Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 30 31 [32] 33 34 ... 70   Go Down

Author Topic: The Question of 2-2-V-1  (Read 1022928 times)

JNev

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 778
  • It's a GOOD thing to be in the cornfield...
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #465 on: March 08, 2014, 06:33:35 PM »


As a side note, the DC-3 repair manual calls for AD3 rivets- [or size 3/32"]  to be used in wing tip skin repairs- "...replacing type and pattern of original rivets."   The C-47 that crashed on Sydney Island- a military model of the DC-3- by chance, had it's wing tip repaired on Canton Island just days before the crash.

If C-47 wingtips were .032 sheet we'll have to see if the rivet pattern is anything like 2-2-V-1.  What kind of accident would leave a wingtip looking like 2-2-V-1?

Your postings are increasingly following a well-known pattern.  When critics are unable to offer valid challenges to hypotheses they start throwing around alternative explanations that ignore or dispute established parameters.  That's trollism.

Maybe I shouldn't butt into this, but while I appreciate Mark's research in bringing material to the table here, the rational 'challenge' involves specifics, not more spaghetti on the wall as 'possibles' - that's a never-ending exercise that can get no one anywhere.  Material taken as 'helpful to know', thanks, but I have enough to do and won't engage in this tidal pursuit further here unless something specific is brought up.

I hope that readers will realize that a number of us have already committed to support TIGHAR's commitment to go and look thoroughly at a number of  potential candidate types for evidence of a different source for 2-2-V-1 - far more than has been committed by those who simply doubt and toss endless possibilities at us, however vague.

Sorry if I'm cranky about it, but for one thing I've already devoted some effort into looking at the much-vaunted PBY possibility, for instance - and find NO structural similarities that would drive me out of my way to study a PBY in person, for instance.  But I will look at one if I can - just to be sure, even though the manual doesn't give hope of a match (whereas Electra data screams fastener type and vintage of repair glaringly supports material markings).

What I first said about this consideration of 2-2-V-1 still stands in my view: this artifact is eloquent, and in fact continues to yield unique signature features; if one would challenge it, let them be specific as to what ship in the region would have provided it, not just ask me or others to keep looking down one dark alley after another in case their lost cat is in there...

I'm going to Dayton to be with TIGHAR there; we will look, promise... we're taking down suggestions on what types to focus on.  What else is there to say?
- Jeff Neville

Former Member 3074R
 
Logged

David Alan

  • T1
  • *
  • Posts: 15
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #466 on: March 08, 2014, 07:25:09 PM »

I was somewhat surprised to see the photo of 2-2-V-1 http://tighar.org/smf/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1426.0;attach=7398;image which illustrates the area in which substantial heating took place, given the frequent conjecture in these threads that this may have resulted from its being used for cooking.  Unless this object were quite a bit larger when the heating took place, why/how could you cook on an edge area which is only a few inches wide when common sense dictates the use of the center area?  So I find myself asking the following:

If 2-2-V-1 was not used for cooking how was it heated?

What temperature/ time combination is necessary for aluminum of this dimension to lose its ductility?

How many tidal cycles would it have taken to remove the Electra?  If more than one, what condition would the aircraft be left in after each cycle?

What else might cause rapid failure of the riveting on 2-2-V-1 and the resulting deformation about the rivet holes, as well as the entire piece?

Ric mentions, "A pyrotechnic explosion would leave telltale pinpricks that aren't there."  But would such pinpricks always be present on every affected surface?  Is it possible for water to be compressed enough by an explosion in an enclosed area to blow out a thin aluminum panel? If the edges of 2-2-V-1 have been worn so completely dull by tidal abrasion, how likely is it that such pinpricks, if originally present would still be visible?

The scenario that comes to my mind, and this obviously assumes TIGHAR's Earhart theories are correct, is that Earhart, at some point, realized the Electra would never fly again and burned the aircraft after the radio would no longer function.  A plume of dense, black smoke would certainly be more visible than one made from organic materials on the island.  It also seems likely there would be at least some fuel remaining in the aircraft, possibly enough to cause an explosion that might also result in significant fragmentation.

I realize my suggestion has a lot of holes in it and I am perfectly at ease with it being thrashed and sunk, so have at.  I do not offer it in challenge but in the spirit of discussion.  I would much rather gain a clear understanding than harbor a poorly discerned shape.
edited 3/9/14 to insert link
« Last Edit: March 09, 2014, 11:16:07 PM by David Alan »
Logged

James Champion

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 93
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #467 on: March 08, 2014, 08:24:05 PM »

Quote
Unless this object were quite a bit larger when the heating took place, why/how could you cook on an edge area which is only a few inches wide when common sense dictates the use of the center area?

If 2-2-V-1 was used for cooking fish, then the center of the sheet, where the fish would be located, would not get much above the cooking temperature of the fish. That is unless well burnt fish was the perferred meal. Fish is mostly water and fats, and won't get to a metal ductile temperature until the food is ashes. However the edges of the sheet would have no food to limit the temperature, and would get significantly hotter.
Logged

JNev

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 778
  • It's a GOOD thing to be in the cornfield...
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #468 on: March 08, 2014, 09:08:17 PM »

I was somewhat surprised to see the photo of 2-2-V-1 (Reply #450 on: March 07, 2014, 07:50:52 AM) which illustrates the area in which substantial heating took place, given the frequent conjecture in these threads that this may have resulted from its being used for cooking.  Unless this object were quite a bit larger when the heating took place, why/how could you cook on an edge area which is only a few inches wide when common sense dictates the use of the center area?  So I find myself asking the following:

If 2-2-V-1 was not used for cooking how was it heated?

What temperature/ time combination is necessary for aluminum of this dimension to lose its ductility?

How many tidal cycles would it have taken to remove the Electra?  If more than one, what condition would the aircraft be left in after each cycle?

What else might cause rapid failure of the riveting on 2-2-V-1 and the resulting deformation about the rivet holes, as well as the entire piece?

Ric mentions, "A pyrotechnic explosion would leave telltale pinpricks that aren't there."  But would such pinpricks always be present on every affected surface?  Is it possible for water to be compressed enough by an explosion in an enclosed area to blow out a thin aluminum panel? If the edges of 2-2-V-1 have been worn so completely dull by tidal abrasion, how likely is it that such pinpricks, if originally present would still be visible?

The scenario that comes to my mind, and this obviously assumes TIGHAR's Earhart theories are correct, is that Earhart, at some point, realized the Electra would never fly again and burned the aircraft after the radio would no longer function.  A plume of dense, black smoke would certainly be more visible than one made from organic materials on the island.  It also seems likely there would be at least some fuel remaining in the aircraft, possibly enough to cause an explosion that might also result in significant fragmentation.

I realize my suggestion has a lot of holes in it and I am perfectly at ease with it being thrashed and sunk, so have at.  I do not offer it in challenge but in the spirit of discussion.  I would much rather gain a clear understanding than harbor a poorly discerned shape.

I think you raise some excellent points for thought. 

For one, it seems to me that if water were present in the belly - not far-fetched of course at all - that it would tend to shield the metal from the immediate effects of a blast, but not the severe compressive effects.  Interesting point.
- Jeff Neville

Former Member 3074R
 
Logged

Greg Daspit

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 788
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #469 on: March 08, 2014, 09:28:01 PM »

Some thoughts about a castaway using it for cooking:
1. No energy to remove wire found tangled in it.
2. Does not appear much energy was spent to straighten metal (not sure about the "hacked?" note?)
3. Possibly held from the smoothest edge over a crude fire without making walls to support it
4. Didn't the islanders already have a grill?

Some thoughts about it not being used for a grill by anyone
1. The wire found in it suggests it washed up from the wreck with other wreckage
2. How and where it was found. The current just off the reef does appear to move south
3. The pry marks could be used to pry off the stringers, because they wanted the stringers, and the panel stayed on the side that failed by fatigue. the stringers posssibly used for spears or stakes
4. Nothing indicating an effort to straighten it?
5. No scratch marks to remove sticky fish?
6. Was loss of ductility caused by something else, like friction? fire on plane? Stress? Can we see what alcoa wrote on it? How much ductility was lost? How much heat could cause this and how many times was it heated?

Some pros to the islanders using it for a grill
1. The wire possibly used in an attempt to secure it leaving thru the channel?
2. Description of aircraft skin being used as grill
3. The pry marks
4. The loss of ductility suggesting use as grill

What are TIGHAR's thoughts regarding the antenna lead wire found tangled with it?
3971R
 
« Last Edit: March 08, 2014, 09:59:18 PM by Greg Daspit »
Logged

richie conroy

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1412
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #470 on: March 08, 2014, 09:31:47 PM »

Is it possible the aircraft skin being in shallow water on reef face was caught by lighting ?

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-happens-when-lightni/
We are an echo of the past


Member# 416
 
Logged

Jeff Victor Hayden

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1387
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #471 on: March 09, 2014, 06:54:09 AM »

David Alan

Some good points David. Only by exploring every avenue can you hope to find the truth so nothing can be ruled out, at this stage. Fire in the Electra whether deliberate or accidental is one such avenue yet to be discussed so good on you for bringing that one up.
Lots of possible sources inside the Electra of course so I'll put in my shillings worth.

Lead acid batteries producing hydrogen gas positioned underneath empty fuel tanks containing fuel vapour plus sea water and electricity?


This must be the place
 
Logged

Doug Ledlie

  • T2
  • **
  • Posts: 78
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #472 on: March 09, 2014, 07:18:43 AM »

I see reference in the NTSB report to curvature of the object across the short side and have a couple questions:

Is this curvature
a) thought to be at least nominally representative of the characteristics of the position on the airframe on which it was installed or
b) thought to have been entirely acquired at or post separation but was originally flat or
c) thought to have been distorted at or post separation but was originally curved to some degree

If "a" (maybe "c" to some extent) could or has the curvature itself been defined in any way?

If "a" (maybe "c") could definition of the curvature assist in ruling in/out potential donor airframes?

Sorry if this has been covered already, forum search didn't provide much but of course it all depends on what keyword(s) one uses
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 #473 on: March 09, 2014, 08:59:11 AM »

Some thoughts about a castaway using it for cooking:

Nobody is suggesting that it was used by the castaway.  The Seven Site is at the opposite end of the island.

4. Didn't the islanders already have a grill?

The islanders didn't have much of anything.

6. Was loss of ductility caused by something else, like friction? fire on plane? Stress? Can we see what alcoa wrote on it? How much ductility was lost? How much heat could cause this and how many times was it heated?

According to the ALCOA metallurgists, the loss of ductility was caused by the sort of heat you would expect from relatively brief exposure to flames - more than from friction but not an intense fire.  I don't recall any mention of how many times this may have happened.  The loss of ductility was noticed when they cut out three "coupons" for testing.  The procedure they used was to cut two parallel lines with snips and then bend the tab up enough to snip the third side.  That worked fine for two to the coupons but when they tried to bend up the third one it snapped off instead. 


Unfortunately ALCOA didn't give us a written report. Their research and comments were done in the context of TV shoot by WGBH as part of a planned NOVA special.  ALCOA was helping us as a courtesy (and to get some good PR) so we didn't press them for a written report. We had it all on video. But then WGBH reneged on the deal we had with them and the NOVA special never got made.  All we were left with was the notes we took at the time. 
 
What are TIGHAR's thoughts regarding the antenna lead wire found tangled with it?

The wire does seem to be consistent with antenna lead wire but that same kind of wire may have been used for other purposes. If the sheet was repurposed at any time it seems like the wire would have been removed.  My thinking at this time is that the wire is just something that got tangled on the piece in the process of getting washed up - but I could be convinced otherwise.
Logged

John Ousterhout

  • T4
  • ****
  • Posts: 487
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #474 on: March 09, 2014, 10:17:47 AM »

This Article describes heat treatment of aluminum alloys and gives specifics for 2024, including non-destructive eddy-current testing to determine heat treatment. The little chart in the article shows how much heat treatment effects strength – it’s a lot.
A different Article gives a more detailed description of the heat-treatment of 2024: “Aluminium / Aluminum 2024 alloy is an age-hardening and is strengthened during the heat treatment process. The T6 condition is obtained when the alloy is heated at 493°C (920°F) and then quenched for 10 h at 190°C (375°F) and finally cooled in air. The T4 condition is obtained when this alloy is heated at 493°C (920°F) followed by cold water quenching and finally aging at room temperature.”
T6 is fully hard.  T4 is half-hard and still somewhat bendable/ductile.  T0 is fully annealed/as soft as it gets, and uses a heat treatment temperature that is lower than the hardening temperature:
“Aluminium / Aluminum 2024 alloy is annealed from a heat treated condition between 399 and 427°C (750 and 800°F) for about 2 hours and then cooled slowly in the furnace. This alloy can be annealed between cold working operations at 343°C (650°F) for 2 hours after which the alloy is cooled in air.”
These are all temperatures that can easily be obtained over a wood fire. 
Cheers,
JohnO
 
Logged

Mark Pearce

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 163
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #475 on: March 09, 2014, 10:32:47 AM »


 I 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 visible through a gaping hole cut in the side of a PBM wing float where metal was removed... 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. 

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).

"...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... 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. 


Jeff,  I agree the PBM on Howland Island is still in the running as a potential donor.  Ric's list of "Aircraft lost in the vicinity of Nikumaroro" includes another PBM that "Hit reef while taxiing at Canton," on Dec. 15, 1942.  That is an interesting lead that should be looked into carefully.  An accident report probably exists somewhere. 
 
http://tighar.org/wiki/Aircraft_lost_in_the_vicinity_of_Nikumaroro

You bring up a very interesting question; who could have removed that piece of metal from the float on Howland Island? The island was un-occupied at the time that PBM was beached and burned.     

I've found some information about the skin plating on the PBM-5.  As in the case of the PBY, it turns out to be thinner than might be expected.  I suspect the 'hull side and crown' had large areas of .032 material.  The wings may also have .032 skin plating, but this report does not go into that unfortunately.   

"...Plating on the bottom of the hull from the bow to the main step is varied from .051 to .072 in thickness. Afterbody bottom plating varies from .040 to .051 in thickness. Hull side and crown skin varies from .020 to .045 in thickness."

Design Analysis of the Martin PBM-5 Mariner
http://legendsintheirowntime.com/PBM/PBM_IA_4509_DA.html



Interesting photos of a PBM wreck in Truk Lagoon can be seen here- (No, I'm not proposing 2-2-V-1 came from this area-  I believe it most likely came via Canton Island- where aircraft wrecks were probably piled high.)

http://warbirdinformationexchange.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=17105
« Last Edit: March 09, 2014, 02:38:26 PM by Mark Pearce »
Logged

Greg Daspit

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 788
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #476 on: March 09, 2014, 12:03:37 PM »

Some thoughts about a castaway using it for cooking:
Nobody is suggesting that it was used by the castaway.  The Seven Site is at the opposite end of the island.


Since it may have taken a while to determine the Seven Site was a good camp, there may have been other camps. 2-2-V-1 could be used to signal and to grill fish. Possibly at a camp somewhere near where the channel was later made, 2-2-V-1 was temporarily used to grill but left on the beach to reflect the sun as a signal and later washed off. The castaway could have found the Seven Site after this. It just seems that 2-2-V-1 wasn't used for long because there does not appear to be much effort to modify it, and the areas of suggested heat are narrow, suggesting small food portions cooked.
see pictures of islanders cooking fish here
Now if it was hacked that changes that whole thought process. I think the case for Colonist using it is stronger but didn't want to rule out AE using it. Is there something I'm missing that does rule it out for certain?
 The possible antenna wire may be related to 2-2-V-1 based on its location in the plane. Possibly an abandoned lead wire that extended over the belly's interior to the trailing antenna that was removed at the tail. The series of events in the break off of 2-2-V-1 could have happened in a matter of weeks while AE was still nearby. Before the castaway/ AE/ FN went to the Seven Site.
It was the possible close association with the antenna wire that had me wondering so much. But if the wire could be for some other use, that helps.
3971R
 
« Last Edit: March 09, 2014, 02:39:02 PM by Greg Daspit »
Logged

David Alan

  • T1
  • *
  • Posts: 15
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #477 on: March 09, 2014, 02:09:12 PM »

Since my previous post, http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1426.msg30451.html#msg30451 , seems to have struck a chord of interest I'd like to take a few minutes to expand upon the scenario I presented and at the same time address some of the responses to it.  "If you give a mouse a cookie...".

I have no background in metallurgy, aviation or historical research.  At best, I have some knowledge in several areas of photography having been professionally employed in such for about 40 years.  So pretty much all of my projections are based on entries I read on this forum, which I have hopefully remembered and applied correctly.

I am not trying to make up some grand new vision of what might or might not have occurred.  I am trying to stay within the framework of supposition and fact already presented.  It is after all, a puzzle still.  One piece fits the another only when placed in the correct orientation.

I don't see 2-2-V-1 as having been used for cooking, primarily because of the illustration Ric provided in Reply 450.  James Champion reply, http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1426.msg30453.html#msg30453 , makes a good point that the outer edges of a cooking surface would get hotter than the area directly below the foodstuffs.  But I offer a couple of counterpoints:
--The food also acts as a heatsink and would introduce some limitation in spread of heat.
--How would an islander of little means and even less possession build a fire to cook on?
--On Gardner Island, was the cooking done communally or individually?
--How do you handle a sheet of hot metal?

Traditionally a rock lined pit is used in many, if not most, South Seas cultures.  The rocks were heated by a fire.  (Whole, drained coconuts are often used as a coal.) After the flame self-extinguishes, food wrapped in leaves is layered on top of the rocks/coals and then the entire pit may be covered with sand or more leaves.  If 2-2-V-1 were used in this fashion, either as a bottom sheet or top cover, the heating would have been fairly consistent across the entire dimension.  Cooking in this manner could also be the reason no signs of scraping seem to be present on 2-2-V-1. (see Greg Daspit Reply http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1426.msg30457.html#msg30457 )

Alternatively, a fire pit could be built and 2-2-V-1 was suspended in some manner above the heat source and used as a cooking tray, the food being placed directly on the metal.  In this fashion, as James Champion suggests the outer edge could become substantially hotter.  But then, why did only one edge of 2-2-V-1 lose ductility? To account for this 2-2-V-1 might have originally been scavenged and used in a much larger size, or, a more complex "oven" built that only allowed a smaller portion of the metal to reach temperatures high enough to effect ductility.  Both of these ideas represent substantially more complex scenarios.  As a side note, a wood fueled fire (according to sources easily found on the inter-web) reaches temperatures of 575f to 1100f  (300c - 600 c).  Now assuming that 2-2-V-1 was used in one way or another as a cooking surface over a direct flame and assuming further that I am the guy doing the cooking, I am not about to touch, much less remove, a flaming hot sheet of metal from a fire after I serve the food... I'm going to leave that sucker there and the let the fire "wash" the dishes for me.  And now, after only a few minutes the entire sheet of metal reaches a consistent temperature.

But ultimately, how much does it matter if it was used for cooking?  Of more importance is how was it introduced to a tiny speck of an island in the South Seas and how did it's present condition come about --torn, bent, flexed, heated and subjected to explosive force?

Based on the ideas and theories presented by TIGHAR  I see the following as being worth at least a little consideration.  Earhart and Noonan land on Gardner during a low tide cycle. The aircraft may be stuck in the reef, it may be crippled in other ways, in any event, it wasn't going to leave.  Enough fuel remains to run an engine and keep the Electra's batteries charged sufficiently to allow radio distress calls.  Eventually the rising tides eliminate this avenue of communication when the water levels prevent the use of the motor.  Were it me, I would have then used every amp of remaining electricity in the batteries to make final, radio mayday calls.

Earhart seems to have a been a practical person, some might say to a fault.  The Electra is now, for all extents and purposes, worthless.  It provides no shelter and anything that can be easily be removed with tools no more complex than a pocket knife, and the necessary strength to use it, have been excised.  How else can you use it?

With each high tide cycle the aircraft is battered and will soon disappear.  Will anything remain in pieces large enough to be seen by rescuers?  And that's why I think she may have tried to burn it, one final use.  I have no idea how she would have started a fire on the aircraft and I was no Boy Scout, but I'm sure there were several potential sources of ignition and tinder within the aircraft's hulk available to her.

But perhaps fate had still more bad intent for her. If she had been able to start a burn, how long would it last?  Jeff Victor Hayden mentions the batteries, http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1426.msg30465.html#msg30465 , implying (I believe) the potential for fire and explosion.  Even if the radio was used for as long as possible, there would still be a substantial store of electricity remaining.  The batteries aren't dead, they just no longer provide enough juice to power the radio.  How much fuel might remain in the tanks?  How long would it take for a fire to reach and react with the batteries or the remaining fuel and what might happen when it did?  Was the overall condition and position of the Electra's main frame such that it was lying or tipped on it's side in a flooded orientation partially exposing the area 2-2-V-1 is thought to belong?

I think it possible that an unexpected explosion occurred as a result of trying to set a signal fire.  The fire may have may have been short lived but long enough to affect the portion of 2-2-V-1 above water.  An explosion may have snuffed the fire as well as further fragmenting and perhaps separating portions of the Electra's structure and causing some of the stresses observed on 2-2-V-1 .  Was it not suggested that Richie's Anomaly shows a potential debris field that was dragged behind the main object (thought to be the size of the Electra's fuselage)?  It would be interesting to know if the area in the photo posted by Ric, http://tighar.org/smf/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1426.0;attach=7398;image , showing the loss of ductility is as sharply defined as the illustration indicates as I fail to see how a camp fire could be so resolved.

I've gone on long enough.  My apologies if I have taken too much "what-if" license, as well as for being too verbose.   

Cheers, d.a.
edited 3/9/14 to include links
« Last Edit: March 09, 2014, 11:24:17 PM by David Alan »
Logged

richie conroy

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1412
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #478 on: March 09, 2014, 07:48:41 PM »

Hi All

I have been wondering if area of heat marks could be due to underbelly impacting ground, As the heated area line is too straight to of been used on a open fire  ?
We are an echo of the past


Member# 416
 
Logged

Greg Daspit

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 788
Re: The Question of 2-2-V-1
« Reply #479 on: March 09, 2014, 08:08:33 PM »

Hi All

I have been wondering if area of heat marks could be due to underbelly impacting ground, As the heated area line is too straight to of been used on a open fire  ?
Richie
Ric said the heat is more than what would be generated from friction. see reply here
Where is that picture of the belly from?
3971R
 
« Last Edit: March 09, 2014, 10:10:07 PM by Greg Daspit »
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 30 31 [32] 33 34 ... 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