Suppose the positive view is that it only seems to move a lttle year by year so as long as there's a few feet to the edge we may just have time to rattle the collection tins
FWIW, I don't think it's moving. As I wrote in the article, it makes more sense that the "tail" behind the target is a debris field of components that spilled out when the fuselage hit the slope at the bottom of the cliff.
The hypothesis goes like this:
• The airplane on the reef gets knocked off its gear and pushed over the edge, leaving a landing gear assembly (the Bevington Object) behind just as it did in the Luke Field crash.
• The landing gear assembly stays there at least until October when Bevington took the photo, but at some point it breaks free and sinks, ending up in the catchment area at 200 feet where Glickman spotted the pieces of it in the video. To be clear - the theory is that the debris field in the video is the broken-up Bevington Object.
• The airplane gets busted up in the surf and sinks within a few minutes in the shallow water just past the reef edge. That's where it was, obscured by the surf, when Lambrecht and company flew over; when the Kiwis and Bushnell boys were there; and when Emily saw whatever part of it she saw in 1941.
• Eventually, the battered center section/fuselage goes over the second cliff, hits the slope at the bottom of the cliff at 600 feet, and skids along for a ways spilling its guts, before coming rest more or less on its side with the starboard-side wing stub sticking up. To be clear - the anomaly is the center section/fuselage wreckage with a trail of debris strung out behind.