Print

[Jeff Victor Hayden]

The thing with the fender Chris is that the leading and trailing edges are not the same shape as a Lockheed Electra's. In these images notice that the leading and trailing edges are flat/square. Now look at the 2012 debris field fender, the leading and trailing edges are curved/pointy. Plus the curvature of the fender from fork to fork in the 2012 debris field is also not consistent with a Lockheed Electra's. A Lockheed Electra fender from fork to fork is less curved and more flatter. Unless AE's Electra had different fenders which I haven't seen yet in any of the images of her Model 10E. They might have been changed during the flight?

I've seen no indication that the fenders on NR16020 were changed during the flight but those fenders were relatively lightweight structures (four pounds each) and it seems possible that the curvature could have been effected in the process of separating from the fork.
But I too have my doubts about the object in the video being a fender.  I've just discovered another error in the Harney Drawings.  The fenders on the Model 10 were actually in two pieces - a front piece ahead of the fork and a rear piece behind.

Yes, you can see quite clearly how the front part of the two part fender is attached to the strut in that image so, it could probably be the same set up on the rear of the strut for the larger second part of the fender. I hadn't noticed that before in any other images of Model 10 Electras'.

[richie conroy]

Charlie

Really ?

I assure YOU, YOU will cringe in near future at that last comment.

A bite is one thing, But to be bitten is another 

[Jeff Victor Hayden]

The thing with the fender Chris is that the leading and trailing edges are not the same shape as a Lockheed Electra's. In these images notice that the leading and trailing edges are flat/square. Now look at the 2012 debris field fender, the leading and trailing edges are curved/pointy. Plus the curvature of the fender from fork to fork in the 2012 debris field is also not consistent with a Lockheed Electra's. A Lockheed Electra fender from fork to fork is less curved and more flatter. Unless AE's Electra had different fenders which I haven't seen yet in any of the images of her Model 10E. They might have been changed during the flight?

I've seen no indication that the fenders on NR16020 were changed during the flight but those fenders were relatively lightweight structures (four pounds each) and it seems possible that the curvature could have been effected in the process of separating from the fork.
But I too have my doubts about the object in the video being a fender.  I've just discovered another error in the Harney Drawings.  The fenders on the Model 10 were actually in two pieces - a front piece ahead of the fork and a rear piece behind.

I think a two piece fender fits the Bevington photo better. It's also why I have my doubts the object in the debris field is a fender as well.

The photos in your PDF file confirm that Greg, it is two pieces bolted onto brackets welded front and back of strut.

[Charlie Chisholm]

Charlie

Really ?

I assure YOU, YOU will cringe in near future at that last comment.

A bite is one thing, But to be bitten is another 

I don't care Richie - I'm done. I had planned on contributing $4K to $5K for the next expedition - mainly to pursue the anomaly you spotted because I really think it's likely to be the Electra fuselage. But I can't support an organization that is managed this way. I truly believe, as Ric once did, that this kind of reckless cloud-watching in the coral is harmful to the credibility of Tighar, and makes people not want to join or contribute.

The truth is, except for the large contributors, a large chunk of members' small contributions are actually consumed by Ric's $160,000 a year salary, not for finding Amelia.

I'm pretty sure that Ric will now delete this post...

[Jeff Victor Hayden]

Here's an Electra shakedown. Notice the front part of the fender has been removed in one image and, re-fitted in the other. You can see the brackets clearly.

[richie conroy]

Charlie

I have to put up with these cranks shttp://languish.org/forums/index.php/topic,9914.30.html who won't let me join there website, As well as Tim stealing my Limelight, Sonar breaking news 29th may 2013 Tim sues Tighar 4th June 2013.

There i said it

No one is more pi*~$" off with the current situation than me.

 I don't care Richie - I'm done. I had planned on contributing $4K to $5K for the next expedition - mainly to pursue the anomaly you spotted because I really think it's likely to be the Electra fuselage.

And it's because of Ric/Pat & Tighar's Board's hard work that the anomaly was spotted, It lucky really because i bet most of there savings if they had any have been used on this lawsuit.

But Bottom line is, DO YOU think 25 years of Dedication is going to end with Tim Mellon Lawsuit ?   

[Charlie Chisholm]

Charlie

I have to put up with these cranks shttp://languish.org/forums/index.php/topic,9914.30.html who won't let me join there website, As well as Tim stealing my Limelight, Sonar breaking news 29th may 2013 Tim sues Tighar 4th June 2013.

There i said it

No one is more pi*~$" off with the current situation than me.

 I don't care Richie - I'm done. I had planned on contributing $4K to $5K for the next expedition - mainly to pursue the anomaly you spotted because I really think it's likely to be the Electra fuselage.

And it's because of Ric/Pat & Tighar's Board's hard work that the anomaly was spotted, It lucky really because i bet most of there savings if they had any have been used on this lawsuit.

But Bottom line is, DO YOU think 25 years of Dedication is going to end with Tim Mellon Lawsuit ?

Yes, I saw that thread you are referencing - it was ridiculous. I support you 100 percent and also admire your dedication to Tighar. I don't have that kind of stamina anymore. The lawsuit really soured me because it is absolutely ridiculous and a form of bullying by a rich guy, which is despicable. Yeah bad timing for events for you! I feel your pain.

No, Tighar is not going to end with Tim's lawsuit (assuming we they prevail), it will just be without me contributing money or comments anymore. I will look at the forum occasionally, but I won't contribute money anymore or comment after tonight or renew my membership when it's due. No big deal - I'm just one (very) small player.

Take Care Richie - keep up the good work and the support of Tighar!

[Greg Daspit]

And where is the scale?

Well the fender is the upper left feature so that's a start?

Only if the object in question is indeed the fender from a Lockheed 10.

Yet Jeff Glickman can opine with 80% certainty, and without any reference to scale, about the authenticity of these objects.

What is wrong with this scenario?

IMHO nothing is wrong with that scenario because he is not suing based on his opinion.

What kind of logic is this, Greg? Glickman has used no scale in the rendering of his opinion. Yet most here reject my "opinions" solely based upon the lack of "scale". I do not Complain based on the lack of agreement with my opinions. I Complain because I lack faith in those most responsible for determining the truth based on all the evidence available to them at each point in time.

Tim, you indicated before that this scale thing is quote "a crock" see reply 19 here. I think Mr. Glickman has allowed for unknown scale in his 80%. However, your lawsuit claims it is a "fact" that the footage shows Earhart's plane wreckage. Claiming the footage shows wreckage as a fact is claiming a high degree of certainty. So in my opinion you are not allowing for unknown scale and Jeff Glickman is. I do not agree that most reject your opinions based "solely" on scale. I think most have a different view based on any number of opinions including "it looks like coral".

[Jeff Victor Hayden]

Well, if nothing else I think there has been a little progress made from this particular topic. The fender is now confirmed as being in two separate parts not one complete part.

[richie conroy]

Charlie am a small player too ye know please reconsider, You leaving like this is a Strike on Tim's Board, To Tim this looks like Tighar is Waning ffs.

You have stated your case on the public forum which i myself have pleaded with you to reconsider, But this is my final plea if you don't want to be part of Tighar i wish you well for the future

Thanks Richie 

[Ric Gillespie]

The truth is, except for the large contributors, a large chunk of members' small contributions are actually consumed by Ric's $160,000 a year salary, not for finding Amelia.

I'm pretty sure that Ric will now delete this post...

That's a low blow Charlie and it's not true.   You also don't have any idea what may be going on behind the scenes regarding the lawsuit that I'm not at liberty to discuss. No, I will not delete your post.  You're going to have to live with it - but I won't permit you to further embarrass yourself.

[Greg Daspit]

Well, if nothing else I think there has been a little progress made from this particular topic. The fender is now confirmed as being in two separate parts not one complete part.

I propose that the front part be called a fender and the back part a mud guard.

[Ric Gillespie]

I propose that the front part be called a fender and the back part a mud guard.

That will work until we can find out what Lockheed called them.  It's always best to call things by their right names.

[Greg Daspit]

I propose that the front part be called a fender and the back part a mud guard.

That will work until we can find out what Lockheed called them.  It's always best to call things by their right names.

Maybe "splash-guard" like on this Lockheed 12. (I did a sketch a while back I never posted with the few parts I knew the names of and questions about others. I will post it later) I agree and would like to know the correct names

[Tim Mellon]

And where is the scale?

Well the fender is the upper left feature so that's a start?

Only if the object in question is indeed the fender from a Lockheed 10.

Yet Jeff Glickman can opine with 80% certainty, and without any reference to scale, about the authenticity of these objects.

What is wrong with this scenario?

IMHO nothing is wrong with that scenario because he is not suing based on his opinion.

What kind of logic is this, Greg? Glickman has used no scale in the rendering of his opinion. Yet most here reject my "opinions" solely based upon the lack of "scale". I do not Complain based on the lack of agreement with my opinions. I Complain because I lack faith in those most responsible for determining the truth based on all the evidence available to them at each point in time.

Tim, you indicated before that this scale thing is quote "a crock" see reply 19 here. I think Mr. Glickman has allowed for unknown scale in his 80%. However, your lawsuit claims it is a "fact" that the footage shows Earhart's plane wreckage. Claiming the footage shows wreckage as a fact is claiming a high degree of certainty. So in my opinion you are not allowing for unknown scale and Jeff Glickman is. I do not agree that most reject your opinions based "solely" on scale. I think most have a different view based on any number of opinions including "it looks like coral".

"Fact", Greg, because the Complaint is based not just on my opinion, but the analysis of experts. The Complaint is a legal document, not a scientific treatise.