I appreciate your reply, Tim.
However, I still find the scaling of this stuff challenging -
I think the process is backwards. We don't know what the squiggly stuff is,...
Ric indicated that it actually was identified (if the different pieces of 'squiggly stuff' are the same kind of material, which seems indicated by what I understand so far) -
About the black "squiggly" stuff. We found a length of it and videoed it up close during Niku VII. Somebody aboard KOK recognized it as a type of gasket material commonly used aboard ship and showed me a handful of it. Clearly the same stuff we saw in the video. Now I wish I had taken time to photograph and document exactly what it is, but at the time it was just "Okay, so we don't need to worry about that."
Is there new information on that which suggests the squigglies are something other than what Ric was shown at the time the close-up views were being studied?
So, as to 'scale' again, you suggested the 'wing' itself can now scale what we see -
...but we do know, rather precisely, the shape and dimension of the wing. Therefore it should be the wing, if anything, that gives scale to the squiggly, not the other way around.
I agree that we know the shape and dimensions of a Lockheed L10 wing - but shouldn't we try to determine if what we're seeing is 'inches' in scale, or feet more objectively? It seems then that we could have more confidence that we are actually seeing a wing, not the other way around.
You discounted the 'squigglies' as unknown and say we can't reliably use them for scale, but if we can still rely on Ric's shipboard assessment it seems we can still have confidence in 'what the squiggly stuff is' - and the means of scale actually may be turned somewhat the other way - Ric did give an idea of scale of this stuff in an earlier post -
...I personally think the black squiggly thing is natural organic material and only a few inches long... I don't see a strut. I see some curious straight edges that may indicate a man-made object - but whatever it is, if anything, is quite small...
I realize you both were there, and I'm sure neither of you is meaning to contradict each other. I also realize you both are making the best judgments that you can from what you've been able to observe and understand of the process, but this appears to be a striking difference between your individual observations.
As to discernment of what was seen -
Ric, I thought, was reporting the opinion of a mariner. Since this material is not part of the shipwreck, I can't see any reason to put too much credence in an opinion so far removed from an airplane.
I am sure we're all glad you were able to be there, Tim - it is surely important to have strong 'eyeballs' for an airplane when looking for one, agreed. Of course Ric is no slouch at knowledge of airplanes either - I'm sure you two make a strong team. In particular I'd bet Ric probably has Electra details etched into his retinas by now. I am sure you are both doing your honest best to provide your most meaningful assessments - which suggests to me that the differences in opinion between you is actually an indication of how tough jthe udgment of these images really is.
Thanks for all your work on this and your tremendous support. Whatever the outcome, and few people would hope you are right here more than me - except probably you and Ric, the pursuit of Earhart is a dream from childhood. It is always a wonder to me to see the enthusiasm continue after seven and a half decades.