Print

[JNev]

Bill, you always have my admiration.

What you've done and what I've tried to describe is what I came to realize was sometimes thought of by certain detractors as 'TIGHAR making the cat chase the laser'; eye of the beholder, I've also come to realize.  If one hasn't the patience for that kind of dedicated work, or even to encourage it to see what it can bring - fine, don't 'chase the laser'.  I've found that I am among the curious who cannot leave a potential Earhart stone unturned, no matter how much another may say 'cannot be'; therefore I guess I'm a 'laser chaser' too, after all.

In good company, it seems.   

Good work, and thanks!

[Andrew M McKenna]

What I find odd is that none of the TIGHAR critics out there seem to apply their critical thinking to other critics.  Why is it that no one challenged Elgen Long's analysis, and instead simply swallowed whole his suggestion that 2-2-V-1 came from a PBY, as in "Elgen proved it came from a PBY in 1992."  Not until now did anyone get themselves up on a PBY and actually look, and now that we have, it is readily apparent that Elgen did not put any thought into his solution beyond the rivet lines, ignoring the other aspects of the artifact that clearly show it does not fit a PBY - wrong thickness, wrong rivets, no paint, etc.  I have to wonder about the how and why of the photo provided, and its extremely odd perspective.  I suspect it was taken to enhance the visual of the rivet lines, but in the process obscures the other issues.  Intentional or just happenstance?

If TIGHAR provided that kind of analysis, the critics would have ripped us to shreds. They don't seem to apply their standards consistently.

In a way, being held to a higher standard has been good for TIGHAR, pushing us to produce results at a higher level.  More often than not, it is TIGHAR that proves ourselves wrong, not the critics, and it happens through putting boots on the ground and doing the basic research.

Kudos to Bill.

Andrew

[Nathan Leaf]

That's three different images of the entire patch from similar but slightly different angles ... Miami Herald, Miami Library, and the scan of the Purdue Darwin photo.  From all 3 photos it is now clear to me that what Tim Collins thought might be a 'pucker' or 'bulge' in the patch from the Purdue Darwin scan as he stated in reply #613 of this thread is indeed a reflection instead, as Ric posited in Reply #629. 

It appears the scan of the Purdue Darwin photo reduced its quality significantly enough as to render the reflectivity of the entire fuselage nearly imperceptible ... compare it to the wings and the elevator which are clearly shiny and reflective, you can see the reflection of the ground crew member refueling the plane. 

Instead, the fuselage looks "dusty".  But it is not, and we see the reflections of the horizon, airport structures and/or vehicles and/or shrubbery in the shiny patch which are not as "clear" on the rest of the fuselage but clearly continue (as they do in both Miami photos ... "fuzzy", but there).

Of course, if you keep staring at a blowup of the scan for long enough, you can see anything you want, including the 18th Congressional District of Kansas.   

[Tim Collins]

Thanks to the discovery of a new collection of photos in the University of Miami Library (research sponsored by a dedicated TIGHAR member and Forum contributor) we have a new photo of the Electra with the shiny new patch installed, taken in Miami sometime between Saturday, May 29 (the date of the last photo that shows the window still present) and sundown on May 31.  Can anyone identify the purpose of the striped framework on the ground?

Note the the distinct appearance of shadowing at the bottom of the patch virtually identical to the earlier suggested bulge that was so summarily dismissed.   

[Monty Fowler]

I don't see shadowing, Tim - I see a very shiny, new piece of aluminum reflecting something darker that's on the ground.

LTM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 ECSP

[Nathan Leaf]

Note the the distinct appearance of shadowing at the bottom of the patch virtually identical to the earlier suggested bulge that was so summarily dismissed.

I don't think it was 'summarily dismissed' Tim.  Ric posted a photo in Reply #618 of this thread that shows a good view along the starboard side of the Electra in the hangar at Darwin, and there is no bulge in the patch discernible in that photo.  Additionally, the 'shadowing' you see in both Miami photos continues on either side of the patch along the fuselage, suggesting dark reflections as Monty stated that are simply enhanced by the patch due to its higher reflectivity.

[JNev]

Thanks to the discovery of a new collection of photos in the University of Miami Library (research sponsored by a dedicated TIGHAR member and Forum contributor) we have a new photo of the Electra with the shiny new patch installed, taken in Miami sometime between Saturday, May 29 (the date of the last photo that shows the window still present) and sundown on May 31.  Can anyone identify the purpose of the striped framework on the ground?

Note the the distinct appearance of shadowing at the bottom of the patch virtually identical to the earlier suggested bulge that was so summarily dismissed.

Eye of the beholder - your judgment to hold as you will, but nothing was 'so summarily dismissed' here that I recall -

I merely recall much more being made about these odd shadowings and no doubt skin irregularities than they likely deserve: I see nothing more than the normal, odd contour variations that would show up as faint shadowing, etc.  I would agree that 2-2-V-1 bears some evidence of slight 'pucker' effect, etc. 

As I recall, Tim, your thought was that if stiffeners were present, that shouldn't be the case.  I merely disagree.  Also, as iterated here just now, I also disagree that we're looking at anything of any more significance than what I'd expect to see on a hand-fit skin patch of the nature I believe this to be on the Electra.

ADDED -

I've attached a picture of Earhart's own Lockheed Vega 5 model as seen from overhead, with oblique light creating shadowing where there are skin 'undulations'.  This craft was built of plywood, so you are looking at fairly rigid ply skin with 'puckering' effect very much in evidence along the aft portion of the wing cord, pretty much along the full span.  These are graphically evident in this photo - but in fact would likely be barely noticeable to the eye as irregularities without the oblique lighting effect to highlight them in shadow.

I believe much the same process is at work on the L10 in the pictures we've been looking at regarding 'puckers', etc. - and my own belief is that the actual condition is perhaps even less pronounced on the L10 than we see on the Vega, here attached.  I do not see either case as 'abnormal' or as occurring due to a 'lack of stiffeners'; in fact, adjacent stiffeners may actually tend to accentuate the condition slightly.

[JNev]

Nice article by Kansas City Star - "Has the key to Amelia Earhart’s disappearance in the Pacific been found in Kansas?"

Of some interest, Gary LaPook, a former TIGHAR forum poster and critic (now associated with 'Stratus') is quoted therein making a critical comment about 2-2-V-1 thus -

Another critic, Gary LaPook, a pilot and lawyer specializing in aircraft crash cases, said Gillespie is ignoring that the patch’s variety of aluminum did not begin to be manufactured until World War II.

“I’m a lawyer, and who has the burden of proof here?” LaPook said. “He wants us to accept this piece of evidence, but he needs to authenticate it.”

Fair enough -

I felt I "knew" the answer off the cuff, so it seemed like low-hanging fruit - but realized this meant someone needed to document this, my "knowing" wasn't enough.  On a lark, I dug for about 10 minutes to find it on the web (no dust mite search needed, praise be, or it would still languish, I promise you).  Old Aero bulletins are cool but yielded nothing definitive, but the web soon coughed up good stuff about ALCLAD's origins, the earliest mention I found being in 1927, and on rather good authority -

"Technical Notes - National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics - No. 259 - "A L C L A D" - A New Corrosion Resistant Aluminum Product" - by E. H. Dix, Jr., Metallurgist, Research Bureau Aluminum Company of America - Washington August, 1927" -

So, to answer Gary's point, "A L C L A D" material has been with us since that year - and possibly since somewhat before the time that Lindbergh won the Orteig prize (May 20-21, 1927), if we can trust this Wiki information -

A Wiki report has the first aircraft built of the stuff as the all-metal navy airship ZMC-2, built in 1927 at Naval Air Station Grosse Ile.

Who knows, maybe Lindberg actually flew some of the stuff across the Atlantic on that lovely tooled nose cowl of the Spirit of St. Louis.  History is cool stuff, gotta love this chase.

[James G. Stoveken]

Given TIGHAR's own experience with how the media gets things miscombobulated I think Gary deserves the benefit of the doubt here.

Some examples from the KC Star article...

"One theory is that Earhart spent World War II in a China prison camp."
China?  Japan maybe. Or Saipan.  But China?  That's a new one.

"Another theory holds that she resumed her life under an assumed name in Long Island, N.Y."
I think Irene Bolam lived in Princeton, NJ.

My guess is Gary's remarks were meant to reflect the dating of the "ALCLAD" font rather than Alclad's origin.  Although I disagree with him I always appreciated what he added to the forum and I do miss his knowledge and wit.

[John Ousterhout]

I'm in agreement with James' - the newpaper appears likely to have garbled Gary's words, something TIGHAR has some experience with.  As I understand it, Gary's contention was that the "ALCLAD" stamp wasn't used yet when the window was covered and wanted proof that it was used before.

[Bruce Thomas]

"One theory is that Earhart spent World War II in a China prison camp."
China?  Japan maybe. Or Saipan.  But China?  That's a new one.

China ... yes ... and not a "new" theory. Recall the reason for so many of this Forum's postings ending with LTM. (It's the very first FAQ TIGHAR provides for its many visitors to the website.) The prison camp mentioned in that hard-to-scotch-theory was Weihsien Internment Camp, run by the Japanese, in ..... China.

[Mark Appel]

“I’m a lawyer, and who has the burden of proof here?” LaPook said. “He wants us to accept this piece of evidence, but he needs to authenticate it.”

Fair enough -

[/quote]

Jeff, your excellent post again highlights the vagaries of aircraft aluminum labeling in the early 20th century. It adds yet another variable: how the product was referred to internally vs how it was labeled, and how that may have changed over time. It also highlights what Gary and his sympathizers don't get (or refuse to get) -- TIGHAR (or any reputable researcher using best practices) is always searching for corroboration. And more corroboration. And more after that.

It's just plain weird that Gary and his brethren insist that when TIGHAR identifies evidence that points to the origins of 2-2-V-1, it means that TIGHAR is willfully dismissing the emergence of contrary evidence. That is flatly, demonstrably, not true.

And to further compound their error, they don't believe their own, potentially contrary evidence should be subject to the same scientific review as any other evidence. Their claims of infallibility based on personal observation and inference are absurd on their face.

LaPook has no objective evidence to support his emphatic claims about ALCLAD labeling. None. Similarly, Long has no objective evidence to support his own emphatic contention that 2-2-V-1 came from a PBY. None.

And with Gary, it gets especially weird because of his breathless demand that we "have the burden to prove it..." Hell, that's exactly what we're trying to do! But last time I checked, nobody at TIGHAR has made that claim. I implore the critics--measure your own evidence as you would have TIGHAR measure theirs...

[JNev]

Given TIGHAR's own experience with how the media gets things miscombobulated I think Gary deserves the benefit of the doubt here.

Some examples from the KC Star article...

"One theory is that Earhart spent World War II in a China prison camp."
China?  Japan maybe. Or Saipan.  But China?  That's a new one.

"Another theory holds that she resumed her life under an assumed name in Long Island, N.Y."
I think Irene Bolam lived in Princeton, NJ.

My guess is Gary's remarks were meant to reflect the dating of the "ALCLAD" font rather than Alclad's origin. Although I disagree with him I always appreciated what he added to the forum and I do miss his knowledge and wit.

First of all, I'm not trying to put words in Gary's mouth, or even to give him a hard time - but the article says what it says, and that's what I have to deal with if I choose to address it.

That said, his comment rang a bell from the past - and I found an old message from Gary about this very thing.  Perhaps it can shed a bit of light, and since he apparently intended it as helpful information to what we were doing with 2-2-V-1 (either way - supportive of Earhart provenance or not, it feeds research), I'll share it.  Perhaps you are be right, you be the judge:

Here is a link to the entire report.

http://naca.central.cranfield.ac.uk/reports/1942/naca-tn-842.pdf

and the original report.

http://naca.central.cranfield.ac.uk/reports/1939/naca-tn-736.pdf

gl

Note that these links, provided by Gary, are to much later reports than the one I just found.  Gary elaborated in an accompanying message -

If you look at those reports you will see that the word "alcad" was used in both reports so this pushes back to 1939 the use of that word.

gl

Thanks!  Now if we could just 'push it back' to say, 1937?  "That Word" ("alclad") seems important to Gary in his missive; it is in fact a definitive word, attaining 'household word' generic usage in the industry, in fact.  Yes - it has been identified as "ALC" and "CLAD" and "ALCLAD" that we know of, and perhaps by other means - and in more font styles than I care to think about (saw many in Dayton that I haven't seen elsewhere).

Now, I fully realize the difference between a 'household word' in the industry, and what winds up in print on metal.  Somehow I took (and still do) Gary's point in that discussion as having to do with 'when clad material evolved' - and as I look back, yes - use of 'that word'; provenance of the fonts, etc. was another matter (there were other exchanges).

So, for the moment having taken the article at face value (I realize the peril) then -

- 'This material (clad aluminum) has been with us since before Earhart's time' - established;

If instead, we apply the assumption that Gary intended something along the lines of what he sent me back in late April 2014 (above two messages), then -

- The 'use of the word 'alclad' extends not only to 1939, as Gary suggested (and demonstrated), but in fact to 1927 - as evidenced by the later find posted up-string by my own hand.

That leaves "fonts", or the use of "A L C L A D" in lieu of "A L C" - which seems your point. 

Which takes us back to the land of "see the pictures of pre-war and wartime fonts / ALC vs. ALCLAD pictures" - which has been pitched too hard as "fact", frankly, as I see it. 

I would not disagree that it remains 'open-ended' as a potential up or down issue with regard to dating the metal (but can never prove an Earhart tie, BTW).  The question is relevancy, then - and at the moment it is secondary to some other considerations, despite the 'press' here and there: there is other evidence regarding Amelia's window patch that is of more promise for the moment - evidence that could yet prove 2-2-V-1 is tied to the Electra. 

If one wishes to focus on 'disproving', then by all means - one should go do the dust-mite laden boots on the ground effort I've come to believe it will take to pinpoint when Alcoa (or others, perhaps even) changed fonts on their rolling printers: it does not emerge so far on the net.  Sorry, but the nice picture web - with all the pictures gleaned from the web here and there, and despite being sweetly persuasive to the onlooker, just is not definitive enough to disprove; and again, this point can never prove an Earhart tie.

I will unabashedly focus on the things that have potential to 'prove' - including continuing the search, as best I can.

So I hope this answers in full, as best I know how to do, Gary's assertion in the Kansas City Star: 'ALCLAD' was a staple of the industry by 1937, having been around since at least Lindbergh's scurrying across the Atlantic; the TERM 'ALCLAD' has been with us not just since 1939, but since 1927. 

Beyond that, the 'fonts / ALC vs. ALCLAD' markings are another matter - and hardly the only one with bearing here.

But, you be the judge.

[Ric Gillespie]

As to the use of the world ALCLAD, I refer interested parties to the patent cited in my brief paper on rivet corrosion "The Case of the Vanishing Rivets."

Note that the patent description includes the sentence "The method in question has been widely employed for the manufacture of light metal sheets, and products obtained in this manner have become known under the names of Alclad or Alplat."  I call your attention to the fact that Herr Schreiber applied for his patent in 1931.

I have been unable to find any other reference to the term "Alplat" but it is clearly a synonym for ALCLAD, perhaps in use in Europe.

[James G. Stoveken]

Given TIGHAR's own experience with how the media gets things miscombobulated I think Gary deserves the benefit of the doubt here.

Some examples from the KC Star article...

"One theory is that Earhart spent World War II in a China prison camp."
China?  Japan maybe. Or Saipan.  But China?  That's a new one.

"Another theory holds that she resumed her life under an assumed name in Long Island, N.Y."
I think Irene Bolam lived in Princeton, NJ.

My guess is Gary's remarks were meant to reflect the dating of the "ALCLAD" font rather than Alclad's origin. Although I disagree with him I always appreciated what he added to the forum and I do miss his knowledge and wit.

First of all, I'm not trying to put words in Gary's mouth, or even to give him a hard time - but the article says what it says, and that's what I have to deal with if I choose to address it.

That said, his comment rang a bell from the past - and I found an old message from Gary about this very thing.  Perhaps it can shed a bit of light, and since he apparently intended it as helpful information to what we were doing with 2-2-V-1 (either way - supportive of Earhart provenance or not, it feeds research), I'll share it.  Perhaps you are be right, you be the judge:

Here is a link to the entire report.

http://naca.central.cranfield.ac.uk/reports/1942/naca-tn-842.pdf

and the original report.

http://naca.central.cranfield.ac.uk/reports/1939/naca-tn-736.pdf

gl

Note that these links, provided by Gary, are to much later reports than the one I just found.  Gary elaborated in an accompanying message -

If you look at those reports you will see that the word "alcad" was used in both reports so this pushes back to 1939 the use of that word.

gl

Thanks!  Now if we could just 'push it back' to say, 1937?  "That Word" ("alclad") seems important to Gary in his missive; it is in fact a definitive word, attaining 'household word' generic usage in the industry, in fact.  Yes - it has been identified as "ALC" and "CLAD" and "ALCLAD" that we know of, and perhaps by other means - and in more font styles than I care to think about (saw many in Dayton that I haven't seen elsewhere).

Now, I fully realize the difference between a 'household word' in the industry, and what winds up in print on metal.  Somehow I took (and still do) Gary's point in that discussion as having to do with 'when clad material evolved' - and as I look back, yes - use of 'that word'; provenance of the fonts, etc. was another matter (there were other exchanges).

So, for the moment having taken the article at face value (I realize the peril) then -

- 'This material (clad aluminum) has been with us since before Earhart's time' - established;

If instead, we apply the assumption that Gary intended something along the lines of what he sent me back in late April 2014 (above two messages), then -

- The 'use of the word 'alclad' extends not only to 1939, as Gary suggested (and demonstrated), but in fact to 1927 - as evidenced by the later find posted up-string by my own hand.

That leaves "fonts", or the use of "A L C L A D" in lieu of "A L C" - which seems your point. 

Which takes us back to the land of "see the pictures of pre-war and wartime fonts / ALC vs. ALCLAD pictures" - which has been pitched too hard as "fact", frankly, as I see it. 

I would not disagree that it remains 'open-ended' as a potential up or down issue with regard to dating the metal (but can never prove an Earhart tie, BTW).  The question is relevancy, then - and at the moment it is secondary to some other considerations, despite the 'press' here and there: there is other evidence regarding Amelia's window patch that is of more promise for the moment - evidence that could yet prove 2-2-V-1 is tied to the Electra. 

If one wishes to focus on 'disproving', then by all means - one should go do the dust-mite laden boots on the ground effort I've come to believe it will take to pinpoint when Alcoa (or others, perhaps even) changed fonts on their rolling printers: it does not emerge so far on the net.  Sorry, but the nice picture web - with all the pictures gleaned from the web here and there, and despite being sweetly persuasive to the onlooker, just is not definitive enough to disprove; and again, this point can never prove an Earhart tie.

I will unabashedly focus on the things that have potential to 'prove' - including continuing the search, as best I can.

So I hope this answers in full, as best I know how to do, Gary's assertion in the Kansas City Star: 'ALCLAD' was a staple of the industry by 1937, having been around since at least Lindbergh's scurrying across the Atlantic; the TERM 'ALCLAD' has been with us not just since 1939, but since 1927. 

Beyond that, the 'fonts / ALC vs. ALCLAD' markings are another matter - and hardly the only one with bearing here.

But, you be the judge.

Huh?