach to the quest. It is significant that the acknowledged TIGHAR visual image analysis expert Mr Glickman has said nothing about the veracity of these imaginary objects and I for one find his attitude more indicative of their reality than any other statements. I might also add that your post drawing attention to Dr King's paper offers a far productive line of discussion than unsupported claims regarding immersed banjos, toilet rolls and miraculously preserved bodies and I am sure many people thank you for that.  :)     
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Dan Kelly on January 10, 2013, 04:36:42 PM

I do share your concern that discussions of shapes seen in underwater video have come to dominate the forum.  Such discussions have value but there are many more of aspects of this immense project that need attention.  I'll open up a few new topics that I hope you and others will find worthy of attention.

Thank you Mr Gillespie for your reply - your promise to create some new threads which address more logical and productive lines of discussion is appreciated.
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tim Mellon on January 10, 2013, 04:46:27 PM
based on your obvious rather intensive study of the debris field and on this schematic, can you further enlighten us on what the topography is like immediately beneath and around the various components shown here? In other words, are we looking at some kind of catchment basin, submarine canyon or gully, or at any topographic constraints which might explain how the debris came to rest as shown?

Thanks, Hatch. From the limited perspectives offered by the various videos, 2010 and 2012, it appears to me that the wreckage lies in a fairly confined and quite steep gulch, with rises on both  sides, and perhaps a slight decrease in the degree of slope at the impact point. Again, whatever parts did not fall farther downhill I attribute to the fact that an aircraft is tied together by many cables, wires, hoses, conduits and the like. It seems to me that the aircraft might have remained essentially totally intact until it reached the bottom, rather than crumbling on a bouncy trip down the cliff. Perhaps the gulch was so narrow that the wings caught on each side to bring the plane to a halt. But these are purely my own subjective interpretations. YMMV.
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tim Mellon on January 10, 2013, 04:49:59 PM
I made my point plain in my post and he still continues to post his imaginary objects.     

With all due respect, Mr. Kelly, I am not likely to consider you my boss.
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tim Mellon on January 10, 2013, 05:42:48 PM
This thread started with a summary of the debris found in the debris field viewed in the 2010 High Definition video. It is updated here (through January 11, 2013) for the benefit of those who have joined the Forum more recently and were not aware of its existence.


Through the open pilot's hatch that I identified in Reply #35 to the "Landing near the Norwich" thread, I think I am able to identify the following instruments (see time 13:41:53, frame 12 of the subject video, upper righthand quadrant):

Eyebrow Panel -

   #9 Direction finding control apparatus (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1006.msg21971.html#msg21971) (the reference number is to the Harney drawings)

   #4 Left and right thermocouple switches

 Main Panel -

   #4 Left and right manifold pressure guages (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1006.msg21317.html#msg21317)

   #5 Left tachometer (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1006.msg21319.html#msg21319)

   #11 Bank and turn indicator

   #12 Rate of climb

   #26 Autopilot RUD and AIL adjustment knobs (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1006.msg21314.html#msg21314)

   #26 Autopilot directional gyro (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1006.msg21314.html#msg21314)

   #16 Wing tanks fuel guage (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1006.msg21313.html#msg21313)

   #25 Selector switch for wing tank guage (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1006.msg21312.html#msg21312)

   #18 Sensitive altimeter (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1006.msg21310.html#msg21310)

Knee panel -

    Ignition switches

    4 slots, 2 each for Throttle and Mixture levers, partially obscured by pilot's wheel

    Pilot's wheel (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1006.msg21322.html#msg21322) is seen now to be in the neutral position, not turned 80 degrees to the right, as I thought several days ago.

    Western Electric 27A Remote main dial with
 
    FREQ knob (lower left) and AUDIO GAIN knob (lower right) (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1006.msg21320.html#msg21320)

    2 of 5 toggle switches (REC/OFF and DAY/NITE)

    Co-pilot's wheel (not the Western Electric 9A Remote (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1038.msg22711.html#msg22711), as I originally thought, which was later found elsewhere)

    Pilot's seat cushion (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1006.msg21321.html#msg21321), which appears to have the standard "cut-out" in the middle of the forward edge (not shown in Harney drawing)

Aircraft exterior -

    The rectangular cover to the fueling port (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1006.msg21771.html#msg21771) for the left forward cabin fuel tank can also be seen (faintly) aft of the rear edge of the open pilot's hatch.


I think the time has come to summarize the components that can be seen in the High Definition video from 2010. Starting with the various items in the cockpit (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1006.msg21328.html#msg21328), which I have included above by Quote from Reply #54, I can see:

 1. Top of right wing, with the numerals "0" and "2" (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,571.msg20689.html#msg20689),

 2. Wingtip of right wing, with position light (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1006.msg21497.html#msg21497),

 3. Underside of left wing without aileron and right rudder (revised) 2010 (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1038.msg22998.html#msg22998), and 2012 (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1038.msg23011.html#msg23011)

 4. Bottom of the star in the Lockheed logo from the outside of the right rudder Withdrawn: both rudders are elsewhere. (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1006.msg21528.html#msg21528)

 5. Possible headset and wire seen as the "squiggle",

 6. HF antenna cable and insolators, 2010 and 2012 (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1048.msg22680.html#msg22680)

 7. Engine and propeller (John Balderston) (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,571.msg18667.html#msg18667),

 8. Tailwheel and tailcone (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1006.msg21546.html#msg21546),

 9. Battery (probably auxiliary), 2010 and 2012 (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1038.msg22460.html#msg22460),

10. Top of fuel tank with filler pipe from port in side of fuselage (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1006.msg21749.html#msg21749),

11. Landing gear assembly with upside-down fender in 2010 and 2012 (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1038.msg22477.html#msg22477),

12. Numerous pieces of sheet metal evidencing man-made characteristics, such as straight edges, 90 degree corners, round holes, etc. (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1006.msg21671.html#msg21671)

13. Co-pilot's windows (https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1038.msg22070.html#msg22070)

14. HF transmitter, tubes showing in 2010 (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1038.msg22648.html#msg22648) and also in 2012 (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1048.msg22679.html#msg22679)

15. Fuselage fuel tank selector (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1006.msg21971.html#msg21971)

16.  Toilet compartment, with dorsal vent (not a "position light") in 2010 (https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1038.msg22093.html#msg22093) and again in 2012 (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1048.msg22582.html#msg22582)

17. Pelorus and Navigator's desk in 2010 (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1038.msg22219.html#msg22219) and in 2012 (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1038.msg23112.html#msg23112)

18. A-7 Octant in 2010  (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1038.msg22222.html#msg22222)and in 2012 (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1038.msg23112.html#msg23112)

19. Fred Noonan, Navigator (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1038.msg22229.html#msg22229)

20. The Pilot (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1038.msg22269.html#msg22269)

21. Sextant and triangle (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1038.msg22296.html#msg22296)

22. Fuselage fuel tank (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1048.msg22377.html#msg22377)

23. Severed hand (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1038.msg22416.html#msg22416)

24. Key (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1038.msg22437.html#msg22437)

25. Left rudder as seen in 2010 (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1048.msg22584.html#msg22584) and again in 2012 (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1048.msg22584.html#msg22584)

26. Banjo with case, violin with case, and guitar (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1038.msg22860.html#msg22860)

27. Five sacks of spare parts and bottles (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1038.msg22738.html#msg22738)

28. Nose compartment (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1038.msg22739.html#msg22739)

29. Second landing gear assembly, possibly the Bevington Object, as seen in 2010 (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1038.msg22746.html#msg22746) and  in 2012 (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1038.msg23122.html#msg23122)

30. Left shoe  (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1038.msg22758.html#msg22758)and right shoe (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1038.msg22757.html#msg22757)

31. Spare tail wheel and tire (2012 only) (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1048.msg22778.html#msg22778)

32. Kodak Duo Six-20 camera, with flash attachment in 2010 (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1038.msg22870.html#msg22870) and flash attachment only in 2012 (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1038.msg23114.html#msg23114)

33. Bausch & Lomb Field Glasses in 2010 (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1038.msg22873.html#msg22873) and in 2012 (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1038.msg23114.html#msg23114)

34. Bracelet with ridged panels (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1038.msg22928.html#msg22928)

35. Fly swatter (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1038.msg22969.html#msg22969)

36. Ballentine's Ale can and toilet paper rolls (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1038.msg22978.html#msg22978)

37. Right rudder, including ground-adjustable trim tab (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1038.msg22996.html#msg22996)

38. Grayce lubricating gun (P-600) (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1038.msg23078.html#msg23078)

39. Elevator, including center lifting section (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1038.msg23080.html#msg23080)

No doubt, there will be more to follow.

Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Dan Kelly on January 10, 2013, 07:21:27 PM
I made my point plain in my post and he still continues to post his imaginary objects.     

With all due respect, Mr. Kelly, I am not likely to consider you my boss.

Then to reiterate your view you reposted what you imagine you saw back at the beginning of November - is that some sort of circular reasoning that adds veracity to what you claim to see?. There are far better things to do than to discuss your overactive imagination Mr Mellon. Banjos, miraculously preserved bodies, toilet rolls don't really add any credibility to TIGHAR's quest.
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Ric Gillespie on January 10, 2013, 07:36:26 PM
Banjos, miraculously preserved bodies, toilet rolls don't really add any credibility to TIGHAR's quest.

Does the credibility of TIGHAR's quest hinge on the opinions of the people who post to this forum?   I would hope that the credibility of TIGHAR's quest might be judged by the quality of the TIGHAR's research.
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Dan Kelly on January 10, 2013, 09:31:45 PM
Banjos, miraculously preserved bodies, toilet rolls don't really add any credibility to TIGHAR's quest.

Does the credibility of TIGHAR's quest hinge on the opinions of the people who post to this forum?   I would hope that the credibility of TIGHAR's quest might be judged by the quality of the TIGHAR's research.

In a way it does Mr Gillespie because many who might want to donate or help would probably do a bit of background research on the internet first and this site and its forum would pop up. What they would see is that a spirited and informed discussion of many issues and ideas has now simply become a long series of claims based on images posted with no scale, and worst still only the claims of the poster as to what they are. If even only one image was clearly an engine or an engine part, or an airframe part then that would be helpful but when these curious newcomers see claims for banjos, bodies, toilet rolls etc, in conditions where survival of organic material of that kind over the period of time required defies common sense then I know it would put me off. The background material on Earhart and the various reports by TIGHAR are the valuable things but posts that claim that banjos, bodies, toilet rolls etc. can be seen just make it seem amateurish silliness to me and I'm just an ordinary person with ordinary practical life experience and curiousity. It'd be a pity to see the TIGHAR search for Earhart scuttled because of this nonsense. The sort of nonsense that really makes a mockery of the work done by Dr King, the late Dr Burns and all the others who have contributed. I see there have been people who disagreed with some of that but they are all gone, and at least their views were based in real personal skills - but seeing banjos and toilet rolls is I am afraid just mocking that earlier work. So yes in a way it does throw a bad light on TIGHAR's research, because of the flippant manner in which it discounts without rhyme or reason previously advanced ideas. 
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: john a delsing on January 10, 2013, 10:30:51 PM
Dan,
   I think there are very many of us who feel the same. IMO Tighar was the best science org I had the privledge to follow. Not so anymore.
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tim Mellon on January 11, 2013, 12:12:57 AM
 :)
Dan,
   I think there are very many of us who feel the same. IMO Tighar was the best science org I had the privledge to follow. Not so anymore.

The very best science since Malthus, Mr. Delsing.

Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tim Mellon on January 11, 2013, 06:24:39 AM
This comparison of the center lifting section of the elevator, taken from the 2010 HD video (frame 18 at time 13:37:05), and the Harney drawing of the elevator area, provides the best opportunity, in my opinion, for the positive identification of an aircraft part that is likely quite unique to the Electra.

The four tiny red dots on the photo outline the area of the center lifting section. Although the part is covered partially by what looks like the gear at the end of the message line, enough of the surface of the elevator component can be seen to show the regular pattern of small holes drilled through the part (in its lower right-hand corner) to allow air to escape when the part returned to its stowed position.
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tim Mellon on January 11, 2013, 09:13:57 AM
Here is another excellent view of the 1st landing gear assembly, seen in the 2012 Standard Definition video. Once again, this shot clearly shows that the fender is on properly, and not upside-down (mea culpa). The worm gear obscures the bottom portion of the deflated tire, and its connection to the upper part of the cylinder is itself obscured by the foreground object to its left. The wheel and tire do not line up properly with the fork, as also shown in the 2010 HD shot.
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tim Mellon on January 11, 2013, 11:23:53 AM
Another duplication between the 2012 Standard Definition video and the 2010 High Definition video: The Pelorus and A-7 Octant at the Navitator's Station. To my way of thinking, these items, along with the 1st landing gear shown in the previous post, give positive proof to the assertion that the two videos show the exact same location, which we know from the Phoenix data is Site #1. As to whether the items are characterized correctly, YMMV.
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tom Swearengen on January 11, 2013, 11:31:44 AM
Gentlemen---with all due respect to ALL of you, I look at things this way. If Tim sees something that warrants an investigation, then thats great. He is taking his time to analyze the videos as best he can. I'm pretty sure, that Ric is also having the videos analyzed for the elusive evidence that we are looking for. Either way, IF another expedition is undertaken off the reef and evidence IS found, raised and identified as a part of the Electra, then it was worth it. If nothing becomes of this, then Tim used his time to do as he wished.
Granted, making some announcements on the forum as to have located bodies is alittle premature in my opinion. But each of us may view things in a different way. In the end, I think that we all have the same things in mind.
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tim Mellon on January 11, 2013, 11:48:16 AM
Consistent between the two years (2012 and 2010) is the pair of Bausch & Lomb field glasses (top protruding above the rubble), just up the hill from the Octant. In the 2012 SD video, one can also make out, I believe, the flash attachment to the Kodak Duo Six-20 camera.
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tim Mellon on January 11, 2013, 02:04:10 PM
Finally, a close up in the 2012 Standard Definition video of what I think is the second landing gear assembly. This object also appears in the 2010 High Definition video.

The axle is not going through the rim, but the fork is lying right on top of the wheel. I dont see any worm gear in this view. The top of the assembly lies over the edge (out of sight) to the left of the fork, about one meter away.
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Dan Kelly on January 11, 2013, 04:29:20 PM
Gentlemen---with all due respect to ALL of you, I look at things this way. If Tim sees something that warrants an investigation, then thats great. He is taking his time to analyze the videos as best he can.

With all respect Mr Swearengen I would suggest that these are little more than random associations. We are aware as Mr Mellon himself admitted some time back that he pays no heed to the warnings that there is no scale in the video to permit an accurate estimation of size. Mr Gillespie locked the original very long thread on the video for that reason among others and that it was producing some pretty far-fetched observations. I count miraculously preserved bodies, banjos and toilet rolls in that category. If someone is seeing those then I personally place little value on their other observations. If Mr Glickman who is the expert cannot see these then I think that tells us what we need to know.
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Tim Mellon on January 11, 2013, 08:30:22 PM
With all respect Mr Swearengen I would suggest that these are little more than random associations. We are aware as Mr Mellon himself admitted some time back that he pays no heed to the warnings that there is no scale in the video to permit an accurate estimation of size. Mr Gillespie locked the original very long thread on the video for that reason among others and that it was producing some pretty far-fetched observations. I count miraculously preserved bodies, banjos and toilet rolls in that category. If someone is seeing those then I personally place little value on their other observations. If Mr Glickman who is the expert cannot see these then I think that tells us what we need to know.

Mr. Kelly, I think you are beating a dead horse.
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Dan Kelly on January 11, 2013, 11:37:29 PM

Mr. Kelly, I think you are beating a dead horse.

Don't tell me you've seen one them down there as well.
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: Ric Gillespie on January 12, 2013, 09:07:27 AM
Mr. Kelly, I think you are beating a dead horse.

I agree with Tim.  The horse is indeed dead.  This and other topics discussing whether various shapes in the underwater video are or are not encrusted objects of interest have run their course.  Both sides have had more than adequate opportunity to state their case and flogging the subject further will not change anyone's mind.  We'll give the horse a decent burial by locking "Summary of Debris from 2010," "2010 Black and White Video of the Debris Field," and "Possible Rope video."  I'll leave "Underwater Airplane Parts" open but only as a discussion of what known underwater airplane parts look like in contexts other than Nikumaroro.  I'll remove new topics that attempt to revive discussions of objects seen in 2010 and 2012 underwater video unless and until Jeff Glickman advises me that he has found something worth discussing. 
Title: Re: Summary of Debris from 2010 Video
Post by: JNev on July 28, 2014, 11:54:18 AM
This topic has been re-opened.  Enjoy.