TIGHAR

Amelia Earhart Search Forum => News, Views, Books, Archival Data & Interviews on AE => Topic started by: Chris Johnson on November 12, 2010, 06:54:03 AM

Title: Discovery Channel Show
Post by: Chris Johnson on November 12, 2010, 06:54:03 AM
Hi,

Can any US based TIGHARS or lurckers post a review if they view the programme tonight?  Not sure when or if it will be shown in the UK and unless it’s on terrestrial TV then there is only a slim chance that I may see it.

Thanks in anticipation
Title: Re: Discovery Channel Show
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on November 12, 2010, 07:38:30 AM
Can any US based TIGHARS or lurkers post a review if they view the programme tonight?  Not sure when or if it will be shown in the UK and unless it’s on terrestrial TV then there is only a slim chance that I may see it.

I'm not conscious of a show being on tonight.  What is the name of the show you're thinking of?  Do you have a URL that describes it?
Title: Re: Discovery Channel Show--Monday, November 29
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on November 12, 2010, 09:36:00 AM
My mistake, was firing off a quick post whilst on my lunch break and hadn't double checked the news page, sorry :(

Would still love a review on or after the 29th though :)

OK. 

http://tighar.org/news/

I didn't want to spill the beans before it was time and I thought it was possible that you were referring to a replay of another Discovery program about Earhart.

This is the one we've all been waiting for since Niku VI.

Title: Re: Discovery Channel Show
Post by: Ashley Such on November 12, 2010, 03:59:18 PM
Ooh, I can't wait for this! Should be interesting; I can't wait to hear what the team has come up with within the last expedition!
Title: Re: Discovery Channel Show
Post by: Ted G Campbell on November 12, 2010, 07:07:56 PM
Ric,
Is there room in the agreement with the Discovery Channel to allow TIGHAR to post the video on this web page for those of us that may not be able to watch it in real time?
Ted Campbell
Title: Re: Discovery Channel Show
Post by: Ric Gillespie on November 13, 2010, 08:07:07 AM
Is there room in the agreement with the Discovery Channel to allow TIGHAR to post the video on this web page for those of us that may not be able to watch it in real time?

'Fraid not.  I've been assured that DVDs will be available for purchase but probably not before the first of the year.  On the other hand, I would be not be surprised if some enterprising person recorded the show and made black market copies available.  TIGHAR would, of course, never condone such activity.
Title: Re: Discovery Channel Show
Post by: Bill Lloyd on November 13, 2010, 08:24:32 AM
Is there room in the agreement with the Discovery Channel to allow TIGHAR to post the video on this web page for those of us that may not be able to watch it in real time?

'Fraid not.  I've been assured that DVDs will be available for purchase but probably not before the first of the year.  On the other hand, I would be not be surprised if some enterprising person recorded the show and made black market copies available.  TIGHAR would, of course, never condone such activity.
Of course not!  However, perhaps someone will arrange for a copy and post a link for us who live in the back country. 8)
Title: Re: Discovery Channel Show
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on November 13, 2010, 04:18:56 PM
As much as I want to watch the show I hope no one posts any form of link to a copy that might cast poor light on TIGHAR, its members and those of us who lurk :)

I think we would have to remove any such links immediately.  We cannot lend TIGHAR's name to such antics even indirectly.  My guess is that even if the DNA evidence happened to break in favor of the TIGHAR hypothesis, there would still be need for one or more followup trips to Niku.  Should we place a major portion of funding for the next expedition in peril for the sake of some of our friends overseas? 

Once the show has aired, the information it conveys will be in the public domain.  Our friends will be able to keep up with the flow of information on the website, even if they can't get the full effect of the television show's narrative, documentary, and dramatization.
Title: Re: Discovery Channel Show
Post by: Ted G Campbell on November 13, 2010, 06:41:31 PM
i.e. there might be a transcript of the TV presentation?
Ted Campbell
Title: Re: Discovery Channel Show
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on November 13, 2010, 06:53:30 PM
i.e. there might be a transcript of the TV presentation?

I don't know whether Discovery routinely provides transcripts.

What I was trying to say was this: once the TV program has been made and Discovery has selected the materials that it wants to highlight in the show, TIGHAR may talk about those materials freely in TIGHAR Tracks, research bulletins, Facebook entries, the wiki, the Forum, or other parts of the website.  I am not aware of details in the non-disclosure contract between TIGHAR and Discovery, so I can't guarantee that there won't be research that might be held for a future program--nor can I say that there will be such restraints on publication.  I'm just reasoning from what everybody knows (Discovery helped to fund Niku VI, in return for which they obtained certain rights to be the first to tell the story of the trip) and guessing about what is not public knowledge (all of the fine print in the contract).

I promise to watch the show with pen and paper in hand to keep track of "breaking news" for our overseas and cable-deprived members.
Title: Re: Discovery Channel Show
Post by: Bill Lloyd on November 15, 2010, 07:31:27 AM
i.e. there might be a transcript of the TV presentation?

I don't know whether Discovery routinely provides transcripts.

What I was trying to say was this: once the TV program has been made and Discovery has selected the materials that it wants to highlight in the show, TIGHAR may talk about those materials freely in TIGHAR Tracks, research bulletins, Facebook entries, the wiki, the Forum, or other parts of the website.  I am not aware of details in the non-disclosure contract between TIGHAR and Discovery, so I can't guarantee that there won't be research that might be held for a future program--nor can I say that there will be such restraints on publication.  I'm just reasoning from what everybody knows (Discovery helped to fund Niku VI, in return for which they obtained certain rights to be the first to tell the story of the trip) and guessing about what is not public knowledge (all of the fine print in the contract).

I promise to watch the show with pen and paper in hand to keep track of "breaking news" for our overseas and cable-deprived members.
Discovery and it's product are protected by the copyright laws enacted by congress and codified in the U.S. Code. Unless there is an agreement with Discovery, their presentation cannot be used by anyone else. There is a whole body of law on the subject, Title 17 U.S.C.
Title: Re: Discovery Channel Show
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on November 15, 2010, 07:43:07 AM
Discovery and its product are protected by the copyright laws enacted by congress and codified in the U.S. Code. Unless there is an agreement with Discovery, their presentation cannot be used by anyone else. There is a whole body of law on the subject, Title 17 U.S.C.

Copyright in an audio-visual medium covers copying of the audio-visual elements.  I can't reproduce either channel for my own audio-visual purposes.

Copyright does not cover information disclosed in an audio-visual presentation.  So long as I render the information in my own words, I may make and distribute a synopsis of the claims made in the copyrighted presentation.  I could not publish a transcript nor a reverse-engineered script of the show (i.e., describing how ever scene is cut and compiled)--but that is a different kettle of fish from what I propose to do.
Title: Re: Discovery Channel Show
Post by: Bill Lloyd on November 15, 2010, 08:09:42 AM
Discovery and its product are protected by the copyright laws enacted by congress and codified in the U.S. Code. Unless there is an agreement with Discovery, their presentation cannot be used by anyone else. There is a whole body of law on the subject, Title 17 U.S.C.

Copyright in an audio-visual medium covers copying of the audio-visual elements.  I can't reproduce either channel for my own audio-visual purposes.

Copyright does not cover information disclosed in an audio-visual presentation.  So long as I render the information in my own words, I may make and distribute a synopsis of the claims made in the copyrighted presentation.  I could not publish a transcript nor a reverse-engineered script of the show (i.e., describing how ever scene is cut and compiled)--but that is a different kettle of fish from what I propose to do.
In other words it is perfectly legal for you to write a review of their presentation and publish it here. I am  sure there is case law covering just that situation. Case law can be researched in Title 17, U.S. Code Annotated. This is the publication where the Federal Courts, specifically the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, have construed the statutes.
Title: Re: Discovery Channel Show
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on November 15, 2010, 09:48:41 AM
Copyright in an audio-visual medium covers copying of the audio-visual elements.  I can't reproduce either channel for my own audio-visual purposes.

Copyright does not cover information disclosed in an audio-visual presentation.  So long as I render the information in my own words, I may make and distribute a synopsis of the claims made in the copyrighted presentation.  I could not publish a transcript nor a reverse-engineered script of the show (i.e., describing how ever scene is cut and compiled)--but that is a different kettle of fish from what I propose to do.

In other words it is perfectly legal for you to write a review of their presentation and publish it here.

Yes, that is my view.  If that weren't the case, the the IMDB database would be illegal.  It lists characters, provides plot summaries, and records snippets of dialogue from movies and TV shows--all without asking for permission to do so.

Quote
I am  sure there is case law covering just that situation. Case law can be researched in Title 17, U.S. Code Annotated. This is the publication where the Federal Courts, specifically the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, have construed the statutes.

I am sure you're right that there is case law covering this kind of "fair use."  For now, I'll just trust that Discovery will not object to the kind of summary that I've proposed.   :)
Title: Re: Discovery Channel Show
Post by: Ric Gillespie on November 15, 2010, 06:00:04 PM
If it makes anyone feel better, no information will be held back and the research update we'll send to TIGHAR members in TIGHAR Tracks and will post on the TIGHAR website after the show airs will contain more information than is in the show.
Title: Re: Discovery Channel Show
Post by: Tim Collins on November 16, 2010, 07:25:13 AM
Do I dare ask for a few criptic hints as to what to look forward to.

I know, I know, I just had to ask!

t
Title: Re: Discovery Channel Show
Post by: Ric Gillespie on November 16, 2010, 08:08:54 AM
Do I dare ask for a few criptic hints as to what to look forward to.

I haven't seen the final version but I can tell you a couple of my favorite bits in the cut I saw.  I like the way they tie the Nessie photo into Emily Sikuli marking the map where she saw airplane wreckage.  It's a real convincer.
And there's a great sequence late in the show where forensic anthropologist Kar Burns describes, and shows, what happens when the crabs come for you. It's pure Hitchcock.
Title: Re: Discovery Channel Show
Post by: Tom Swearengen on November 16, 2010, 09:33:11 AM
and the air date is when??
Tom
Title: Re: Discovery Channel Show
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on November 16, 2010, 10:06:11 AM
and the air date is when??

"Finding Amelia"

Date changed.  Now set for Saturday, December 11 (it seems).

No link available at present.

 :'(
Title: Re: Discovery Channel Show
Post by: Ted G Campbell on November 16, 2010, 06:30:02 PM
Ric,
Let me ask this simple question, knowing that you can't give away the Discovery Cannel's final conclutions; is there anything of subsence from the last visit to Niku that adds to the TIGHAR theory?
Ted Campbell
Title: Re: Discovery Channel Show
Post by: Ric Gillespie on November 16, 2010, 07:29:34 PM
I'll say this much.  We didn't waste our time out there but don't expect parting clouds and heavenly choirs either.
Title: Re: Discovery Channel Show
Post by: Monty Fowler on November 17, 2010, 09:09:23 AM
Yeah, it's never an OMG moment ... it's the six months ... nine months ... three years later moment when it all comes together. Been there, done that.

I told my daughter we had to rent Hitchcock's Psycho before watching the Discovery TIGHAR program. When she asked why, I said, "No reason ..."  ;D
Title: Re: Discovery Channel Show
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on November 17, 2010, 02:27:12 PM
> ... Kinda challenges the notion of a 'desert isle in paradise', doesn't it?  

Roger Kelley talked our way into the Grand Pacific Hotel in Suva in 2003.

We went all over the place--even up onto the roof, where I took some pictures.

(http://lh6.ggpht.com/_vZ4A06KI5BY/TORGpdrgLrI/AAAAAAAAIeM/wOaheFXZY84/s640/fiji08%20048.jpg)

(http://lh4.ggpht.com/_vZ4A06KI5BY/TORGqoZBbbI/AAAAAAAAIeU/-kXkparDb-o/s640/fiji08%20054.jpg)

(http://lh3.ggpht.com/_vZ4A06KI5BY/TORGrLYuV2I/AAAAAAAAIeY/tpGGjnDzUug/s640/fiji08%20055.jpg)

I was laughing at myself even as I took the pictures.  The sun on the roof, beating down on the asphalt roof, was almost unendurable.  I figured that the pictures would turn out well.  Tropical islands photograph beautifully, but the sunshine is harsh!

Title: Re: Discovery Channel Show
Post by: Ashley Such on November 17, 2010, 07:24:42 PM
I haven't seen the final version but I can tell you a couple of my favorite bits in the cut I saw.  I like the way they tie the Nessie photo into Emily Sikuli marking the map where she saw airplane wreckage.  It's a real convincer.
And there's a great sequence late in the show where forensic anthropologist Kar Burns describes, and shows, what happens when the crabs come for you. It's pure Hitchcock.

Sounds awesome! I'm sure the documentary was fun to make/do. :) I can't wait to see this; thanks for the hints, Ric!
Title: Re: Discovery Channel Show
Post by: Ric Gillespie on November 17, 2010, 07:28:39 PM
I'm sure the documentary was fun to make/do.

The trick to being filmed for a documentary is to forget that you're being filmed for a documentary.
Title: Re: Discovery Channel Show
Post by: Ashley Such on November 17, 2010, 07:42:30 PM
The trick to being filmed for a documentary is to forget that you're being filmed for a documentary.

Haha, I'll keep that in mind! :)
Title: Re: Discovery Channel Show
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on November 17, 2010, 09:33:52 PM
The trick to being filmed for a documentary is to forget that you're being filmed for a documentary.

Actors are said to have said, "Once you learn to fake sincerity, you've got it made."   8)
Title: Re: Discovery Channel Show
Post by: Ric Gillespie on November 18, 2010, 06:14:57 AM
"Once you learn to fake sincerity, you've got it made."

LOL!  I sincerely believe that!
An important part of my job is to be TIGHAR's principal storyteller, both in print and on-screen.  In the latter respect I have a couple of advantages.  Throughout high school and college I was active in theater, so I'm comfortable in front of an audience. For the Discovery documentary it also helped that nearly all of the interviews with me - before, during, and after the expedition - were shot by Mark Smith of Oh Seven Films. Mark is a Peabody Award-winning cinematographer who filmed our 2001 and 2007 expeditions and numerous research activities leading up to the 2010 trip. Mark knows TIGHAR; he knows the island; and he knows me. If my interviews come off as if I'm just telling a great story to a good friend, it's because I am.
Title: Re: Discovery Channel Show
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on November 18, 2010, 06:53:13 AM
... If my interviews come off as if I'm just telling a great story to a good friend, it's because I am.

You do good work.  We wouldn't be here without your gift for synthesis.  Go, Ric!
Title: Re: Discovery Channel Show
Post by: Ashley Such on November 18, 2010, 08:32:06 PM
An important part of my job is to be TIGHAR's principal storyteller, both in print and on-screen.  In the latter respect I have a couple of advantages.  Throughout high school and college I was active in theater, so I'm comfortable in front of an audience. For the Discovery documentary it also helped that nearly all of the interviews with me - before, during, and after the expedition - were shot by Mark Smith of Oh Seven Films. Mark is a Peabody Award-winning cinematographer who filmed our 2001 and 2007 expeditions and numerous research activities leading up to the 2010 trip. Mark knows TIGHAR; he knows the island; and he knows me. If my interviews come off as if I'm just telling a great story to a good friend, it's because I am.

I agree with Marty; you do awesome work, Ric! I know all of us here appreciate your hard work on those expeditions (and all of the TIGHAR members who have gone on previous exhibitions)!
Title: Re: Discovery Channel Show
Post by: Andrew M McKenna on November 21, 2010, 08:40:25 AM
Looks like the Discovery show has been moved to Dec 11th so as to not compete with Monday Night Football in the USA.  Saturday night is usually not a great time to be on air, but it is probably better than going head to head with MNF.  Hopefully DC will add in some promotional dollars to drive the audience to Saturday.

AMCK
Title: Re: Discovery Channel Show
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on November 21, 2010, 11:45:22 AM
Looks like the Discovery show has been moved to Dec 11th so as to not compete with Monday Night Football in the USA.  Saturday night is usually not a great time to be on air, but it is probably better than going head to head with MNF.  Hopefully DC will add in some promotional dollars to drive the audience to Saturday.

Thanks for the update, Andrew!

The later date does give them more time for advertising the show.
Title: Re: Discovery Channel Show
Post by: Ashley Such on November 21, 2010, 07:54:23 PM
Thanks for letting us know, Andrew!
Title: Re: Discovery Channel Show
Post by: Thom Boughton on November 23, 2010, 12:00:34 AM
Thanks for the update, Andrew!

The later date does give them more time for advertising the show.


Hope so.  As yet, I've seen no mention of it at all.

I have recently seen a number of other shows about AE and the various theories....even the ones which haven long since been proven rubbish.





....TB
Title: Re: Discovery Channel Show
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on November 23, 2010, 04:36:42 AM
... As yet, I've seen no mention of it at all.

The Discovery Channel program guide (http://Discovery Channel program guide) doesn't go up to Saturday, December 11, yet.

Quote
I have recently seen a number of other shows about AE and the various theories....even the ones which haven long since been proven rubbish.

That's show biz for you.   ;)
Title: Re: Discovery Channel Show
Post by: Tom Swearengen on November 23, 2010, 08:45:03 AM
Perhaps if there was hard evidence of her being on Niku, they would advertise little bits of info, to attract viewers, as well as advertisers.
Tom
Title: Re: Discovery Channel Show
Post by: Monty Fowler on November 23, 2010, 09:00:04 AM
Don't you guys across the pond know that Monday night football is a religion over here?  ;D
Title: Re: Discovery Channel Show
Post by: Thom Boughton on November 23, 2010, 10:58:33 AM
The Discovery Channel program guide (http://Discovery Channel program guide) doesn't go up to Saturday, December 11, yet.


No, I wouldn't expect schedule listings as yet. However, I was speaking more in terms of adverts or trailers. I had really hoped that perhaps they'd spend a little more effort there.

Any publicity is better than none, I guess. So I suppose I should just be glad they have put the matter on the schedule at all.




.....TB
Title: Re: Discovery Channel Show
Post by: Ric Gillespie on November 23, 2010, 11:41:04 AM
I had really hoped that perhaps they'd spend a little more effort there.

I know they have website articles in the works for both Discovery.com and DiscoveryNews.com (because I helped them) but they don't plan to put them up until after the show airs because they're afraid that if people know what we found and didn't find nobody will watch the show. Go figure.
Title: Re: Discovery Channel Show
Post by: Ted G Campbell on November 23, 2010, 06:39:01 PM
Ric,
I'd like to contribute $100.00 to the search - have Pat bill my credit card account- but let me know where the money will be spent i.e. DNA research, next years exploration, etc.

Ted Campbell







Title: Re: Discovery Channel Show
Post by: Thom Boughton on November 24, 2010, 12:37:44 AM
I know they have website articles in the works for both Discovery.com and DiscoveryNews.com (because I helped them) but they don't plan to put them up until after the show airs because they're afraid that if people know what we found and didn't find nobody will watch the show. Go figure.



Hehe.....I see.  Much better not to even mention the show at all.  That way, if nobody knows that it is on...then everyone will watch it...right?  <tounge in cheek>

No...I can understand not wanting to prematurely let the cat out of the bag (even if it's not a terribly big cat)....but a few adverts would be nice.  Or perhaps they're out there and I've as yet to trip over them.


....TB
Title: Re: Discovery Channel Show
Post by: Ric Gillespie on November 24, 2010, 05:57:28 AM
I'd like to contribute $100.00 to the search - have Pat bill my credit card account- but let me know where the money will be spent i.e. DNA research, next years exploration, etc.

Thanks Ted.  I'd like to put your contribution toward research to define the target area for the major underwater search we'll be doing on the next expedition.







Title: Re: Discovery Channel Show
Post by: Ric Gillespie on November 24, 2010, 07:45:45 AM
Ted,

We don't have current credit card information for you.  We're trying to get away from keeping credit card information on file.  To make a donation just go the TIGHAR Store (http://tighar.org/store/index.php?route=product/category&path=43) and click on the Earhart Project Donate logo.
Title: Re: Discovery Channel Show
Post by: Ted G Campbell on November 24, 2010, 11:29:19 AM
Done!
Sounds like a good use of funds.
Ted Campbell
Title: Re: Discovery Channel Show
Post by: Ashley Such on November 24, 2010, 03:49:59 PM
Have there been any "teaser trailer"s that have been shown on t.v. yet (or Youtube)?
Title: Re: Discovery Channel Show
Post by: Ric Gillespie on November 25, 2010, 09:07:18 AM
Have there been any "teaser trailer"s that have been shown on t.v. yet (or Youtube)?

Not that I know of.

Title: Re: Discovery Channel Show
Post by: Ashley Such on November 25, 2010, 11:36:51 AM
^Thanks, Ric.

Somebody remind me: What channel number is Discovery?
Title: Re: Discovery Channel Show
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on November 25, 2010, 01:15:34 PM
Somebody remind me: What channel number is Discovery?

It is a cable channel, so it depends on your cable provider.

Here is the Discovery Channel home page. (http://dsc.discovery.com/)

This is the daily schedule. (http://dsc.discovery.com/tv-schedules/daily.html)

It is not showing as far as December 11 yet.
Title: Re: Discovery Channel Show
Post by: Jackie L Tharp on November 25, 2010, 06:27:46 PM
Ric - you are an excellent storyteller, writer and TV celebrity.  I know we butt heads sometimes, but I do admire your talents in these area's. Nothing like a Handsome guy
who's also interesting and intellegent.....   
 
Jackie Tharp #2440
Title: Re: Discovery Channel Show
Post by: Monty Fowler on November 27, 2010, 11:50:27 AM
"Nothing like a Handsome guy who's also interesting and intellegent....."

Oh my God, now you've really gone and done it! We may never be able to shut him up.

LTM,
Who occasionally and semi-fondly remembers the better qualities of College Park rain and mud.  :) 
Title: Re: Discovery Channel Show
Post by: Bruce Thomas on November 28, 2010, 04:02:39 AM
The Discovery Channel schedule has been updated for December 11, 2010, 8:00 p.m.  Let the countdown commence!

"What happened to Amelia Earhart when she disappeared over the Pacific Ocean more than 70 years ago? One man thinks he not only knows the answer but is on the verge of proving it...and finding Amelia."
Title: Re: Discovery Channel Show
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on November 28, 2010, 08:30:49 AM
Bruce wrote:

"The Discovery Channel schedule (http://dsc.discovery.com/tv-schedules/daily.html) has been updated for December 11, 2010, 8:00 p.m. (http://dsc.discovery.com/tv-schedules/daily.html?date=20101211.345)  Let the countdown commence!"

That's good to hear--thanks!
Title: Re: Discovery Channel Show
Post by: Bruce Thomas on November 28, 2010, 09:51:58 AM
I just now noticed that the News section of the Tighar website lists the show time as 9 p.m.  That news item may need to be corrected by Tighar Central. 

I went back and rechecked the Discovery Channel schedule, to confirm that it says 8 p.m. ET/PT. 

So if someone tunes in late, that schedule says there's another showing at 11 p.m. ET/PT.  (See the program description (http://dsc.discovery.com/tv-schedules/series.html?paid=1.16429.26181.39326.1)).

LTM, who smiles to remember the time zone difficulties of July 2, 1937 at Howland Island.
Bruce
Title: Re: Discovery Channel Show
Post by: Ric Gillespie on November 29, 2010, 06:31:22 AM
Yes, the correct time seems to be 8PM Eastern with a re-broadcast at 11PM.  We're spreading thew word.
Title: Re: Discovery Channel Show
Post by: Ric Gillespie on December 03, 2010, 05:00:02 PM
The action lately has been on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/pages/TIGHAR/224536440657?ref=ts)
Title: Re: Discovery Channel Show
Post by: Ashley Such on December 03, 2010, 06:49:43 PM
The action lately has been on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/pages/TIGHAR/224536440657?ref=ts)

Thanks for the link, Ric! This documentary is going to be great! :)
Title: Re: Discovery Channel Show
Post by: Ashley Such on December 04, 2010, 09:13:55 PM
Yes but all the same it seems that were all waiting and watching for the show! and then what?

Then there's going to be a huge discussion on this forum about the documentary, I suppose. :P
Title: Re: Discovery Channel Show
Post by: Ashley Such on December 05, 2010, 12:29:57 PM
Just checked my t.v. guide today, and the documentary is going to be on at 9:00 PM for me; looking forward to watching it. :)
Title: Re: Discovery Channel Show
Post by: Andrew M McKenna on December 05, 2010, 01:16:11 PM
Ashley, what time zone are you in?

Looks like it will be 6 pm and 9 pm here in Mountain Standard Time. 

Andrew
Title: Re: Discovery Channel Show
Post by: Thom Boughton on December 05, 2010, 03:50:00 PM
Eastern Standard here.   8p and 11p.



Already have the TiVO set to grab both (in case it takes a powder and misses the first run)




....tb
Title: Re: Discovery Channel Show
Post by: Tim Collins on December 06, 2010, 07:04:39 AM
The action lately has been on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/pages/TIGHAR/224536440657?ref=ts)

Now you tell us -  Not everybody does facespace! I would have thought a forum dedicated to the topic (to begin with) would have been sufficient. Oh, well... just another site I need to monitor... 
Title: Re: Discovery Channel Show
Post by: Tom Swearengen on December 06, 2010, 07:41:38 AM
I'm just waiting like everyone else--to see if there was anything to wait for---
Title: Re: Discovery Channel Show
Post by: Daniel Paul Cotts on December 06, 2010, 12:42:53 PM
Tim, Click on the TIGHAR home button on the top left of this forum page. On the left side of that page is a brief view of the recent Facebook entries. Clicking on an item will open a new Facebook window. New additions are pics of human Tighars on Nuki. Definitely worth seeing and easy to do.
Title: Re: Discovery Channel Show
Post by: Ashley Such on December 06, 2010, 02:59:34 PM
Ashley, what time zone are you in?

Mountain Time (Arizona).

(Although, when I called to schedule an interview for Disney, the woman said I'm currently in Pacific Time? ???)

EDIT~ Just looked at the Facebook page; the "personalities to watch for" thing going on is interesting. :)
Title: Re: Discovery Channel Show
Post by: Tim Collins on December 07, 2010, 06:52:46 AM
Tim, Click on the TIGHAR home button on the top left of this forum page. On the left side of that page is a brief view of the recent Facebook entries. Clicking on an item will open a new Facebook window. New additions are pics of human Tighars on Nuki. Definitely worth seeing and easy to do.

Thanks, it is easy, didn't mean to sound so surly about. Day in and day out I deal with lazy students who fritter away so much time on facebook etc., then complain when you expect them to learn and work, so I have a bad taste of them. Deep breath... heavy sigh, another deep breath. There, better...  Now if only the twitching would stop...

t
Title: Re: Discovery Channel Show
Post by: Bill Lloyd on December 07, 2010, 10:16:05 AM
The action lately has been on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/pages/TIGHAR/224536440657?ref=ts)
Yes indeed. I like the action on Facebook. I was unaware that Hot Lips Houlihan was on Niku. What about Radar and Hawkeye? I think that Ric is a dead ringer for Col Potter.  ;D
Title: Re: Discovery Channel Show
Post by: Bruce Thomas on December 07, 2010, 12:51:43 PM
I think that Ric is a dead ringer for Col Potter.

Well, they both like horses.   ;D
Title: Re: Discovery Channel Show
Post by: Ashley Such on December 07, 2010, 02:38:33 PM
Took a look at the Facebook page today; literally LOL'd at the Stephen Colbert appearance joke! :P
Title: Re: Discovery Channel Show
Post by: Thom Boughton on December 07, 2010, 11:50:23 PM
For whatever it might be worth. I finally have seen an advert for Saturdays' show. 

Ran across it on Discovery HD (of course) Tuesday, roughly midday. Hate to say it....wasn't terribly remarkable.  One of those 15 second quickie trailers they love to do. But....any exposure is better than none, I guess.




....tb
Title: Re: Discovery Channel Show
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on December 08, 2010, 09:17:49 PM
I've heard that sneak previews of "Finding Amelia" (http://dsc.discovery.com/tv/finding-amelia/) have now gone up on the Discovery Channel.

I haven't tried the link myself ...
Title: Re: Discovery Channel Show
Post by: Chris Austin on December 09, 2010, 08:22:37 AM
Hi All, I thought I'd try and make my first post a productive one. So, with a vested interest, being a Brit, I contacted Discovery UK and asked if they planned to show Finding Amelia this side of the pond. This is their reply:

"Thank you for contacting Discovery Networks Europe Viewer Relations.

We will most likely air this in Europe as we tend to air most programs on both continents, but unfortunately we have no current plans for Finding Amelia. This does not mean that we've decided not to air it, but that it has not been planned for yet. We do only plan two months in advance so it is possible that Finding Amelia will be planned in early spring; if you would like an update feel free to contact us again then.

Kind regards,
Johan Henriksson
Discovery Networks Europe Viewer Relations Team"
Title: Re: Discovery Channel Show
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on December 09, 2010, 09:49:08 AM
Hi All, I thought I'd try and make my first post a productive one. ...

Mission accomplished!  "You may sleep now and take your rest."
Title: Re: Discovery Channel Show
Post by: Ashley Such on December 09, 2010, 08:24:32 PM
I've heard that sneak previews of "Finding Amelia" (http://dsc.discovery.com/tv/finding-amelia/) have now gone up on the Discovery Channel.

I haven't tried the link myself ...

The sneak previews were interesting. :) Thanks for the link.
Title: Re: Discovery Channel Show
Post by: Ric Gillespie on December 10, 2010, 06:23:52 AM
What about Radar and Hawkeye?

Funny you should mention it. We had an expert in Ground Penetrating Radar on the team but he didn't have much luck getting it to work in the Niku environment. We started calling him Radar but stopped when we learned that he REALLY didn't appreciate the name.  As for me being a dead ringer for Col. Potter - I'll take that as a compliment. I can think of a number of similarities.
Title: Re: Discovery Channel Show
Post by: Bill Lloyd on December 10, 2010, 07:42:31 AM
What about Radar and Hawkeye?

Funny you should mention it. We had an expert in Ground Penetrating Radar on the team but he didn't have much luck getting it to work in the Niku environment. We started calling him Radar but stopped when we learned that he REALLY didn't appreciate the name.  As for me being a dead ringer for Col. Potter - I'll take that as a compliment. I can think of a number of similarities.
Strictly tongue in cheek. Humor is a good thing. Speaking of Ground Penetrating Radar, is there any technology available to you that can detect buried human bones. Seems to me that in addition to the aircraft, the best direct evidence, that is somewhere on Niku are the bones of Fred Noonan. If the bones discovered by Gallagher were indeed AE then Fred probably predeceased her and he is somewhere on that island. Locate those bones and with DNA, you should make your case.
Title: Re: Discovery Channel Show
Post by: Don Dollinger on December 10, 2010, 07:58:38 AM
Quote
Seems to me that in addition to the aircraft, the best direct evidence, that is somewhere on Niku are the bones of Fred Noonan. If the bones discovered by Gallagher were indeed AE then Fred probably predeceased her and he is somewhere on that island. Locate those bones and with DNA, you should make your case.

Plz correct me if I am wrong, but I believe I read somewhere that TIGHAR could find no living heirs to Fred Noonan, thus no DNA sample available for him.

LTM

Don
Title: Re: Discovery Channel Show
Post by: Ric Gillespie on December 10, 2010, 09:53:04 AM
Plz correct me if I am wrong, but I believe I read somewhere that TIGHAR could find no living heirs to Fred Noonan, thus no DNA sample available for him.

That is correct. We need a living relative in the female line.  So far our efforts to find such a person, including extensive work by a professional genealogist, have hit a dead end.
Title: Re: Discovery Channel Show
Post by: Don Dollinger on December 10, 2010, 11:16:58 AM
Quote
That is correct. We need a living relative in the female line.  So far our efforts to find such a person, including extensive work by a professional genealogist, have hit a dead end.

Although, if found and ID'ed as a male of European descent and approximating his height it would add to the growing list of highly probable circumstancial evidence that TIGHAR has collected to show that they were there.  But, naysayers can always claim that they are from the S.S. Norwich City so still no smoking gun. 

BTW:  What did they do with the S.S. Norwich City crewmember bodies that they did recover?  Did they bury them on Niko?  Did they recover all of them?  Have read the accounts sometime back but don't specifically remember if those issues were covered.

Thanx

LTM

Don
Title: Re: Discovery Channel Show
Post by: Ric Gillespie on December 10, 2010, 12:01:09 PM
What did they do with the S.S. Norwich City crewmember bodies that they did recover?

They were buried in the beach onshore from where the ship went aground.  If they were later uncovered by storm action they may be the bones that Emily Sikuli described as having been found on that part of the island in 1940 or '41.
Title: Re: Discovery Channel Show
Post by: Bill Lloyd on December 10, 2010, 05:42:37 PM
Plz correct me if I am wrong, but I believe I read somewhere that TIGHAR could find no living heirs to Fred Noonan, thus no DNA sample available for him.

That is correct. We need a living relative in the female line.  So far our efforts to find such a person, including extensive work by a professional genealogist, have hit a dead end.
Therefore, the assertion by a Dr Colleen Fitzpatrick (http://www.ncgenweb.us/dogsnc/dr-colleen-fitzpatrick-spoke-about-dna-photography-and-databases) is inaccurate?
Title: Re: Discovery Channel Show
Post by: Ric Gillespie on December 11, 2010, 04:37:12 AM
Yes, I'm afraid so.  Colleen took a wrong turn.  Easy to do.  It's a complicated line.
Title: Re: Discovery Channel Show
Post by: Bruce Thomas on December 11, 2010, 03:49:14 PM
Last month, when the broadcast date was changed to December 11, Andrew wrote
Quote
Looks like the Discovery show has been moved to Dec 11th so as to not compete with Monday Night Football in the USA.  Saturday night is usually not a great time to be on air, but it is probably better than going head to head with MNF.
Monday Night Football doesn't hold a candle to the Heisman Trophy presentation, alas.  From the frying pan into the fire!  It's fortunate the Discovery Channel is rebroadcasting the Niku story at 11 p.m.!  War Eagle!

Bruce
Title: Re: Discovery Channel Show
Post by: Tom Swearengen on December 11, 2010, 08:23:52 PM
My congradulations to Ric, and TIGHAR for their work. But, the Discovery program, although informative, still doesnt quite seal the deal for me, even though I can't imagine any other outcome. AE and Fred obviously were on Niku at some point. Whether you find DNA, or other bones, or parts of the Electra off the reef shelf, you still have a theory, and a great one at that. I guess I'm just looking for Electra parts that can be identified, with no doubt that it was her plane. Probably not in my lifetime, but I know that you will keep searching. This is one of those stories of history that will get passed from generation to generation.

After watching the program, and seeing the the dramatisation of the Electra landing on the reef north of the Norwich City, I am convinced that "Nessie" was part of the landing gear, stuck in the reef. I think that the Electra, even though it may have been torn apart, is in the deep water off the reef. I think that it may be intact enough to see at least the fuselege and one wing intact, with NR16020 on it. It's in deep enough water as to not be affected by strong currents. Once it slid down the slope, it came to rest on the sandy bottom, just waiting to be found.

Fom my standpoint, and I suspect that of others, finding positive proof of the Electra will tell us that Amelia was definately on Niku, whether any other evidence of her exists. It is my hope that Ric, and TIGHAR will go back to Niku, and keep trying. I'm sure that other corporate sponsors will come one board, after seeing the Discovery program. Dont give up---you are on the right track. Thanks for allowing me to be a very small part of history.
Tom
Title: Re: Discovery Channel Show
Post by: Rick Anthony on December 11, 2010, 10:58:24 PM
The Discovery Channel documentary was quite well done.  I was relieved to see they didn't waste time and confuse the public by mentioning any of the more outrageous, and long disproven theories. It pretty well described the process that brought about the current theory of what happened to Amelia and Fred. That process is a pretty fascinating story in itself.
Title: Re: Discovery Channel Show
Post by: Ashley Such on December 11, 2010, 11:23:15 PM
I must say: This documentary was really interesting! The dramatizations were excellent, too (very intriguing)! I know each and every one of you members have worked hard over the years, and I'm very proud of you all. :)

Best of luck to you, Ric, and the rest of TIGHAR of the next expedition with the underwater research!
Title: Re: Discovery Channel Show
Post by: Bill Mangus on December 12, 2010, 02:40:54 PM
Great program, especially enjoyed the videography.  I watched it in HD and the video from the 2010 expedition was good enough to make you think you were there!

I was a bit suprised more wasn't made of the "cloth bow or knot"  Seems like this would be easy to pick apart and compare with what AE/FN were wearing (fabric, color, weave, etc.) when they climbed aboard in Lae, although the photograph made it look more like the knot tied in the top of a gunny sack.  Ask any surviving coasties if they used things like that when they visited the site?

If it is a piece of clothing, might it retain DNA from the wearer?
Title: Re: Discovery Channel Show
Post by: William P Baldauf on December 12, 2010, 03:10:00 PM
I thought the Discovery Channel documentary was extremely well done and persuasive.

The only lingering issue that I was having trouble resolving in my head was the seeming discrepancy between the former islanders who recalled an "airplane" north of the Norwich City & the photograph that showed only "nessie" surviving from the wreckage three months later.  If all that survived of the wreckage was "nessie" when Niku was colonized, would the natives have known that this came from an airplane?  Maybe, but it's also conceivable that if they have limited knowledge of what an airplane even is, perhaps they would have just assumed that somehow it came from the Norwich City.
Title: Re: Discovery Channel Show
Post by: Ric Gillespie on December 12, 2010, 05:41:11 PM
Emily Sikuli (the old woman in Fiji) did not remember an intact airplane.  Her father pointed out wreckage that he told her was from an airplane.  For the full report see The Carpenter's Daughter (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Research/Bulletins/15_Carpentersdaught/15_Interviews.html).
Title: Re: Discovery Channel Show
Post by: Don Dollinger on December 13, 2010, 08:35:20 AM
Quote
If all that survived of the wreckage was "nessie" when Niku was colonized, would the natives have known that this came from an airplane?


Other clues that would indicate to me that they knew it came from an Airplane are the beached bits of aluminum that had been seen and used and the fact that Gallagher had made the assumption that the bones could be from AE.  What would lead him to that conclusion unless there was other evidence in the equation (i.e., airplane wreck + missing aviators = possibility of identity)

The Discovery show was very well done and should regenerate interest in the mystery.  I love mysteries of missing things, AE, FN, and the Electra; the Lost Dutch Man's Goldmine; the keys to my '55 International Pickup Truck. 

Even without a smoking gun (yet), in my mind I am convinced that AE has been found, now if I could just find them damn keys, I could go look for that goldmine.

LTM

Don
Title: Re: Discovery Channel Show
Post by: Ashley Such on December 13, 2010, 02:24:51 PM
Ric,

Didn't you say that there will be DVDs available of this documentary? If so, when?
Title: Re: Discovery Channel Show
Post by: Mark Petersen on December 13, 2010, 06:37:38 PM
Awesome Show.  I'm pretty impressed that Discovery got all of the main points right.  Sure they could have expanded a little bit here or there, but overall they did a stand up job.  More importantly they put the work of Tighar in the proper (good) light. 

The photo of Nessie seemed quite a bit different from the one on this website.  I'm guessing that the differences might be due to additional enhancements (the one on this website that is), or were they showing the original high res photo?  The Nessie image on my TV looked more like a blob that could have easily been a canoe or something else left by those taking the photos.

Title: Re: Discovery Channel Show
Post by: Michael HALL on December 15, 2010, 12:40:48 PM
if anyone has a copy of this please let me know we missed it up here in the great white north :(
Title: Re: Discovery Channel Show
Post by: Gus Rubio on December 15, 2010, 02:19:06 PM
I've been lurking for almost a year now, and have finally gotten around to registering.  I'm a 39-year old male outside of Chicago, Illinois (and everywhere else too, I suppose).   ;D

Before visiting TIGHAR, I knew very little about Amelia and Fred's fate, other than that they were lost over the Pacific.  I'd heard the Japanese capture theory, and the Agent Earhart-returned-to-the-US-under-an-assumed-name idea too, but neither one sounded reasonable.  I found TIGHAR.org when looking for info on aircraft relics, and was immediately captivated by the Niku hypothesis.  The story TIGHAR has put forward is mind-blowing- not only in its implications, but in its cohesion.  Lots of pieces fitting together to make a completely plausible, if tragic, narrative.  I recently read "Finding Amelia" and found it riveting.  The Discovery Channel special was amazing, I loved the footage from the various Niku expeditions, and the re-creations were chilling.  Those crabs gave me the willies!  You wouldn't catch me on Niku without a heavy stick, that's for sure.

Ric indeed seemed like he was talking to a trusted colleague- he's articulate, driven, affable, and knowledgeable.  I could feel his pain when he talked about the premature announcement he made to the press all those years ago, ouch. 

Now then, I have a comment and a question about the ROV and the apparent cable seen in the ROV footage.  Is there a reason why the ROV was not equipped with its arm all the time?  I recall that the ROV had to be raised to install the arm, and then re-deployed.  I felt frustrated at the lost opportunity, as those present must have been.   Would it be possible to have a powerful magnet attached to the belly of the ROV, or hanging from a short lead (assuming it would not interfere w/ its operation)? 

There is a section of that wire loop that curves upward from below, and appears to be buried in the coral.  Did it look that way to the expedition members on-scene?  Do we have an idea how long coral would take to grow over such a piece of cable?  In the weekly reports from Niku 6, the diameter of the cable was estimated at 2-3mm; might that be about the size of the aero-surface control cables in the Electra?  Perhaps the curved piece seen in the video went around a pulley of some kind, and had taken a set to give it the curve seen.

Keep up the great work, we're all looking forward to more AE/FN news!

-Gus
Title: Re: Discovery Channel Show
Post by: Cynthia M Kennedy on December 15, 2010, 08:07:06 PM
I have now watched the Discovery Channel Show twice and it's great.  My 80-year-old mother watched it, too, and now has my copy of Finding Amelia.  I grew up hearing my mother talk about AE.  My mother was only 7 when AE was lost, but she was fascinated by her.  My mother called me after the show to tell me how glad she was that I reminded her to watch. 

I do wish that during the segment about Betty's Notebook, they would have mentioned "get the suitcase in my closet."

Cindy
Title: Re: Discovery Channel Show
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on December 15, 2010, 10:12:14 PM
... I do wish that during the segment about Betty's Notebook, they would have mentioned "get the suitcase in my closet."

It just goes to show that television may not be the best medium for documenting the Niku hypothesis.

You have to make the story meaningful to "the general public."  That requires some backstory.

There isn't room in a two-hour show to mention everything TIGHAR has learned, let alone fit all of the pieces of the puzzle together one-by-one.

They also left out the sextant numbers, something I find interesting but the writers did not.  That's TV!
Title: Re: Discovery Channel Show
Post by: Ric Gillespie on December 16, 2010, 06:54:50 AM
Now then, I have a comment and a question about the ROV and the apparent cable seen in the ROV footage.  Is there a reason why the ROV was not equipped with its arm all the time?  I recall that the ROV had to be raised to install the arm, and then re-deployed.  I felt frustrated at the lost opportunity, as those present must have been.   Would it be possible to have a powerful magnet attached to the belly of the ROV, or hanging from a short lead (assuming it would not interfere w/ its operation)?
The grabber arm partially obscures the camera so they don't like to use it unless they know they want to grab something.  Normally they're confident that they can return to any spot using the GPS but between the time they spotted the wire and went back to get it, the GPS unit got damaged.

There is a section of that wire loop that curves upward from below, and appears to be buried in the coral.  Did it look that way to the expedition members on-scene?  Do we have an idea how long coral would take to grow over such a piece of cable?

Good question, and we should get the answer.  First we need to try to confirm that it is wire rather than "whip coral" which can look quite similar. Jeff Glickman, the forensic imaging specialist you saw ion the Discovery show, is now reviewing the video to see if he can confirm or deny that it's wire.

In the weekly reports from Niku 6, the diameter of the cable was estimated at 2-3mm; might that be about the size of the aero-surface control cables in the Electra?  Perhaps the curved piece seen in the video went around a pulley of some kind, and had taken a set to give it the curve seen.

Elactra control cable is braided cable that is quite a bit thicker than that.
Title: Re: Discovery Channel Show
Post by: Monty Fowler on December 16, 2010, 11:17:59 AM
OK, not being horribly tech savvy (and having the patience of a flea today) - I take it that the Discovery Channel isn't selling DVDs of Finding Amelia?
Title: Re: Discovery Channel Show
Post by: Ric Gillespie on December 17, 2010, 06:32:56 AM
TIGHAR's contract with Discovery gives them the privilege of breaking the news of a "conclusive" discovery.  Obviously, so far, there has been no such news.  The contract also gives them the right to be the first to release new research results that could eventually lead to "conclusive evidence."  For example, the first news of the possible finger bone appeared on DiscoveryNews.com and has gone viral from there.  We can, and do, release research results that do not have "conclusive" potential but are, nonetheless, of great interest.  Whenever possible, we try to make sure that TIGHAR members receive news before anyone else.  It's one of the benefits of membership.
Title: Re: Discovery Channel Show
Post by: Don Dollinger on December 17, 2010, 08:04:51 AM
Quote
TIGHAR's contract with Discovery gives them the privilege of breaking the news of a "conclusive" discovery.  Obviously, so far, there has been no such news.

Can you reveal whether or not there is more breaking news possibly coming due to some other evidence that was collected at Niku, but not announced due to your nondisclosure agreement.

LTM

Don
Title: Re: Discovery Channel Show
Post by: Michael HALL on December 17, 2010, 09:21:24 AM
still desperate to see this, if anyone can help please email me sales@aqua-digital.com

Thanks ;)
Title: Re: Discovery Channel Show
Post by: Ric Gillespie on December 17, 2010, 09:39:53 AM
Can you reveal whether or not there is more breaking news possibly coming due to some other evidence that was collected at Niku, but not announced due to your nondisclosure agreement.

If you can tell me how the analysis will turn out I can tell you whether there will be more to report.  ;D
Title: Re: Discovery Channel Show
Post by: Rey Jude Barte Albarando on December 17, 2010, 09:42:50 AM
I will have to wait till (if ever) the video arrives in Pakistan hahaha!!! ;D
I think I'm the only Earhart/TIGHAR fan from this side of the world!
Congratulations to TIGHAR team anyway!
Title: Re: Discovery Channel Show
Post by: Phil O'Keefe on December 17, 2010, 06:19:08 PM
I'm certainly no expert on any of this, so please take my questions and comments in the spirit of respect in which they are intended. :o

Was there an inventory of the items aboard the Electra compiled back in 1937? If not, has anyone attempted to compile a list of probable items that were aboard? I would imagine such a list would be of considerable use and interest to anyone searching for artifacts, and could possibly provide some clues as to what they may have done (and what their resources and capabilities were) after they were stranded.

I had some thoughts and questions about the location of the artifacts that were discovered at the "seven" site, and indeed, the location at the southeastern end of the island. If AE set down on the fringing reef just north of the SS Norwich City (SSNC) on the far northwestern end of the island as the evidence appears to support, then it would seem reasonable to me that she and FN would have been more likely to make camp in that general area of the island, due to the proximity to the shipwreck and wreckage of the Electra. Traveling to the far end of the island would not make sense from a conservation of energy standpoint, although if they did not know if the island lacked a fresh water source, I suppose exploring it in search of one would make sense. It just seems like quite a trek to travel all the way to the far end of the island and away from the one man made item a searcher would most easily spot - the wreckage of the SSNC; especially since she may have mentioned the ship in one of her post-landing radio distress calls ("New York City, or something that sounded like it").

Putting myself into their shoes, I would imagine I would want to attempt to stay near the aircraft for as long as possible for several reasons. The Electra and its contents represented a considerable percentage of their available resources, and its location was near to some of their other resources, such as the items from the SSNC and the items left over from the crew's camp when they were shipwrecked. Outside of Gardner's local flora and fauna, that was probably all they had available to them.

Any aviator will know it is easier to spot something of the size of an aircraft or ship from the air than it is to spot an individual. Which leads me to another point - I can't imagine an aviator wouldn't put out signal "panels" (made of locally sourced items such as rock, coral and vegetation if necessary) on the beach in order to alert anyone searching from the air of their presence on the island. I would have also attempted to prepare signal (smoke) fires in the event I spotted a passing ship. Rubber from the Electra's tires could have been used to generate smoke. I realize it's an unanswerable question, but I have to wonder why AE and FN would not have taken similar steps.   

I also can't imagine that they would have attempted to transfer as much of the contents of the Electra to shore as possible - especially once they became aware of the risk of losing the aircraft to storm waves or rising tides. Going back to the content inventory, I would imagine there would have been items aboard that may have been used or modified for use as rainwater collection containers of greater capacity than the clam shells that were theoretically used for that purpose at the seven site. I also can't imagine making a flight of that type without an inflatable raft (another excellent rainwater collection reservoir and an easy to spot item from the air) and flare gun aboard the aircraft, as well as other basic survival gear - lures, rainwater collection and purification tools (iodine), etc. Other than making the radio distress calls, getting those items ashore would have been my number one priority.

Again, I realize a lot of these questions are unanswerable, but I just wanted to toss them out there for consideration and discussion. I still think that the "castaway" theory makes more sense than the "crashed at sea" theory, and I commend TIGHAR's efforts and work.
Title: Re: Discovery Channel Show
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on December 17, 2010, 09:40:25 PM
Was there an inventory of the items aboard the Electra compiled back in 1937?

An inventory was made (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Documents/Luke_Field.html) after the disaster at Luke Field (http://tighar.org/wiki/Disaster_at_Luke_Field) on the first round-the-world attempt. (http://tighar.org/wiki/First_attempt)

Quote
I had some thoughts and questions about the location of the artifacts that were discovered at the "seven" site, and indeed, the location at the southeastern end of the island. If AE set down on the fringing reef just north of the SS Norwich City (SSNC) on the far northwestern end of the island as the evidence appears to support, then it would seem reasonable to me that she and FN would have been more likely to make camp in that general area of the island, due to the proximity to the shipwreck and wreckage of the Electra. Traveling to the far end of the island would not make sense from a conservation of energy standpoint, although if they did not know if the island lacked a fresh water source, I suppose exploring it in search of one would make sense. It just seems like quite a trek to travel all the way to the far end of the island and away from the one man made item a searcher would most easily spot - the wreckage of the SSNC; especially since she may have mentioned the ship in one of her post-landing radio distress calls ("New York City, or something that sounded like it").

Putting myself into their shoes, I would imagine I would want to attempt to stay near the aircraft for as long as possible for several reasons. The Electra and its contents represented a considerable percentage of their available resources, and its location was near to some of their other resources, such as the items from the SSNC and the items left over from the crew's camp when they were shipwrecked. Outside of Gardner's local flora and fauna, that was probably all they had available to them.

We have to follow the evidence where it leads.  The things collected by Gallagher (http://tighar.org/wiki/Category:Collected_by_Gallagher) seem to have come from the Seven Site. (http://tighar.org/wiki/Seven_site)  It seems to fit Gallagher's description (http://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Research/Bulletins/22_GallaghersClues/22_GallaghersClues.html) of where his search was made.

Quote
Any aviator will know it is easier to spot something of the size of an aircraft or ship from the air than it is to spot an individual.

It is highly doubtful that AE and FN would have expected an air search in 1937.  Search and rescue was in its infancy.  There weren't a lot of aircraft that could go looking for them.  The planes that flew over Niku (http://tighar.org/wiki/Colorado_search) may have caught them completely off guard.  No other searches of the island were done by airplane.

Quote
Which leads me to another point - I can't imagine an aviator wouldn't put out signal "panels" (made of locally sourced items such as rock, coral and vegetation if necessary) on the beach in order to alert anyone searching from the air of their presence on the island. I would have also attempted to prepare signal (smoke) fires in the event I spotted a passing ship. Rubber from the Electra's tires could have been used to generate smoke. I realize it's an unanswerable question, but I have to wonder why AE and FN would not have taken similar steps.  

One wonders many things about how AE's mind worked.  Why did she make such a complete and total hash of advance planning for communications and RDF? (http://tighar.org/wiki/Failure_to_communicate)  Not knowing how much time might have elapsed from July 2nd until her demise at the Seven Site (if indeed it was she who left the skeleton there) makes it hard for us to second-guess what she should and should not have done.  If she collected the clams, fish, and birds, and if she lit the fires in which such bones were found, that may suggest that the move was not entirely fruitless.

Quote
I also can't imagine that they would have attempted to transfer as much of the contents of the Electra to shore as possible - especially once they became aware of the risk of losing the aircraft to storm waves or rising tides. Going back to the content inventory, I would imagine there would have been items aboard that may have been used or modified for use as rainwater collection containers of greater capacity than the clam shells that were theoretically used for that purpose at the seven site. I also can't imagine making a flight of that type without an inflatable raft (another excellent rainwater collection reservoir and an easy to spot item from the air) and flare gun aboard the aircraft, as well as other basic survival gear - lures, rainwater collection and purification tools (iodine), etc. Other than making the radio distress calls, getting those items ashore would have been my number one priority.

IF the aircraft landed on the reef (http://tighar.org/wiki/Landing_on_the_Reef%3F) near the Norwich City, (http://tighar.org/wiki/Norwich_City) then any material from the plane brought ashore probably got swept away in storms or picked up by natives.  TIGHAR has been over that ground many times.  It's doubtful that your surmise would lead to finding any new materials today, even if that is what AE and FN did.
Title: Re: Discovery Channel Show
Post by: Phil O'Keefe on December 18, 2010, 12:44:59 AM
An inventory was made after the disaster at Luke Field on the first round-the-world attempt.


Thanks for the link.  8) That looks like considerable material that could have been used for rainwater collection. For example, there are several waterproof bags listed, along with the pocket knife, rubber hoses and three canteens; it doesn't take extensive survival training to think of ways to utilize those for rainwater collection and storage. 

We have to follow the evidence where it leads.  The things collected by Gallagher seem to have come from the Seven Site.  It seems to fit Gallagher's description of where his search was made.

I completely agree; that's where the evidence suggests that AE apparently wound up. I am just wondering WHY she would go there. ??? As even a quick glance at the Google Earth images of the island show, it's quite a trek (3+ miles) to that location from the hypothetical Electra landing site. Unless the Seven Site location offered advantages over the immediate area of the landing site on the northwest coast of the atoll, I can't see any reason to relocate. Was there better access to food (clam beds, lagoon fishing) and water (freshwater lens?) and / or shade there? If not, I see no real advantage to relocating. You'd have to transport whatever materials you salvaged. You'd have to walk all that way; with the inherent injury and exertion / dehydration risks that are associated with that effort. It puts you miles away from the most likely place a search party would gravitate towards - the wreckage of the aircraft (at least until it disappeared), and of the SS Norwich City. 

It is highly doubtful that AE and FN would have expected an air search in 1937.  Search and rescue was in its infancy.  There weren't a lot of aircraft that could go looking for them.  The planes that flew over Niku may have caught them completely off guard.  No other searches of the island were done by airplane.

I must respectfully disagree. As aviators, AE and FN would have probably both known about the state of naval aviation during their era. Not only were aircraft carriers and seaplane tenders available, but most battleships and cruisers carried and utilized catapult launched floatplanes (like the Vought O3U-3 from the USS Colorado that overflew Gardner as part of the search) for reconnaissance purposes; greatly extending the range of their search capabilities. It would have been highly surprising for them to be unaware of these aviation related facts. If a search was to be conducted - and again, considering her fame, a search NOT being conducted would have been unlikely - aircraft being a component of that search would have to at least been something they would have thought of as possible, if not likely.

In light of that fact, not keeping the signal pistol and at least a few rounds for it (and according to the inventory, there were over a dozen; including two parachute flares) with them at all times would have been unthinkable.

One wonders many things about how AE's mind worked.  Why did she make such a complete and total hash of advance planning for communications and RDF?  Not knowing how much time might have elapsed from July 2nd until her demise at the Seven Site (if indeed it was she who left the skeleton there) makes it hard for us to second-guess what she should and should not have done.  If she collected the clams, fish, and birds, and if she lit the fires in which such bones were found, that may suggest that the move was not entirely fruitless.

An excellent point. FN should have known better too; it's not like he was inexperienced in terms of navigation and long overwater flights. But most tragedies are a result of a combination of errors and bad circumstances as opposed to any single error or engineering casualty. Change one thing here or there, and the outcome completely changes. Had the reception antenna not been knocked off the Electra (if indeed that occurred) when it took off at Lae, they would have been able to hear the Itasca's radio instructions to broadcast on a different frequency, thus allowing them to home in on Itasca, or for Itasca to get a fix on the Electra and guide them in. Had AE made better advance preparations, then the RDF issue may not have arisen. Had she undertaken more extensive RDF training, she would have had a better knowledge of the capabilities and limitations of her equipment, made better arrangements with the Coast Guard and had a better understanding in terms of the Itasca's transmission, reception and RDF capabilities, etc. etc.

I suspect no single failure or error in judgment sealed their fate, but a unique combination of them. :(

IF the aircraft landed on the reef near the Norwich City, then any material from the plane brought ashore probably got swept away in storms or picked up by natives.  TIGHAR has been over that ground many times.  It's doubtful that your surmise would lead to finding any new materials today, even if that is what AE and FN did.

No; if TIGHAR has searched that area extensively, then such items are probably not there. I'm not suggesting otherwise - only that such a location near to the (probable) Electra landing site would be the most logical location for anyone stranded on that island to set up camp. If you land on the reef just north of the SSNC, then you'd head for the beach immediately to your east. It's the closest location to set up camp. The crew of the Norwich City set up camp in that general area; near the abandoned and collapsed structures from the 1890s era Arundel project. It's also the location of the coconut trees which the Arundel colony planted, and from what I've read, some of the tallest (and best shade producing?) trees on the atoll. Walking to the northwestern tip of the atoll, and then all the way around and down to the far southeastern end of the island to the Seven Site doesn't make much sense... especially if you're carrying bottles, a sextant box, etc. etc. Why take a three or four mile trek over rugged terrain and in hot weather if you don't have to? 

If one one (or both) of them survived for months (as Ric theorized) or even weeks, then I would suspect some exploration of the atoll would have been undertaken. If they felt the Seven Site offered them some advantage, then it would make sense for them to consider the move. But again, such an advantage would have to have been significant to justify the effort involved in the relocation from the point of their initial landing.

It just doesn't make sense to me. ??? But again, just because I don't understand the reasons doesn't mean they didn't have any for undertaking that move, and even though I may not find it logical, if the evidence suggests otherwise, then you have to side with that. :)

Thanks again for your reply and the links. I find the whole subject fascinating! :)
Title: Re: Discovery Channel Show
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on December 18, 2010, 06:20:18 AM
I completely agree; that's where the evidence suggests that AE apparently wound up. I am just wondering WHY she would go there. ??? As even a quick glance at the Google Earth images of the island show, it's quite a trek (3+ miles) to that location from the hypothetical Electra landing site. Unless the Seven Site location offered advantages over the immediate area of the landing site on the northwest coast of the atoll, I can't see any reason to relocate.

If AE left her skeleton there, you'll have to live with the mystery.

If you're saying TIGHAR should never have looked there, you'll have to live with a fait accompli.

Quote
Was there better access to food (clam beds, lagoon fishing) and water (freshwater lens?) and / or shade there?

Turtles, fish, birds, clams; nice forest setting (not as it is now); sea breezes; high ground giving a lookout toward Howland Island, where a Coast Guard cutter was stationed on their behalf; perhaps fewer crabs than elsewhere.

No freshwater lens on the island.  That is the main reason why the colony was abandoned in 1963. (http://tighar.org/wiki/PISS)

Quote
If not, I see no real advantage to relocating. You'd have to transport whatever materials you salvaged. You'd have to walk all that way; with the inherent injury and exertion / dehydration risks that are associated with that effort. It puts you miles away from the most likely place a search party would gravitate towards - the wreckage of the aircraft (at least until it disappeared), and of the SS Norwich City. 

Do you find, as a general rule, that most people behave as you expect them to?  How long would you stay by the Norwich City before searching the rest of the island for resources?  Would you have embarked on a flight that depended on radio technology without knowing the capabilities of your equipment in detail?  Would you have given the Coast Guard wrong frequencies to use both before and during the flight?  Can we rely on your self-appraisal as a guide to understanding AE?

Quote
It is highly doubtful that AE and FN would have expected an air search in 1937.  Search and rescue was in its infancy.  There weren't a lot of aircraft that could go looking for them.  The planes that flew over Niku may have caught them completely off guard.  No other searches of the island were done by airplane.

I must respectfully disagree. As aviators, AE and FN would have probably both known about the state of naval aviation during their era. Not only were aircraft carriers and seaplane tenders available, but most battleships and cruisers carried and utilized catapult launched floatplanes (like the Vought O3U-3 from the USS Colorado that overflew Gardner as part of the search) for reconnaissance purposes; greatly extending the range of their search capabilities. It would have been highly surprising for them to be unaware of these aviation related facts. If a search was to be conducted - and again, considering her fame, a search NOT being conducted would have been unlikely - aircraft being a component of that search would have to at least been something they would have thought of as possible, if not likely.

I respectfully disagree back at you.  There was one (1) overflight of the island.  That doesn't like a whole lot of SAR to me.  YMMV.

Quote
In light of that fact, not keeping the signal pistol and at least a few rounds for it (and according to the inventory, there were over a dozen; including two parachute flares) with them at all times would have been unthinkable.

And yet, it seems that the flare pistol was left behind. (https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,173.msg1301.html#msg1301)

Quote
No; if TIGHAR has searched that area extensively, then such items are probably not there. I'm not suggesting otherwise - only that such a location near to the (probable) Electra landing site would be the most logical location for anyone stranded on that island to set up camp. If you land on the reef just north of the SSNC, then you'd head for the beach immediately to your east. It's the closest location to set up camp. The crew of the Norwich City set up camp in that general area; near the abandoned and collapsed structures from the 1890s era Arundel project. It's also the location of the coconut trees which the Arundel colony planted, and from what I've read, some of the tallest (and best shade producing?) trees on the atoll. Walking to the northwestern tip of the atoll, and then all the way around and down to the far southeastern end of the island to the Seven Site doesn't make much sense... especially if you're carrying bottles, a sextant box, etc. etc. Why take a three or four mile trek over rugged terrain and in hot weather if you don't have to? 

All out of food from the plane and the Norwich City cache?  Thirsty and hoping that one had seen a pond at the far end of the island (http://tighar.org/wiki/File:Nikucolor.jpg)?  Suffering from heat stroke?  Curiosity?  A different set of intuitions from yours? 

Quote
If one one (or both) of them survived for months (as Ric theorized) or even weeks, then I would suspect some exploration of the atoll would have been undertaken. If they felt the Seven Site offered them some advantage, then it would make sense for them to consider the move. But again, such an advantage would have to have been significant to justify the effort involved in the relocation from the point of their initial landing.

It just doesn't make sense to me. ??? But again, just because I don't understand the reasons doesn't mean they didn't have any for undertaking that move, and even though I may not find it logical, if the evidence suggests otherwise, then you have to side with that. :)

Yes, exactly.  IF one or both moved to the Seven Site, we just have to presume that they thought it was the best place to be.  Or else they got that far and died, without being able to go back to home base, if there ever was a home base, near the Norwich City.

Quote
Thanks again for your reply and the links. I find the whole subject fascinating! :)

You're welcome.  I find it fascinating, too.  ;)
Title: Re: Discovery Channel Show
Post by: Ric Gillespie on December 18, 2010, 07:20:52 AM
Marty has done a magnificent job answering these questions.  I'll only add that we identified the Seven Site as a possible castaway campsite BEFORE we had evidence that the plane was landed near the shipwreck.  We originally thought the landing may have occurred on the reef down there.  When we later found the witnesses and photos that suggest a landing up at the west end near NC we had the same concerns Phil has. Why set up housekeeping two miles away?  But the more time we spent on Nutiran (the part of the island near the shipwreck) and the more time we spent at the Seven Site, the more we realized that the castaway(s) had picked the best spot on the island.  Nutiran is sheltered from the easterly trade winds by a tall buka forest so there's no breeze.  It's hot and miserable there.  You're also a long way from the lagoon where you can catch fish and gather clams without dealing with the slippery reef.  At the Seven Site the atoll is narrow and the ocean beach and lagoon are both easily accessible. There is a slight rise in the land and, with the easterly trades blowing through the open forest, it was probably the most pleasant spot on the island.  Also, by climbing the trees you can get a view of a wide sweep of horizon to watch for rescue - a prime consideration of any castaway (re-read Robinson Crusoe).  
Title: Re: Discovery Channel Show
Post by: Cynthia M Kennedy on December 19, 2010, 03:55:27 PM
If FN was injured (as some of the post-loss messages seem to indicate) perhaps he was not able to participate in any decisions that may have been made regarding possible rescue.

Cindy
Title: Re: Discovery Channel Show
Post by: Phil O'Keefe on December 19, 2010, 06:35:09 PM
If FN was injured (as some of the post-loss messages seem to indicate) perhaps he was not able to participate in any decisions that may have been made regarding possible rescue.

Cindy

Yes ma'am, that's quite possible. However, if he was injured, that may have also severely limited their mobility and ability to relocate very far from the landing site; at least until the time of his demise. Unless AE abandoned him and went her separate way... ???

I'd need to have another look at the radio logs to see when the last alleged transmission from the Electra by a male voice was heard, but even if they were all on the first day or two, other transmissions, if credible, would suggest AE remained in the vicinity of the Electra, wherever it was, until at least 5 July.

Anecdotal evidence and the reef geography suggest that the Electra landed at the opposite end of the island from the Seven Site, and that seems to be TIGHAR's current working assumption.
Title: Re: Discovery Channel Show
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on December 19, 2010, 06:48:29 PM
I'd need to have another look at the radio logs to see when the last alleged transmission from the Electra by a male voice was heard ...

That would have to be a post-loss radio transmission.  AE did all of the talking while in flight. (http://tighar.org/wiki/Transmission_timeline)

Betty's notebook (http://tighar.org/wiki/Betty%27s_Notebook) mentions a man's voice.  One other alleged post-loss reception also mentions a man's voice, but I don't think any words were heard distinctly. 

Quote
Anecdotal evidence and the reef geography suggest that the Electra landed at the opposite end of the island from the Seven Site, and that seems to be TIGHAR's current working assumption.

Yes, exactly.
Title: Re: Discovery Channel Show
Post by: Ric Gillespie on December 24, 2010, 08:50:31 AM
Yes, I see there is. I had forgotten that.  I calculated the possible time over Gardner years ago.  I'll take another look at it and put up a full report.
Title: Re: Discovery Channel Show
Post by: Ashley Such on December 26, 2010, 07:59:58 PM
So, I guess no DVD will be available to purchase? :(
Title: Re: Discovery Channel Show
Post by: Chris Austin on June 06, 2011, 05:00:36 AM
Yippeee!
I have just received my Sky TV Magazine for June and am delighted to see that Discovery UK have scheduled "Finding Amelia" for 9pm Wednesday 29th June.
http://press.discovery.com/uk/dsc/programs/finding-amelia/ (http://press.discovery.com/uk/dsc/programs/finding-amelia/)
Title: Re: Discovery Channel Show
Post by: Chris Austin on June 06, 2011, 11:08:52 AM
Yippeee!
I have just received my Sky TV Magazine for June and am delighted to see that Discovery UK have scheduled "Finding Amelia" for 9pm Wednesday 29th June.
http://press.discovery.com/uk/dsc/programs/finding-amelia/ (http://press.discovery.com/uk/dsc/programs/finding-amelia/)


Only got freeview, do they do webcastes in the UK?

I don't think so.
Title: Re: Discovery Channel Show
Post by: Ric Gillespie on July 12, 2011, 02:35:35 PM
Why were the diggers not wearing gloves when handling items found such as remains of the knife and glass containers.  Could this have compromised touch DNA?

The diggers did wear gloves when handling items that we believed might have touch DNA.  We later learned that the exercise was pointless anyway. The DNA scientists we had consulted were overly optimistic. There was virtually no chance of getting touch DNA from items that had lain in that environment for 70-plus years. 
Title: Re: Discovery Channel Show
Post by: richie conroy on July 13, 2011, 03:12:12 PM
right this may not be the place, but av been looking at forensic imageing pictures an picture 10 u can see the out line of what i think is a plane.
Title: Re: Discovery Channel Show
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on July 13, 2011, 03:24:15 PM
... forensic imaging pictures ...

I guess you are referring to the Forensic Imaging Project I (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/16_ForensicImaging/16_Forensicimaging.html), which was later updated as Forensic Imaging Project II (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/19_Forensicupdate.html).

I think it is pretty safe to say that Jeff Glickman (http://tighar.org/wiki/Glickman) has already decided that there is no picture of an intact aircraft in any of the aerial reconnaissance photos that he has examined.

His company did help pinpoint the water collector tank (http://tighar.org/wiki/Water_tank) at the Seven Site--among many other notable contributions to TIGHAR's work.
Title: Re: Discovery Channel Show
Post by: richie conroy on July 13, 2011, 03:37:44 PM
ok thx just thought i would check  :)
Title: Re: Discovery Channel Show
Post by: Don Dollinger on July 14, 2011, 09:45:03 AM
Quote
Just watching the show again and yes nor-wich city could be a valid way of a 'colonial' person saying it 

As a "colonial" who has lived in England I can assure you that "nor-wich" would most probably be how it was pronounced.  As an old English Chap whom I used to frequent the pubs with continually reminded me, "You don't speak English, you speak American!"

LTM,

Don
Title: Re: Discovery Channel Show
Post by: Ric Gillespie on July 14, 2011, 10:09:12 AM
I said "nor-wich" to Eric Bevington once and he immediately corrected me. "It's nor-ich."  He also corrected me when I pronounced Gallagher's name "gala-ger."  "It's gala-her,"  said the man who knew him well. 
Title: Re: Discovery Channel Show
Post by: Tom Swearengen on July 14, 2011, 12:50:37 PM
if that were a submerged plane,  it certainly would have been noticed long before now.
Tom
Title: Re: Discovery Channel Show
Post by: Don Dollinger on July 15, 2011, 09:19:28 AM
Quote
if that were a submerged plane,  it certainly would have been noticed long before now.

I read an article some years back on some obscure news site that headlined that AE's plane had been located, when I read the article they stated that the plane was clearly visible (via Google Earth photos) in the lagoon and they had a small Google Earth picture of Niku (probably the same one that is there now) and they stated that if you opened Google Earth and looked where X marked the spot on the photo that the plane it was visible.

Let's just say that is an hour of my life that I will never get back.

LTM,

Don
Title: Re: Discovery Channel Show
Post by: Ricker H Jones on July 25, 2011, 06:21:12 AM
The Discovery Channel "Finding Amelia" program is scheduled to air from 9 PM - 11 PM Monday night July 25, (repeated at 12M) on the Planet Green channel. (for those of you who go directly to new posts and didn't see the Facebook post).
Rick J
Title: Re: Discovery Channel Show
Post by: John Wallace on July 25, 2011, 10:18:51 AM
Fyi, I am pretty sure it airs TONIGHT, July 25th at 9pm (repeated at midnight) not next month as previous post suggests. See Planet Green schedule.

http://planetgreen.discovery.com/tv-schedules/series.html?paid=237.15641.26181.39326.1 (http://planetgreen.discovery.com/tv-schedules/series.html?paid=237.15641.26181.39326.1)

Jul 25, 09:00 pm
(120 minutes)

Remind Me
   
Finding Amelia
Episode 1
TV-PG, CC

What happened to Amelia Earhart when she disappeared over the Pacific Ocean more than 70 years ago? One man thinks he not only knows the answer but is on the verge of proving it...and finding Amelia.
Title: Re: Discovery Channel Show
Post by: Ricker H Jones on July 25, 2011, 01:33:55 PM
You're absolutely correct, it is tonight.  I've corrected the posting.  Thank you!
Rick J
Title: Re: Discovery Channel Show
Post by: Erik on August 13, 2011, 06:01:23 AM
"Finding Amelia" is showing again tomorrow, Sunday August 14 at noon 12pm. 

http://planetgreen.discovery.com/tv-schedules/series.html?paid=237.15641.26181.39326.1




Title: Re: Discovery Channel Show
Post by: Monty Fowler on August 14, 2011, 08:16:47 AM
I wish the Discovery Channel would rebroadcast it ... that channel I have, at least for now. Even better would be the DVD. Are you listening, Discovery Channel? I don't feel like alligator wrestling with your unfriendly customer comments thingy this morning, not enough coffee yet and you don't seem to really pay attention to it anyway ... sounding like a crochety old fart, I know. Sorry!
Title: Re: Discovery Channel Show
Post by: Jeff Scott on August 14, 2011, 03:48:47 PM
That would be nice.  I missed the show and have never heard of the Planet Green channel.
Title: Re: Discovery Channel Show
Post by: Don Dollinger on August 15, 2011, 08:35:45 AM
Quote
I missed the show and have never heard of the Planet Green channel.

On expanded cable it is one of those 200 channels your paying for that you have never viewed and if it was not for this one particular show you never would have ever viewed...

LTM

Don
Title: Re: Discovery Channel Show
Post by: Jeff Scott on August 15, 2011, 09:14:57 PM
Quote
I missed the show and have never heard of the Planet Green channel.

On expanded cable it is one of those 200 channels your paying for that you have never viewed and if it was not for this one particular show you never would have ever viewed...

LTM

Don

Well sure enough, there it is.  Discovery Planet Green--channel 135!  Alas, I don't get that package.