Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 22 23 [24] 25 26 ... 70   Go Down

Author Topic: The Question of 2-2-V-1  (Read 1023060 times)

JNev

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 778
  • It's a GOOD thing to be in the cornfield...
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #345 on: February 28, 2014, 09:24:06 AM »

Now, I'm not saying they brought a piece of their wrecked PBM with them as a souvenir, I'm just pointing out that it isn't so farfetched to think stuff from Howland could end up at Canton; and again let me say that I'm agnostic on the odds of that actually having happened.

So, someone arranges to blast a piece off of some part of the PBM, carries it as a souvenir to Canton, then decides it isn't such a good souvenir, and gives it to someone headed toward Gardner, because ... 

Uh, I don't see a great because there.

I'm not saying that this is impossible.  This is one of the kinds of negatives that can't be proven.  If you show that there is a source for the rivet pattern on the PBM in question, then I guess I'll have to give this more credence.  For the moment, it seems to me to be an extremely unlikely sequence.

I'm probably a strong number 2 candidate for "most believes that 2-2-V-1 is a likely Electra artifact" right behind Ric here by what I've already publicly said, so I hope this is not taken as poking holes.  I just also believe we have to be thorough about eliminating other potential sources for 2-2-V-1, and a potential 'donor' 350 miles away is strong, IMO.

Now lies this PBM wreckage with a stiffener arrangement of some sort (similar 'standard' pattern - may be a fit, maybe not) visible through a gaping hole cut in the side of a PBM wing float where metal was removed, said remains lying at Howland Island.  We have no clear lines of victualization between that place and Niku.  But, said float bears obvious evidence of old repairs in at least one location near foward end, on the side skin.  In the background lies a wing from that same PBM; in the more immediate background lies a junkyard of what may be fuselage remains, or something else - but by appearances "aviation wreckage". 

The history of this wreck is colorful - deliberately beached on coral and destroyed by fire - and by the old repairs visible on the float, 'hard service' suggests a history of dings and patches.  Any part of those remains could prove a 'fit', however unlikely we think it that a portion could have got to Niku later - or 'not a fit'.  Or maybe there is a PBM we can look at more expediently to see if a match occurs. 

While later than the Electra, the PBM is arguably of appropriate vintage (entered service September 1940) as we now understand the decline of the brazier-head rivet to be about a decade later than previously thought, and that some of these seaplanes had surprisingly thinner metal on the hull skins that previously believed (see links up-string).

I recognize the burden of transport and that we don't know of any direct paths by history's record and realize that the governance of Howland vs. Gardner / Niku and others is different (U.S. vs. then-UK, now Kiribati), and what that suggests regarding access.  I also realize that metal does not float, and that it is unlikely that any metal lying about got swept up with Dorothy and Toto to be deposited later at Gardner.  But someone 'cut' metal from the side of that float - and a bit crudely, look at the jagged edges - and must have gone to some trouble to do so, for some reason.

So we have vintage-reasonable wreckage within 300 miles or so of Gardner which bears evidence of old repairs and later 'harvesting' (my term) of some portions of metal from the remains; the structure has a traditional belly-stiffener arrangement visible through a gaping hole where metal was removed by someone after the ship was destroyed.  These remains are from an airplane which was destroyed with at least some interaction of its lower elements with the reef at Howland, and we know that a fire played some part in its destruction.  2-2-V-1 is one mechnically and possibly thermally-abused artifact, which bears evidence of forcible removal from its host aircraft. 

I concede that we have no known mode of transport and that there are jurisdictional challenges - but we have these other things and reasonable proximity within which many strange and unrecorded things could have easily happened over some period of time when the official world was not looking.  My belief is that we cannot ignore this hulk as a possible source anymore than we'd shy from visiting the AF museum for a comparison. 

While I view 2-2-V-1 as a very strong Electra candidate because of its unique character and place where found, we still have a vexacious fitment issue and other sources are possible - especially anything of similar vintage and repair history lying within a few hundred miles of 'home'.
- Jeff Neville

Former Member 3074R
 
« Last Edit: February 28, 2014, 09:28:58 AM by Jeffrey Neville »
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 6098
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #346 on: February 28, 2014, 10:02:32 AM »

So we have vintage-reasonable wreckage within 300 miles or so of Gardner which bears evidence of old repairs and later 'harvesting' (my term) of some portions of metal from the remains; the structure has a traditional belly-stiffener arrangement visible through a gaping hole where metal was removed by someone after the ship was destroyed.  These remains are from an airplane which was destroyed with at least some interaction of its lower elements with the reef at Howland, and we know that a fire played some part in its destruction.  2-2-V-1 is one mechnically and possibly thermally-abused artifact, which bears evidence of forcible removal from its host aircraft. 

Did I miss something?  Do we have any indication that there are #3 braziers in a .032 skin on a PBM, let alone a rivet pattern anything like we see on 2-2-V-1?  There was undoubtedly airplane wreckage all over the Central Pacific: a PBM at Howland, B-24s on Funafuti, a C-47 on Sydney, and several different types on Canton. 

The only surviving PBM is at the Pima Air Museum in Tucson.  We can certainly check it out.

Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 6098
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #347 on: February 28, 2014, 11:05:46 AM »

At least in theory, measuring the existing rivet head diameter will identify it as either a AN455 Brazier Head or a AN456 Modified Brazier Head.  For 3/32" shank rivets, the head diameter of a AN455 should fall between .222" and .246"  Head diameter of a AN456 should fall between .146" and .166"

Rivet specifications-  one current, one from 1942, below-
http://www.hansonrivet.com/aerospace-solid-rivets.htm

This is really interesting -- the factory head of a 1/8" modified brazier rivet is identical to the head of a 3/32" brazier rivet.  So when inspecting museum aircraft or photographs of aircraft, the rivet size cannot be determined from the rivet factory head.

To check this apparent quandary I asked the Univair Aircraft Corporation (they specialize in old style rivets for restorers) to sell me examples of AN455 braziers, sizes 3/32 (aka #3), 1/8 (aka #4), and 5/32 (aka #5); and examples of AN456 modified braziers in the same sizes.  I didn't tell them why I wanted the rivets except that it was for historical research.  They were kind enough to send the rivets at no charge.  The AN455 braziers are pure aluminum, no dimple - and the AN456s are AD rivets with a dimple. That should make no difference in the size.

As you can see from the attached photos:
•  the existing rivet in 2-2-V-1, although looking a bit worse for wear, is clearly an AN455 AD #3.
•  the heads of the AN455 #3 rivet and the AN456 #4 rivet are not even close in diameter, let alone identical.

Somebody must have misread something.  We should be able to identify #3 brazier rivets on aircraft by examining the shape of the head and measuring its diameter.

 
Logged

John B. Shattuck

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 38
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #348 on: February 28, 2014, 11:24:28 AM »

Quote
You've hit the nail (or rivet) on the head.  2-2-V-1 is an extraordinary artifact that, to several of us, at least approaches smoking gun status - but the "why" is, as you say, waaay too down in the weeds for most people.  Our hope is that we can document the artifact's "exoticness" by showing that it meets guidelines that were obsolete by the time WWII aircraft were built and repaired.  Failing that, we'll have to show that criteria for being a source for 2-2-V-1 do not exist on any aircraft that served in the Central Pacific region.

Ric, did you ever see that documentary of Ballard finding the Titanic?  In it, their ROV is following a non-descript debris trail as tension in the control room mounts.  Then, into the view projected in the monitor is a large round image; "that's the boiler!" someone shouts, and to the assembled experts in maritime engineering they know they have just found the resting place of the Titanic.  To the rest of us, it is simply another piece of debris rusting on the ocean floor.  Of course, from there Ballard goes on to bring home the ghostly images of Titanic in her final resting place and wins popular acclaim as the "finder of the Titanic". 

Is 2-2-V-1 our boiler?  The piece of debris that indicates to the experts in historic aircraft engineering that they have found the location of the aircraft...  If so, does our problem of proof remain?  Consider if Ballard's expedition had run out of money just at the point they found the boiler, and they returned to Wood's Hole with nothing more than their footage of the boiler.  I imagine that experts would have agreed, but in the end the public would hardly have taken note; or it simply would have begged the question "where's the rest of it".  Ballard truly "found" the Titanic when he brought us the image of her on the bottom.  2-2-V-1 may prove to be the smoking gun that proves our hypothesis, but will it be enough for the public at large?  I would caution that it may not; we may have to bring back some definitive image that the public identifies with and concludes that we have found them.

You got me churning on these thoughts earlier in the thread when we discussed what agencies would be so unimpeachable as to be the legitimate arbiters of discovery.  Perhaps the unassailable opinion is in combination with an image from the bottom that becomes the smoking gun once combined.  Here's hoping Ritchie's anomoly; or other find ultimately delivers the "yep, that's her plane" moment.

Hope my thoughts are of some assistance...

JB
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 6098
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #349 on: February 28, 2014, 11:36:36 AM »

Is 2-2-V-1 our boiler?  The piece of debris that indicates to the experts in historic aircraft engineering that they have found the location of the aircraft...  If so, does our problem of proof remain?  Consider if Ballard's expedition had run out of money just at the point they found the boiler, and they returned to Wood's Hole with nothing more than their footage of the boiler.  I imagine that experts would have agreed, but in the end the public would hardly have taken note; or it simply would have begged the question "where's the rest of it".  Ballard truly "found" the Titanic when he brought us the image of her on the bottom.  2-2-V-1 may prove to be the smoking gun that proves our hypothesis, but will it be enough for the public at large?  I would caution that it may not; we may have to bring back some definitive image that the public identifies with and concludes that we have found them.

I've been having the same thoughts and I think the Titanic boiler analogy is a good one.  We need to look as closely as possible at our boiler but, for the public, the Earhart mystery will be solved when we find "the rest of it" whatever that may prove to be. 
Logged

Mark Pearce

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 163
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #350 on: February 28, 2014, 01:11:45 PM »

 
There was undoubtedly airplane wreckage all over the Central Pacific: a PBM at Howland, B-24s on Funafuti, a C-47 on Sydney, and several different types on Canton.
 

Aircraft wreckage is reported to be on Baker Island also. Can it be eliminated as a potential source for 2-2-V-1 before knowing - for certain - what it consists of?  I'm with Jeff N., who says above-  "...we have to be thorough about eliminating other potential sources for 2-2-V-1, and a potential 'donor' 350 miles away is strong, IMO."

From Wikipedia- "Baker Island"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_Island

"....The Ruins and artifacts"

"Debris from past human occupation is scattered throughout the island and in offshore waters. Most is from the U.S. military occupation of the island from 1942 to 1946. The most noticeable remnant is the 150-foot (46 m) wide, 5,400-foot (1,600 m) long airstrip. It is completely overgrown with vegetation and is unusable. In the northeast section, apparently the main camp area, are the remains of several buildings and heavy equipment. Five wooden antenna poles about 40 feet (12 m) in height remain standing in the camp. Debris from several crashed airplanes and large equipment such as bulldozers is scattered around the island. Numerous bulldozer excavations containing the remnants of metal, fuel and water drums are scattered about the north central portion and northern edge of the island. The Navy reported the loss of 11 landing craft in the surf during World War II."
« Last Edit: February 28, 2014, 07:55:19 PM by Mark Pearce »
Logged

JNev

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 778
  • It's a GOOD thing to be in the cornfield...
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #351 on: February 28, 2014, 02:16:31 PM »

So we have vintage-reasonable wreckage within 300 miles or so of Gardner which bears evidence of old repairs and later 'harvesting' (my term) of some portions of metal from the remains; the structure has a traditional belly-stiffener arrangement visible through a gaping hole where metal was removed by someone after the ship was destroyed.  These remains are from an airplane which was destroyed with at least some interaction of its lower elements with the reef at Howland, and we know that a fire played some part in its destruction.  2-2-V-1 is one mechnically and possibly thermally-abused artifact, which bears evidence of forcible removal from its host aircraft. 

Did I miss something?  Do we have any indication that there are #3 braziers in a .032 skin on a PBM, let alone a rivet pattern anything like we see on 2-2-V-1?  There was undoubtedly airplane wreckage all over the Central Pacific: a PBM at Howland, B-24s on Funafuti, a C-47 on Sydney, and several different types on Canton. 

The only surviving PBM is at the Pima Air Museum in Tucson.  We can certainly check it out.

I'll jump in with you and say I think we MAY have missed something - it is possible, given what we've learned about the date that braziers and other types gave way to the universal head rivet.  We also have upstring a report of thinner skins (.030" with .032" recommended for repair) in the hull bottom of a large seaplane than I would have thought.  Also, the stringer / stiffener pattern in the 'floor' of the float is apparent and may be a match - we won't know unless we check.

I do not know for certain the details of the PBM's construction, but given these things it needs checking out, IMO.  Pima would be a great source, agreed.  If I could stand on my previous understandings of 'WWII period' construction I'd brush the PBM off, but we now seem to have reason to look at it.  I still hold that 2-2-V-1 is unique in character - but the question now is whether it may also fit certain WWII types after all.

Don't get me wrong - I remain excited about 2-2-V-1 and what it may be.  I also stand by what I said earlier that challengers to that possibiltiy need to put up substance about where the source may be, and that has happened; of course it isn't a 'see, a definite fit on the PBM' kind of challenge, but enough is in front of me to realize I would have to take it up for serious consideration, or be less than thorough.  I appreciate your thought about Pima and hope they can help us (a lot cheaper than bobbing out to Howland to scrape the bird crap off of that old float and stuff...).
- Jeff Neville

Former Member 3074R
 
Logged

Dan Swift

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 348
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #352 on: February 28, 2014, 02:23:37 PM »

Titanic situation is different in my mind.  Everyone knew it sank, not exactly where, but it sank.  No one was trying to prove it sank rather than picked up by an alien vessel or disappeared into the Bermuda Triangle. 
The Tighar - AE situation is, Tighar needs only to prove it's hypothesis.  ANY piece or part that can only be from AE's Electra will prove that.  Yes, finding the entire plane would be nice.  But keep in mind, it may be in shreds.  So in this case, finding the boiler would be....well the end.  And the beginning of so many other things for Tighar. 
TIGHAR Member #4154
 
Logged

Jerry Germann

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 421
  • Go Deep
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #353 on: February 28, 2014, 02:26:48 PM »



Jeff, 
        It would help if one could narrow the time frame down as to it's possible import to Niku, ....To me it seems plausible that it could have arrived on Niku anywhere from the time of it's manufacture and subsequent serpartion from it's parent structure, to it's discovery.....that is a span of possibly 50-54 years ....during the latter mobility may have improved somewhat....( more likely in the timeframe of occupation of course ) however; can we rule out the 70',...80's as well?
« Last Edit: February 28, 2014, 02:30:03 PM by Ric Gillespie »
Logged

richie conroy

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1412
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #354 on: February 28, 2014, 02:39:55 PM »

Hi All

Sorry if these are of no use, first link is to a page on rivets

 http://avstop.com/ac/Aviation_Maintenance_Technician_Handbook_General/5-56.html

Second link is to some Earhart pics in a auction i haven't seen before,

 http://www.delcampe.net/page/item/id,244326782,var,Album-SENEGAL-GUINEE-AVIATION--Amelia-Earhart--Ethnographie--Elephantiasis--Militaires--Gouverneur--Hydravion,language,E.html

on some of the images you can see the area that 2-2-V-1 may be from

Thanks

We are an echo of the past


Member# 416
 
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 6098
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #355 on: February 28, 2014, 02:42:14 PM »

We're all set for a private tour of the Air Force Museum restoration shop on Friday, March 28 from 9:00AM to 10:15AM after which we will meet with Roger Deere, head of the shop.  It will be much easier to get everyone on and off the base if we're in one vehicle so we'll rent a van.  I'll need the names of everyone who plans to go so drop me a confirming email at Ric@tighar.org.
Also, please let me know if you're retired military (believe it or not it simplifies things for the Air Force). 

We need to decide whether it's more convenient to have a hotel close to the museum/air base or close to the commercial airport.
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 6098
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #356 on: February 28, 2014, 02:44:44 PM »

on some of the images you can see the area that 2-2-V-1 may be from

Not that I can see.
Logged

JNev

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 778
  • It's a GOOD thing to be in the cornfield...
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #357 on: February 28, 2014, 03:20:36 PM »

At least in theory, measuring the existing rivet head diameter will identify it as either a AN455 Brazier Head or a AN456 Modified Brazier Head.  For 3/32" shank rivets, the head diameter of a AN455 should fall between .222" and .246"  Head diameter of a AN456 should fall between .146" and .166"

Rivet specifications-  one current, one from 1942, below-
http://www.hansonrivet.com/aerospace-solid-rivets.htm

This is really interesting -- the factory head of a 1/8" modified brazier rivet is identical to the head of a 3/32" brazier rivet.  So when inspecting museum aircraft or photographs of aircraft, the rivet size cannot be determined from the rivet factory head.

To check this apparent quandary I asked the Univair Aircraft Corporation (they specialize in old style rivets for restorers) to sell me examples of AN455 braziers, sizes 3/32 (aka #3), 1/8 (aka #4), and 5/32 (aka #5); and examples of AN456 modified braziers in the same sizes.  I didn't tell them why I wanted the rivets except that it was for historical research.  They were kind enough to send the rivets at no charge.  The AN455 braziers are pure aluminum, no dimple - and the AN456s are AD rivets with a dimple. That should make no difference in the size.

As you can see from the attached photos:
•  the existing rivet in 2-2-V-1, although looking a bit worse for wear, is clearly an AN455 AD #3.
•  the heads of the AN455 #3 rivet and the AN456 #4 rivet are not even close in diameter, let alone identical.

Somebody must have misread something.  We should be able to identify #3 brazier rivets on aircraft by examining the shape of the head and measuring its diameter.

 

Excellent getting those examples from Univaire.  Dimple or no dimple makes no difference in shape and dimensions, true - it merely denotes material type; the 'no dimple' is a 'soft' 1100 series rivet, if memory serves.

That actually looks like a pair of AN455s, one #3 and the other #4 - the head is too large on both examples relative to shank diameter for a 'modified' brazier AN456, I believe, so suggest checking to see if mislabled.  A #4 AN455 would have a head height of .062" and diameter of .312" (constant radius of .227") - which appears to be the case as I look at your scale against the #4 example; conversely, a #4 AN456 ("modified brazier") would have a head height of only about .047" and diameter of .235" - diminutive compared to the AN455. 

Where the comparison gets interesting (when just looking at the head-end on a skin surface) is the #3 'brazier' head vs. the #4 'modified brazier': the former is fully .234" in diameter and .047" high, vs. the latter example at a nearly identical .235" diameter / .047" height... see-whut-ah-mean?  :P 

It is almost literally as if the engineers simply reached down one size on the head for a given shank size to create the 'modified' rivet, hence the two would appear to be essentially identical as seen from the air passage side.  I think I quoted a difference in head radius earlier, but I see now that that would not be the case - the heads of the #3 AN455 and #4 AN456 would appear identical to the human eye.
- Jeff Neville

Former Member 3074R
 
« Last Edit: February 28, 2014, 03:22:56 PM by Jeffrey Neville »
Logged

JNev

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 778
  • It's a GOOD thing to be in the cornfield...
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #358 on: February 28, 2014, 03:56:31 PM »



Jeff, 
        It would help if one could narrow the time frame down as to it's possible import to Niku, ....To me it seems plausible that it could have arrived on Niku anywhere from the time of it's manufacture and subsequent serpartion from it's parent structure, to it's discovery.....that is a span of possibly 50-54 years ....during the latter mobility may have improved somewhat....( more likely in the timeframe of occupation of course ) however; can we rule out the 70',...80's as well?

TIGHAR found the artifact in the village very early on in her expedition history on October 18, 1991.  Given that date and that it was found in (or near) the village, and in the context of other 'craft' items from aircraft metal that were apparently 'worked' by those folks, the strong suggestion is to me that humans brought it to that place from somewhere.  For that to happen logically, the humans must have been inhabitants at Niku, and those were in attendance from 1940 until 1963 when abandonment of the island was decided upon.  Only a few residents remained "to be moved" for a 1964 visit from the Smithsonian Institution to study bird and plant life. 

If it got there via NR16020 then these things matter little, excepting possible harvest from the reef area and brought to the village by humans.  I'm not certain of it being found 'in the village' - what is described is among brush near the reef edge - so it could have washed up naturally for that matter from a local wreck (of you-know-what).

So if from the 1944 loss of the PBM, for example, there is a rational twenty-year window for harvest from Howland and transport to Niku by someone.  That gets us to 'how, and by whom?'  It didn't float there by itself, and Dorothy and Toto are not reported as having dropped in, so...

Oddly enough, in chasing down "PBM crash at Howland Island" I got to the dreaded Wiki article via one of my nonsense tangents (sort of like 'other interesting words found while looking something else up) - and there's detail of the PBM crew being rescued by the USCGC Balsam -

Quote
No aircraft is known to have ever landed there, although anchorages nearby could be used by float planes and flying boats during World War II. For example, on July 10, 1944, a U.S. Navy Martin PBM-3-D Mariner flying boat (BuNo 48199), piloted by William Hines, had an engine fire and made a forced landing in the ocean offshore of Howland. Hines beached the aircraft and although it burned, the crew escaped unharmed, was rescued by the USCGC Balsam (the same ship that later took Unit 92 to Gardner Island), transferred to a sub chaser and taken to Canton Island.

It's not clear to me that any of the PBM crew would have harvested metal for that voyage, as in "hey Charlie - let's sneak over to the wreck with some cutting tools and grab some scraps to trade later - we might just get to Gardner where some of those babes would love to have it...", but the world is strange.  At the very least, it turns out we do have at least one Howland-Gardner 'pipeline' at that moment in history.  It would be highly circumstantial to point out that islanders might have found the notion of a field of ruined metal irresistable enough to paddle after, but then I have not had to ply my trade on an isolated island with few resources lying about for me to tinker with either - Home Depot is too easy for me to get to.
- Jeff Neville

Former Member 3074R
 
Logged

JNev

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 778
  • It's a GOOD thing to be in the cornfield...
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #359 on: February 28, 2014, 03:59:17 PM »

We're all set for a private tour of the Air Force Museum restoration shop on Friday, March 28 from 9:00AM to 10:15AM after which we will meet with Roger Deere, head of the shop.  It will be much easier to get everyone on and off the base if we're in one vehicle so we'll rent a van.  I'll need the names of everyone who plans to go so drop me a confirming email at Ric@tighar.org.
Also, please let me know if you're retired military (believe it or not it simplifies things for the Air Force). 

We need to decide whether it's more convenient to have a hotel close to the museum/air base or close to the commercial airport.

Outstanding!
- Jeff Neville

Former Member 3074R
 
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 22 23 [24] 25 26 ... 70   Go Up
 

Copyright 2024 by TIGHAR, a non-profit foundation. No portion of the TIGHAR Website may be reproduced by xerographic, photographic, digital or any other means for any purpose. No portion of the TIGHAR Website may be stored in a retrieval system, copied, transmitted or transferred in any form or by any means, whether electronic, mechanical, digital, photographic, magnetic or otherwise, for any purpose without the express, written permission of TIGHAR. All rights reserved.

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

Powered by MySQL SMF 2.0.18 | SMF © 2021, Simple Machines Powered by PHP