Print

[Bill Mangus]

Good analysis Jeff.  Remember though, there's bright sunshine in the lower right of the photo being reflected up and to the left.  Notice the upward shadow of the outboard tab of the right horizontal stabilizer on the outboard side of the right vertical stabilizer.  That's sunlight being reflected up from the floor.

That same light is causing the lower, almost continuous bright line even with the top of the factory installed window back along the top edge of the patch, then disappearing behind the horizontal stabilizer.  Going forward of the factory installed window, the line breaks up for some reason.  I cannot figure the exact angles of reflection, but it seems to me the trailing edge of the starboard wing blocks the direct sunlight upward reflection from the hanger floor about halfway into the factory window.  These broken lines and the one spot well forward, in isolation, one skin panel behind the cockpit window, may be overhead lights somewhere above the right wing.

The higher, broken line of reflections on both sides of the top of the fuselage are probably from overhead lights.  They are too far around/over the curve of the fuselage to be reflected light from the floor.   Notice the four bright spots on the outboard side of the right engine nacelle; they're probably overhead lights also.  These reflections seem to me to be too small to be from skylights.  Because the nacelle is curved, the camera sees only a spot of light there.  The broken lines on top are on a somewhat flatter surface and we see a longer area of light reflected back up to the camera.  The two bright spots on the fuselage around the tip of the right vertical stabilizer are curious.  Perhaps it is a point source reflection from something on the hanger floor off to the right; a tool, a piece of equipment, etc.

The RDF antenna, the forward antenna mast and the tip of the portside propeller are all in direct sunlight.  Note the especially  bright reflection of the RDF antenna.  The top of the fuselage isn’t brightly lit, so I’m thinking the light on the antennas and prop is coming through a postulated row of windows above the hanger door.   The drooping elevator is brightly lit; the sun may be very nearly straight-on into it. The top side of the right wing is partially lit by reflection from the floor, I think, especially the trailing edge, as the wing surface curves downward.  Given that the trailing edge shadow of the starboard wing is well forward, I thing the sun angle is pretty low.  It's June, mid-winter, in Darwin.  I'm guessing it's morning, before any clouds built-up later in the day.  The overhead lights haven't been turned-off yet.

These different sources and reflections create a pretty confusing pattern, for sure.  This is my take on it.

[Ric Gillespie]

TIGHAR's answer to Elgen Long's assertion that a section on the upper wing surface of a PBY is a perfect match to 2-2-V-1 is now up on the TIGHAR website at http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/74_Is_22V1_From_PBY/74_Is22V1PBY.html

[JNev]

Excellent bulletin, Ric.  'Kinda' rules Long's PBY theory out... to say the least.

Great work, Bill Mangus!

[JNev]

Reflections -

2-2-V-1 remains awfully interesting, despite the criticisms.  I look forward to more research to come - see the 2-2-V-1 string.  The risks are well understood, but I thank those who criticize out of concern anyway.

Some of the 2-2-V-1 criticisms are interesting; those which drive a deeper review of photographic evidence and the theory about how it may have fit (if it did fit) onto the Electra are valuable.  So far none of the criticisms 'prove' a lack of provenance to 2-2-V-1 to the Electra as I see them; other's judgment may vary, of course.

For me, as long as 2-2-V-1 remains of even possible provenance to Earhart, it is a precious relic to be carefully considered.  My interest may well be another's folly - fine.  I merely think it would be foolish to cast a potential Earhart relic aside due to the perceived odds, and prefer to exhaust all hopes.  How many shots might we get at finding the lost flight?

I'm glad the 'PBY matter' was chased to earth - and as it turns out, it might be judged less than a fair claim: it now seems to be an obvious misfit. 

This was rather quickly found out by one good TIGHAR member's bothering to go and do on a weekend what the original photographer / hypothesis author might have done for us in the beginning, had he merely shared a direct shot of his overlay with the barest of technical review and comment.  Now, having been given as purported 'can't be Electra because it is of a PBY' fact, the whole thing 'smells' kind of funny.  I get the feeling it may not have started that way, but grew from an 'idea' into someone's tragic notion of 'proof'.  In the spirit of diplomacy, I'll refrain from further expansion on the odor and simply note that the original 'investigation' seems to have been less than thorough enough, and leave the smell check to others.  One man's crow is another's pidgeon.

Perhaps many can learn something more of the process by all this.

[Mark Appel]

Taking Jeff's lead on "Reflections..."

I see 2-2-V-1 as something of a tangible metaphor for the identity and work of TIGHAR. In that sense, it ultimately doesn't matter if 2-2-V-1 does in fact prove to be fabric from Earhart's Electra. What differentiates TiGHAR from the, uh, critics, is a rigorous dedication to the understanding and application of the Scientific Method. Therein lays the importance of 2-2-V-1.

By definition the Scientific Method is an incremental, self-testing and correcting process that starts with an hypothesis but precipitates verifiable conclusions over time. Consider this: TIGHAR's investigation into 2-2-V-1 spans nearly 25 years across numerous fits and starts--reconsiderations born of testing that eliminated possible conclusions. That journey in itself differentiates TIGHAR from the critics.

At some risk, I suggest that the importance of 2-2-V-1 to TIGHAR and its mission transcends the question of its provenance. Whatever the ultimate conclusion, at the end of the day, 2-2-V-1 is just another piece of evidence in a much larger investigation--that through the dedication of TIGHAR leadership and members got properly tested.

The loudest and most passionate TIGHAR critics don't understand that nor will they ever. Ironically, that actually cripples their ability to provide valid, useful critique.

Okay. Enough staring at the belly button. Back to our regularly scheduled forum posting.

Cheers all.

[JNev]

Here are two more pictures.  I've been unable to load what David Billings gave me, but he sent these as well.

Bottom line, I am not a photogrammetry expert by any means.  I think the light / sources of light, etc. would have to be carefully analyzed here to be able to ever say "there are no stiffeners", but again, respect why some believe that is true.  Enjoy.

Seems to be a lot of distortion for whatever reason in the photos ,.....note how the top and sides of the regular window take on an irregular shape.

Good observation, Jerry.

Again, I am not a photo analyst by any stretch, but the lighting effects seen in this photo suggest some subtle but complex visual distortions that would have to be weeded through very carefully before making reasonable claims of structural distortion.

Like so many pictures in this effort, I'm not even sure enough resolution is present to get there.

[Monty Fowler]

Like so many pictures in this effort, I'm not even sure enough resolution is present to get there.

Exactly. And what we all need to remember, when we play amateur photo sleuth, is that every time we run a photo through ANY computer program, it does things to the image. With an awful lot of the Earhart and Noonan photos, by the time it's put out there on the web for all to see, God alone knows how many times it has been scanned, by what kind of equipment, at what resolution, etc., for anyone to get a TRUE representation of what the image is.

Which is why I leave the definitive calls to people like Jeff Glickman. It's a fun intellectual exercise to blow up a segment of a particular photo and mark it all up and whatnot, to "prove" or "disprove" a particular point.

But unless all the parameters are factored into the final conclusion, all you really have is a bunch of electronic dots on your computer screen.

LTM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR no. 2189 ECSP

[JNev]

Which is why now, with my opinions flying around, that of others - pro and con flying around, and by far most of us rank amateurs, I will simply wait.  The opinions, counter-opinions and spaghetti flinging have now run ad nauseam as far as my tastes are concerned.

2-2-V-1 remains an interesting piece of metal to me, whatever it turns out to be and no matter what others may think.  Now I wait to see how it acquits itself with perhaps more yet to be seen and the coaxing out of details by more able people. 

What we really still need is that one magic photo that reveals what is truly there on NR16020 before leaving Miami, beyond all squinty eyes and guesses.

[Greg Daspit]

What we really still need is that one magic photo that reveals what is truly there on NR16020 before leaving Miami, beyond all squinty eyes and guesses.

Any good picture after it departed Miami will do as well.
Maybe local news sources from the stops made after leaving Miami still have undiscovered photographs.

[JNev]

Good point, Greg.  Start near home and work out I guess.

[Monty Fowler]

Any good picture after it departed Miami will do as well.

Emphasis on good. There are a LOT of photos of the Electra as it traversed the globe ... and a LOT of them have been put up on the web. To do that, though, they had to be scanned and digitized in some manner. Which introduces all kind of variables, and degrades the quality of the image a little more with every step.

So I agree with Jeff. Unless there are international TIGHARs with the $$$$$ to travel and dig through their respective newspapers, libraries, national archives, etc., we can afford to concentrate some of our meager resources in the US, first. Then, maybe, mount a concerted international effort.

LTM, who says the check is in the mail,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR no. 2189 ECSP

[C.W. Herndon]

For you who have been poring over the pictures of the Electra in the hanger at Darwin, here, for your review, is a copy of the picture with a little higher resolution.

[JNev]

That's really a nice copy, Woody - thanks.

Something does 'bend' the light there, it looks to me.  The pattern follows what would be a natural path of irregular contour, as I see it - the big question being 'how irregular'.  Just thoughts.

If you are able to get some of the other photos floating around here to that level of resolution it would be fun to look them over.

Thanks!

[Ric Gillespie]

Thanks Woody.  This is the best resolution of this picture I've seen.

Something does 'bend' the light there, it looks to me.

I agree, and the apparent texture of the patch is definitely different from the surrounding skins. There may be some new information here.  I'll pass this along to Jeff Glickman for his comments.
 

If you are able to get some of the other photos floating around here to that level of resolution it would be fun to look them over.

Nobody can improve the resolution of a photo.  You can only find a better copy.

[Nathan Leaf]

Something does 'bend' the light there, it looks to me.  The pattern follows what would be a natural path of irregular contour, as I see it - the big question being 'how irregular'.

Something also 'bends' the light on the panel just fore of the window, in fact the light appears to bend across a couple of 'irregular contours' on that panel.  Thoughts?  It seems odd that two panels on the same fuselage axis would have irregular contours, separated by a panel and window that appear to be perfectly congruous to the rest of the fuselage. 

My thought ... the 'bending' of light on the panel fore of the window and on the patch could simply be a function of the reflective distortions from the starboard wing and/or starboard engine/prop and/or starboard vertical stabilizer.  With multiple sources of hangar lighting coming from all directions to bounce off highly reflective aluminum, I think it's highly speculative to suggest either possibility ... detailed photogrammetric analysis might shed some light.  No pun.