Advanced search  
Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Update..281 My theory, have we been looking in the wrong place?  (Read 1555 times)

David Williams

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 8
  • Retd. Airline & Brit Military Pilot
Update..281 My theory, have we been looking in the wrong place?
« on: October 27, 2017, 01:13:50 AM »

Hi Ric et al,  I wrote the following during the 'slack period' on the forum after the less than productive Niku IX and having written it I have been somewhat reticent to post it thinking that, in the annals of Tighar's immense research into the subject, it MUST have been thrashed out long ago, before I found TIGHAR.

With the exciting news about the imminent ROV activity at NIKU and the recent exhortation by Ric to email Ric with any ideas etc., I decided, finally, to post this.... maybe, just maybe this could be the place to look.... ?  (please read below)

Sincerely David Williams

+++  Remember this was written just after Niku IX   +++++++++++++++++

NIKU - HAVE WE BEEN LOOKING IN THE WRONG PLACE, ALL ALONG?
(and did we again look in the wrong place in 2017?)

A fresh look at a mysterious number.....

As the forum has been deathly quiet for so long I thought I would stir up the hornets nest and maybe get these pages humming again! I am a relatively new member here and so my knowledge of past iterations of this particular subject is very limited, apologies if it has been thrashed out in the distant past.

I have for a long time been intrigued by the seemingly random sequence of numbers jotted down by professional Navy wireless operators based at Wailupe some eighty years ago, when they were sure they were listening to Amelia Earhart's post loss transmissions.

(Edited by me 8th Nov 2017 to reflect Ric’s correction.  I had mistakenly remembered the 281 number being recorded by Betty Klenck but in fact it was recorded by professional Navy wireless operators (w/o’s) stationed at Wailupe, recorded by them in official US Navy radio logs, at the time and on the same frequency being used by Amelia! Maybe then, the following theory is even more pertinent, being based on an official government record on the actual frequency in use rather than, as I pre-supposed, on Betty’s notes received on an harmonic of that frequency!)


One number in particular has kept me pondering as to what it could mean. If it is a correctly recorded number from a genuine Earhart transmission then I have to wonder why it is so specific. The number is 281, nothing more, nothing less, not rounded to 280 nor 285, very specifically 281, which if I was trying hard to be found is just what I would be doing as a downed pilot or navigator, i.e. being exact with the available technology!

Such a large volume of information and research has been found and catalogued by TIGHAR over the years that I am sure others may have come to a similar viewpoint and it may have previously been discussed. If so this will not be news to the long term members here however the following is my 'take' on what MAY be the case re: the mysterious number.... 281.

DAVE WILLIAMS' 281 THEORY: September 2017

From official US Navy radio logs recorded in 1937 and subsequently thought to be of Amelia Earhart’s post loss radio signals, where "281" is quoted without any units qualifier given.

Nautical Miles (nm) have traditionally been the standard Navigators unit of measurement for sea and (later) air distances for a very long time. I think therefore that it's possible that the 281 referred to was/is nautical miles!

If so...... then because one degree of latitude on the Earth's surface = 60nm we divide 281 by 60 and find it equates to 4.6833' (recurring) degrees = 4* 41' 00" (old school degs, mins, secs)  of latitude.

Applying this distance/latitude South of the Equator (note NOT South of Howland) the resultant South line of latitude goes straight through (surprise, surprise)...... Gardner/Nikumaroro Island.

Depending on the variable Longitude chosen, a fix at 281 nm south of the equator can be found on the south eastern 'limb' of the atoll on the reef to the south of Kanawa Point extending eastwards to Baureke Passage. It has been suggested AE experienced stronger easterly winds on her Lae - Howland leg than she expected, so this location would be more favourable for landing into those stronger easterlies than the current TIGHAR theory which favours the almost North/South landing site near to the Norwich City shipwreck (pronounced btw Norrich City by we Brits, silent 'w')

This same line of latitude, if followed east along that shoreline from Baureke Passage for some distance then skips through the SE end of the lagoon and reappears again on dry land on a strip of 'beachfront'/ reef, also 281 nm south of the equator, in the vicinity of..... wait for it....... the 'seven site'!!! Coincidence or what??? Hmmm.

If Fred took a midday sighting on the sun or instructed Amelia how to do so (if as is supposed he was injured) and he/she arrived at a fix of 281 nm south of the Equator then either of the two locations, in my reasoning above, could conceivably be where they were sending their post loss radio signals from. If so, then it's very possible that one of those two locations is where they set up 'Camp Zero' close to where the aircraft finally landed and came to rest!

Flying down the LOP 337/137, if she was still experiencing easterly winds and she saw that seven site stretch of reef directly ahead of her it may have been her first choice of strip on which to land. Additionally if she thought she was flying on fumes and the LOP already had her on that heading, as the island and reef hove into view and perhaps fearing that a dead stick landing might be imminent, she may have decided to land with 'power on' ASP on a straight in approach to the seven site vicinity. It's likely she was more or less into wind or at most she probably had a quartering crosswind from her port side on finals blowing her onshore (also no turbulence off the trees) if she did land near the seven site.

So, if the seven site is where they set up camp zero, after landing abeam the seven site, then the same scenario as posited for the Norwich City assumption might also apply to this location, i.e. the ship floated offshore and sank a few days later at high tide. If so, then maybe it would be A GOOD IDEA to search the underwater area immediately offshore of the seven site!! Isn't this after all where conjecture suggests "signs of recent habitation" was reported to have been seen by Lambrecht??

ALTERNATIVELY.. regarding Amelia's reported 'NY NY' etc, she/they may alternatively have flown around the island before deciding on the most into wind stretch of reef on which to land and observed the ships name in a low pass to enable reporting of that name in her first radio calls for help. Otherwise I doubt she would have had time to walk from the seven site, if that is where she landed, around to the shipwreck and then back to the seven site before getting on the radio later the same day, replete with the ships name, although that would not be impossible to do.

So, there are these two very interesting locations on the island which are both 281 nm south of the equator which both permit a reef landing in theory, I have no idea of the surface condition of those places back in 1937 of course. Nor I guess does anyone else still alive today! After 80 years of twice daily tidal activity and frequent numerous storm surges affecting the topography of those reefs who is to say what they looked like as emergency landing strips all those years ago? In addition to this, if it was a rough landing on either of these two locations, doesn’t this tie in with the post loss ‘credible’ reports that both Fred and Amelia suffered injuries during the landing??

Punch the following co-ordinates into Google Maps to see these two possible landing sites lying at exactly 281 nm South of the equator.

Not wishing to 'teach Granny to suck eggs' but if anyone is unsure how to enter the co-ordinates (below) into Google maps use this format exactly as given here: e.g. S4 41 00 W174 29 50

Location 1. S 4* 41' 00" W 174* 29' 50".... very near the seven site.
Location 2. S 4* 41' 00" W 174* 31' 15" .... abeam Baureke Passage not far from the ‘Bivouac site’ and affording a landing directly eastwards into the probable wind.

With an easterly breeze the second co-ordinates give an equally plausible alternative landing site to the seven site for a camp zero location and also subsequently, another place for the plane to have been swept over the edge.

My theory presented here does not allow for 'nessie' being part of the Electra. Of course that mysterious item has not yet been located, nor positively identified, so it does not necessarily disbar my theory.

On balance, if the recorded ‘281’ is what I think it is, then my bet is the Electra lies offshore of either the seven site or Baureke passage, deep in the briny!!!

Dave W who is now putting his steel helmet on and digging a deep foxhole! "Incoming"

LTM who was last seen scrabbling for a helmet too!

ADDENDUM:   Unfortunately the most recent ROV searches of the area scanned to the North and North West of the Norwich City wreck failed to produce any evidence of Amelia’s Electra where we all hoped it might be found.  Maybe, just maybe, my theory has some credence DW

Dave W
in the frozen north

 
« Last Edit: November 09, 2017, 02:24:42 AM by David Williams »
Logged

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 2870
Re: A theory about what "281" might mean
« Reply #1 on: October 27, 2017, 05:59:35 AM »

Dave,


I split the topic.  I love thread drift as much as anybody else, but I figured I would pop this over here early on.  If people do get interested in fooling around with navigation again, this is where the conversation should occur.


All the best!
LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
Logged

Matt Revington

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 262
  • member #4155
Re: A theory about what "281" might mean
« Reply #2 on: October 27, 2017, 10:03:08 AM »

Dave.  The theory seems plausible.
  Are there reef section in those areas that would function as a landing strip? 
One other possibility, that you raise, is that if Fred was injured then AE may taken the sighting with Fred's guidance. In that case with AE's inexperience it is possible that her results could be a few miles off and it could have been taken in the area that TIGHAR is currently concentrating on.
Logged

David Williams

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 8
  • Retd. Airline & Brit Military Pilot
Re: A theory about what "281" might mean
« Reply #3 on: October 27, 2017, 10:25:25 AM »

Thanks Marty,  I wasn’t sure whether or not it was appropriate to post my long dissertation on the current thread ‘volunteers needed’.

For sure it is thread drift but it also encapsulates a possible consideration for Ric as he decides where the ROV dive might be targetted.

Ric, as you know,  has asked for any ideas and he also listed some of the questions TIGHAR directors have been mulling over regarding what to do during a possible Niku X recently, I decided I would speak up.

With the surprise revelation of a very imminent ROV dive at the Niku Atoll and Ric having been asked by the ships Captain where ideally the dive should be I thought perhaps Ric might also give some considereration to my thoughts on this. 

As bits of the Electra have proven, so far, to be well hidden in the NC wreck area, maybe a search in the two areas I have mentioned, might (that word again), be more productive.

Hopefully now that you have moved my post Ric will still be able to find it and read it’s content before the pending dive occurs?

Best regards Marty

Dave Williams
Dave W
in the frozen north

 
Logged

David Williams

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 8
  • Retd. Airline & Brit Military Pilot
Re: A theory about what "281" might mean
« Reply #4 on: October 27, 2017, 10:36:21 AM »

Matt, thanks for the points you raise. “Are there reef sections that would function as a landing strip you ask?”  As I mentioned I don’t know the state of those two areas I mentioned back in 1937.  A lot of change I guess could have happened in the intervening eighty years to the nature of the reef.

Agreed, if Amelia took the sighting she could very well have made a mistake, even with Fred directing her but as nothing significant has yet been found near the Norwich City apart perhaps for the elusive Nessie object, I still think off Bauereke Passage and off the seven site might bear some investigation.
Dave W
in the frozen north

 
Logged

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 2870
Re: A theory about what "281" might mean
« Reply #5 on: October 27, 2017, 12:11:54 PM »

Hopefully now that you have moved my post Ric will still be able to find it and read its content before the pending dive occurs?

Ric has some method for finding all new posts on the Forum.

I don't know what they are.

I keep this link in my browser's toolbar:

http://tighar.org/smf/index.php?action=unread

That gives me a list of all the posts that I haven't read yet.

It works moderately well, all things considered
LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
Logged

Bill Mangus

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 259
Re: A theory about what "281" might mean
« Reply #6 on: October 29, 2017, 01:05:48 PM »

Hi Dave,

I like the way you think!  A couple of things to consider:

-- Current thinking holds she may have had as much as 45 minutes or as little as 20 minutes of usable fuel left when they arrived in the vicinity of Gardner/Niku.  Given the number of successive nights of credible radio transmissions each requiring running of the right engine to keep the battery charged, I think it's safe to say they arrived with a comfortable margin allowing for at least a circumnavigation of the island.  Listen to Ric's recent presentation at the NEAM.

-- The reef adjacent to the Seven site is rather steep and rocky.  Not a good place to land except as an absolute last resort--probably resulting in tearing one or both landing gear off or worse.  The reef along the landing channel is a little better.  Watch the helicopter view of Niku video for a good feel for what they would have seen.

         https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DL9FGsvB3E8

Good analysis of the number 281.
Bill Mangus
Researcher #3054SP
 
« Last Edit: October 29, 2017, 01:15:58 PM by Bill Mangus »
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 5167
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: A theory about what "281" might mean
« Reply #7 on: October 30, 2017, 09:21:51 AM »

I have for a long time been intrigued by the seemingly random sequences of numbers jotted down by Betty Klenck in her notebook, some eighty years ago, when she was sure she was listening to Amelia Earhart's post loss transmissions.

One number in particular has kept me pondering as to what it could mean. If it is a correctly recorded number from a genuine Earhart transmission then I have to wonder why it is so specific. The number is 281, nothing more, nothing less, not rounded to 280 nor 285, very specifically 281, which if I was trying hard to be found is just what I would be doing as a downed pilot or navigator, i.e. being exact with the available technology!

The number 281 does not appear in Betty's Notebook.  You're thinking of what we call "the 281 message", a fragmented message on 3105 kHz in badly-sent code heard by three operators at U.S. Navy Radio Wailupe on Monday, July 5.
The message was "281 north Howland call KHAQQ beyond north don’t hold with us much longer above water shut off."  Commander Thompson interpreted the message to mean that the plane was afloat 281 miles north of Howland, but when he went to that location there was no plane. 
We have judged the message to be credible so it was probably sent from Gardner.  It is true that the equator is 281 nautical miles north of a line of latitude that passes through the Seven Site.  It is also true that, after arrival, Noonan should have easily been able to determine their latitude if he was not too injured.  The reef on the north arm of the atoll near the Seven Site is not suitable for landing and would not leave the plane intact enough to send distress calls.   The reef on the south side on the same line of latitude is "landable," but we have no evidence that the landing was made there.  The Bevington Photo; the water-level correlation with the credible post-loss signals; and the anecdotal accounts of plane wreckage; are compelling evidence that the landing was made about 400 meters north of the shipwreck.

« Last Edit: October 30, 2017, 09:25:35 AM by Ric Gillespie »
Logged

Clarence Carlson

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 17
Re: A theory about what "281" might mean
« Reply #8 on: October 30, 2017, 12:57:21 PM »

Something that has niggled at me for a while.

In the Post Loss Catalog July 5 message 119, Ernest Henderson of Auburn Washington reported that he heard "50-128-QQ-waterlogged-can't last much longer" at 0916Z 5 July 1937. We don't know what frequency this was supposed to have been heard on, so it's of questionable value. And the "waterlogged" comment is suspect. (See discussion in that listing) But what is the likelihood of someone reporting the same set of numbers, admittedly out of sequence, a little more than two hours before the Navy Radio Station at Wailupe would report them?

What made me consider this: I'm an amateur radio operator and was copying a morse message not too long ago when the operator at the other end repeated a series of numbers that I partially copied. I was able to piece together the message with some fudging. It made me think: if I am sending the number 281 several times in a row and there is intermittent interference, resulting in only partial copy,  it could be heard as 281, 812 or 128.

Nothing earth shattering here but it points out the vagaries of trying to make sense of information that is garbled or incomplete.
Clarence Carlson
TIGHAR Member #3976D
 
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 5167
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: A theory about what "281" might mean
« Reply #9 on: October 30, 2017, 01:13:30 PM »

if I am sending the number 281 several times in a row and there is intermittent interference, resulting in only partial copy,  it could be heard as 281, 812 or 128.

That only works if Henderson was hearing code, but there's nothing to indicate he was a ham or that he was hearing code.
The "QQ" is interesting, as is the similarity of "can't last much longer" to "don't (won't?) last with us much longer."
Logged

David Williams

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 8
  • Retd. Airline & Brit Military Pilot
Re: Update..281 My theory, have we been looking in the wrong place?
« Reply #10 on: November 09, 2017, 02:49:59 AM »

In light of the recent ROV searches at Nikumororo and the unfortunate lack of Electra wreckage which we all had high hopes for I again draw attention to my personal theory (above) edited by me today to reflect Ric’s kind correction.  I erroneously attributed the ‘281’ anomaly to Betty Klenck and stand corrected, as Ric reminded me, it was heard by three Navy wireless operators and recorded in the official US Navy Radio Wailupe logs.

If you can bear to do so please re-read my amended / edited post at the top of the page!
DW ::)
Dave W
in the frozen north

 
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 5167
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: Update..281 My theory, have we been looking in the wrong place?
« Reply #11 on: November 09, 2017, 12:55:49 PM »

I have for a long time been intrigued by the seemingly random sequence of numbers jotted down by professional Navy wireless operators based at Wailupe some eighty years ago, when they were sure they were listening to Amelia Earhart's post loss transmissions.

When evaluating something like this it's easy to unwittingly embellish the facts with assumptions.  There is nothing in the historical record to suggest that the Navy operators were sure they were listening to Amelia Earhart's post loss transmissions. They were merely reporting unusual signals heard on Earhart's frequency.  They had been listening on that frequency because they had been asked to listen on that frequency. We have no information about their opinion about what they heard except that they were quite sure about what they reported because the transmission was heard several times by three operators over a period of about an hour.

in fact it was recorded by professional Navy wireless operators (w/o’s) stationed at Wailupe, recorded by them in official US Navy radio logs, at the time and on the same frequency being used by Amelia!

It's probably safe to assume that what they heard was recorded in an official log but we don't have, and have not been able to find, that log.  They apparently phoned their report to the Coast Guard radio station in Honolulu who then passed it along to Itasca.  The communication was recorded in the Itasca radio log.  So what we have is a third-hand account.

One number in particular has kept me pondering as to what it could mean. If it is a correctly recorded number from a genuine Earhart transmission then I have to wonder why it is so specific. The number is 281, nothing more, nothing less, not rounded to 280 nor 285, very specifically 281, which if I was trying hard to be found is just what I would be doing as a downed pilot or navigator, i.e. being exact with the available technology!

Agreed, but that doesn't mean they were successful in achieving exact accuracy.

Nautical Miles (nm) have traditionally been the standard Navigators unit of measurement for sea and (later) air distances for a very long time. I think therefore that it's possible that the 281 referred to was/is nautical miles!

Agreed.

Applying this distance/latitude South of the Equator (note NOT South of Howland) the resultant South line of latitude goes straight through (surprise, surprise)...... Gardner/Nikumaroro Island.

True.

Depending on the variable Longitude chosen, a fix at 281 nm south of the equator can be found on the south eastern 'limb' of the atoll on the reef to the south of Kanawa Point extending eastwards to Baureke Passage.

True.

It has been suggested AE experienced stronger easterly winds on her Lae - Howland leg than she expected, so this location would be more favourable for landing into those stronger easterlies than the current TIGHAR theory which favours the almost North/South landing site near to the Norwich City shipwreck (pronounced btw Norrich City by we Brits, silent 'w')

We don't know what the wind was that morning but it was probably from the northeast.  If so, a landing on the reef near Kanawa Point would be more or less into the wind.  Winds on the northwest reef are influenced by the tall trees on Nutiran and, in our experience, are somewhat unpredictable.

This same line of latitude, if followed east along that shoreline from Baureke Passage for some distance then skips through the SE end of the lagoon and reappears again on dry land on a strip of 'beachfront'/ reef, also 281 nm south of the equator, in the vicinity of..... wait for it....... the 'seven site'!!! Coincidence or what??? Hmmm.

See attached map.

If Fred took a midday sighting on the sun or instructed Amelia how to do so (if as is supposed he was injured) and he/she arrived at a fix of 281 nm south of the Equator then either of the two locations, in my reasoning above, could conceivably be where they were sending their post loss radio signals from. If so, then it's very possible that one of those two locations is where they set up 'Camp Zero' close to where the aircraft finally landed and came to rest!

The site on the northern limb of the island is not an option.  The reef there is too rough to permit a landing that would not wreck the aircraft.

So, if the seven site is where they set up camp zero, after landing abeam the seven site, then the same scenario as posited for the Norwich City assumption might also apply to this location, i.e. the ship floated offshore and sank a few days later at high tide. If so, then maybe it would be A GOOD IDEA to search the underwater area immediately offshore of the seven site!! Isn't this after all where conjecture suggests "signs of recent habitation" was reported to have been seen by Lambrecht??
landed and came to rest!

Again, a landing near the Seven Site is not an option due to the rough nature of the reef.
Lambrecht did not say where he saw signs of scent habitation.

ALTERNATIVELY.. regarding Amelia's reported 'NY NY' etc, she/they may alternatively have flown around the island before deciding on the most into wind stretch of reef on which to land and observed the ships name in a low pass to enable reporting of that name in her first radio calls for help. Otherwise I doubt she would have had time to walk from the seven site, if that is where she landed, around to the shipwreck and then back to the seven site before getting on the radio later the same day, replete with the ships name, although that would not be impossible to do.

That seems like a real stretch.

So, there are these two very interesting locations on the island which are both 281 nm south of the equator which both permit a reef landing in theory, I have no idea of the surface condition of those places back in 1937 of course. Nor I guess does anyone else still alive today! After 80 years of twice daily tidal activity and frequent numerous storm surges affecting the topography of those reefs who is to say what they looked like as emergency landing strips all those years ago? In addition to this, if it was a rough landing on either of these two locations, doesn’t this tie in with the post loss ‘credible’ reports that both Fred and Amelia suffered injuries during the landing??

Aerial photographs doing back to 1938 show no appreciable change in the reef surface from then to now.

Punch the following co-ordinates into Google Maps to see these two possible landing sites lying at exactly 281 nm South of the equator.

Location 1. S 4* 41' 00" W 174* 29' 50".... very near the seven site.
Location 2. S 4* 41' 00" W 174* 31' 15" .... abeam Baureke Passage not far from the ‘Bivouac site’ and affording a landing directly eastwards into the probable wind.

Location 1 is not an option.
Location 2 is nearly a mile from where Eric Bevington said he saw signs that someone had "bivouacked for the night."  Bevington marked a map for us when we interviewed him in 1992. What he saw was probably the last camp set up by the Norwich City survivors before being rescued.  Unfortunately, there is a myth that Bevington's "bivouac" site was in the same location as the shoe site found in 1991. The shoe site, a mile and a quarter from the supposed landing site near Kanawa Point, has also been eliminated as being related to Earhart.

My theory presented here does not allow for 'nessie' being part of the Electra. Of course that mysterious item has not yet been located, nor positively identified, so it does not necessarily disbar my theory.
Maybe, just maybe, my theory has some credence DW

We had identified the northwestern reef as the probable landing site long before it was confirmed by the Bevington photo.  In 1997, Tapania Taeke told us of seeing part of a wing on the northwestern reef and airplane parts washed up on the northwestern beach.  In 1999, Emily Sikuli told us of seeing what her father told her was the wreckage of an airplane on the reef edge north the shipwreck. In 2007 we surveyed the northwestern reef and compared the hindcasted water levels to the credible post-loss signals and found an astounding correlation.  In 2010, Jeff Glickman spotted the object sticking up out of the water in the Bevington photo. His analysis that it is the wreckage of Lockheed Electra landing gear was echoed by an independent analysis by U.S. government photo analysts in 2011.  In 2016, Greg Daspit's CAD reconstruction of landing gear wreckage further supported the identification.  We are currently re-assessing photos and video of an object our dive team discovered embedded in the reef in 2015.  Although written off at the time as probable Norwich City debris, we now strongly suspect that it is aluminum debris from NR16020.  You'll be hearing a lot more about this potential smoking gun.

On balance, if the recorded ‘281’ is what I think it is, then my bet is the Electra lies offshore of either the seven site or Baureke passage, deep in the briny!!!

I can't prove you wrong, but I have to go where the evidence points.


ADDENDUM:   Unfortunately the most recent ROV searches of the area scanned to the North and North West of the Norwich City wreck failed to produce any evidence of Amelia’s Electra where we all hoped it might be found. 

An estimated 3% of the NW search area has been covered by ROV searches.

Maybe, just maybe, my theory has some credence

Your theory is based on three assumptions:
• The 281 message was a genuine post-loss transmission from Earhart.
I think that's a valid assumption.

•  281 refers to nautical miles south of the equator derived from a celestial observation by Noonan or Earhart.
I think that is possible.

• The celestial observation was accurate to a tolerance of one minute of latitude (one nautical mile).
I see a lot of evidence that it was not.
« Last Edit: November 09, 2017, 03:33:37 PM by Ric Gillespie »
Logged

David Williams

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 8
  • Retd. Airline & Brit Military Pilot
Re: Update..281 My theory, have we been looking in the wrong place?
« Reply #12 on: November 10, 2017, 08:11:20 AM »

Thank you Ric for your comprehensive insight into my somewhat half baked ‘theory’.  I really appreciate the time you spent going through all the points I made with the benefit of your vast knowledge of the subject.

Your 25 plus (I think) years of research on the AE search alone of TIGHAR’s endeavours is a phenomenal feat of tenacity and determination which I respect and I value your words of wisdom, again thank you.

Regarding the aircraft wreckage, seen by Tapania Taeke and Emily Sikuli (which her father told her was aeroplane wreckage) for it to be recognised as such, that wreckage (here we go again) would, could, should have been a sizeable object in plain sight at low tides, for some time... 1937 to 1939 at least?

If so, why do you think, if I am correct here in my assumption, that there was no report found in the official British command records of such an unusual item, pre-war, being found on the shoreline by the ‘native’ population? After eighteen years service in the British military I know first hand how meticulously such unusual incidents are normally recorded and reported up the chain of command, especially within the Civil Service, so I find it strange that Gerald Gallagher did not know of its existence as Governor of the Gardner Island Settlement.  I wonder if the ‘aircraft’ wreckage seen by Tapani and Emily was actually part of the Norwich City and dismissed by Gallagher as just that, ship wreckage OR as has been previously intimated.... was there indeed a definite British Government policy to cover up any idea that it ‘might’ belong to the missing Aviatrix?

“... currently reassessing photos and video of an object our dive team discovered embedded in the reef in 2015.  Although written off at the time as probable Norwich City debris, we now strongly suspect that it is aluminium debris from NR16020.”..... 

I am delighted to hear this Ric, no-one will be more thrilled than you of course to finally ‘nail’ this mystery.  A confirmed “potential  smoking gun” is what we all are looking forward to, I’m sure! Good luck!

My shaky theory remains just that of course and time may yet tell!   ;)
DW




Dave W
in the frozen north

 
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 5167
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: Update..281 My theory, have we been looking in the wrong place?
« Reply #13 on: November 10, 2017, 08:36:48 AM »

Regarding the aircraft wreckage, seen by Tapania Taeke and Emily Sikuli (which her father told her was aeroplane wreckage) for it to be recognised as such, that wreckage (here we go again) would, could, should have been a sizeable object in plain sight at low tides, for some time... 1937 to 1939 at least?

If so, why do you think, if I am correct here in my assumption, that there was no report found in the official British command records of such an unusual item, pre-war, being found on the shoreline by the ‘native’ population?

It's an excellent question and I'm greatly tempted to drop everything and give you an in-depth answer, but I'm trying to get a new TIGHAR Tracks written so I'll beg your indulgence and ask you to be patient.
Logged

David Williams

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 8
  • Retd. Airline & Brit Military Pilot
Re: Update..281 My theory, have we been looking in the wrong place?
« Reply #14 on: November 11, 2017, 10:47:15 AM »

I fully understand Ric, my middle name is patience ha, ha, I imagine putting together a TIGHAR Tracks edition is time consuming at any time but with your latest news about reassessing the 2015 dive photography and video footage simultaneously, you really don’t need me diverting your attention.

I am, of course, keen to hear the results of the reassessment in the pending TIGHAR Tracks!
DW
Dave W
in the frozen north

 
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
 

Copyright 2017 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 2.0.14 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines Powered by PHP