Print

[JNev]

Good observations, Nathan - and I enjoy looking this stuff over.

Ric's points are good.  I can look all day long but cannot see this the way someone with experience and training in forensics review can see it.  And of course we cannot drive resolution into a photo that isn't there - point being if we can get a better resolution of an original, or better digital copy, so much the better.  That's what Ric and Jeff Glickman and others are trying to get for us in Miami soon.

The point too about the skin texture being different at the patch than other areas seems true to me too.  While I would 'expect' a constant contour, I personally would not expect the patch to be perfectly matched to the rest of the mother structure, despite the installer's best efforts.  My suspicion is that we could be looking at more minor 'deformation' than some have suggested - that the light may be exaggerating a relatively small irregularity in contour.

Round and round she goes - a lot of fun to try to sort out.  Maybe better eyes can tell us more, and maybe we'll find better photos yet.

[David Alan]

Just a couple of observations about the copies of the Darwin hanger photo.

The first posting of this photo (in this string) was from Jeff Neville by way of Dave Billings http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1595.msg35024.html#msg35024 . The more recent posting was by Woody Herndon http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1595.msg35166.html#msg35166 .  When I transfer both of these images into PhotoShop and then scale them closely to equal size, any hint of higher resolution goes away.  There does appear to be a very slight difference in the how the original gray scale may have been interpolated by the digital software and imaging chip used to render it, which can be seen by comparing individual groups of pixels through much higher enlargment.

I believe both images are from the same original source, likely a copy photograph of the original found in a photo album, much like the Bevington photo.  Perhaps Woody and and Mr. Billings could tell us where they found their source image and that might lead to a better quality original.  As with the Bevington photo, a well executed copy photo can coax a lot of information from a print, though obviously the original negative would be far better.

Mr. Billing's image is cropped tighter (image area is enlarged more) than Woody's image which shows more of the original photo.  Woody's image shows what appears to me to be a "photo corner" as used in photo albums, but even this image has been cropped as evidenced by the hard edges seen at the top and right sides.  A hint of the "photo corner" can be seen in the Billings image.  Further, it looks to me that there is a also a paper frame around the original photo, evidenced by the curved edge that overlays the photo corner.  The light gray line just below the upper edge seen at the bottom of this black framing is likely a decorative embossed line.   As a youth looking through my parent's photo albums I seem to remember some of them had cut-out overlays which, when lifted, allowed the user to place photos in pre-marked areas that were centered to the paper framing.  And of course the photos were held in place by photo corners.

Finally, I'm not clear with some of the other descriptions offered, so this may be repetitive and I am only throwing it at the wall to see if it sticks. It appears to me that the highlight that spans the top right corner of the patch and the nearby bulkhead is very similar to the highlight spanning the upper right corner of the remaining starboard window and its closest bulkhead.  Both areas show a curved highlight with a bubbled expansion of the highlight toward the center of the curve.  This infers, to me, a similar surface structure.  I have no idea what that might imply as to how the patch was installed or if it further strengthens or weakens the argument for oil canning and the possibility we are seeing an actual depression. 

Cheers,

d alan

[Brano Lacika]

I have one question and apologize in advance if it has been allready discussed. If it was, I just missed it. I´ve recently learned ( with a little surprise ), that Mr. Bo McKneely only died in 1998. Tighar discovered the 2-2-V-1 artifact in 1991 or so..., however it has been in Tighar posession for 7 years when McKneely died. Did he ever seen it, been asked, expressed any opinion on that? Was there any contact between Tighar and him?
I realize, that by that time 2-2-V-1 was not suspected to be the window patch, but still..

[Ric Gillespie]

I spoke with Bo McKneeley by phone in August 1990 when we were trying to figure out whether the PBY navigator's bookcase we found on the island in 1989 could have been aboard Earhart's Electra.  See Bookcase Update.  We didn't find 2-2-V-1 until the next year.
Bo was almost blind, very hard of hearing, and not terribly lucid.  He had no specific memories to offer about how the airplane was set up for the second world flight attempt.  He did say that "that Noonan fella" didn't think much of the special modifications done to the airplane at Harry Manning's request. "Noonan said he didn't need all that stuff."  I got the impression that Bo was less than fond of Fred Noonan.  Fred was a late-comer to the world flight and Bo had, no doubt, been heavily involved in setting up the "navigator's station" speced out by Manning.

I only spoke with Bo that one time. Later there was certainly no point in querying him about 2-2-V-1.  Until we developed the patch hypothesis all we could have asked was whether he thought this piece of metal could have come from the Electra.  If he had been able to see clearly I suppose there's a chance he would have recognized the rivet pattern.

[Bill Mangus]

I'm guessing that Bo didn't leave any diary, journal or photographs with his family.  He would sure be the person who would have known!

Is anything known of his career/life after AE and FN disappeared?  You would think that, especially later in life, he would have told stories to family, friends, co-workers (especially any younger ones) and perhaps employers, journalists, etc.  Doubtful veracity, perhaps, but maybe another line of inquiry.

[Ric Gillespie]

I don't remember where we found McKneeley.  I want to say Arkansas.  I think he was living with his daughter or maybe his daughter-in-law.  Anyway, I remember that it was a woman who arranged the phone call. I know that's not much help.  I may have written notes somewhere.

[Bill Mangus]

My genealogist friend tracked him down in about 30 seconds (she's GOOD!)

http://www.nytimes.com/1998/04/24/us/ruckins-mckneely-jr-dies-earhart-s-mechanic-was-89.html

She's looking for more information on the family.

Might be a place to start!

[Ric Gillespie]

Excellent!  And there's new information about Bo's activities in Miami in the obit.

[Brano Lacika]

I spoke with Bo McKneeley by phone in August 1990 when we were trying to figure out whether the PBY navigator's bookcase we found on the island in 1989 could have been aboard Earhart's Electra.  See Bookcase Update.  We didn't find 2-2-V-1 until the next year.
Bo was almost blind, very hard of hearing, and not terribly lucid.  He had no specific memories to offer about how the airplane was set up for the second world flight attempt.  He did say that "that Noonan fella" didn't think much of the special modifications done to the airplane at Harry Manning's request. "Noonan said he didn't need all that stuff."  I got the impression that Bo was less than fond of Fred Noonan.  Fred was a late-comer to the world flight and Bo had, no doubt, been heavily involved in setting up the "navigator's station" speced out by Manning.

I only spoke with Bo that one time. Later there was certainly no point in querying him about 2-2-V-1.  Until we developed the patch hypothesis all we could have asked was whether he thought this piece of metal could have come from the Electra.  If he had been able to see clearly I suppose there's a chance he would have recognized the rivet pattern.

Fascinating... It´s however a big pity, that the patch theory was not developed a few years earlier, or McKneely did not survive a few years longer. I think he could definitely help to solve the 2-2-V-1 mystery.
For myself, after thorough reading of everything available regarding this artifact, I´m well over 90% convinced, that 2-2-V-1 is actually the patch from AE aircraft. I would even clasify it as the good candidate for AAIA ( Almost Any Idiot Artifact ). But it will be not easy to make the last step and remove the word Almost.
A small photo, or a few words from the diary of Bo McKneely could be a big help... so I still think, that it could be worth to try to approach his relatives ( if any ) and look in Bo´s left estates. Chances are not great, but miracles do happen sometimes...

[JNev]

The mismatch of McKneely's time with us and the emergence of the current 2-2-V-1 hypothesis is nearly tragic, I'd agree, and more poignant in that we are now invoking him as to his possible involvement.

That said, it really doesn't sound as if he was in good shape to provide a truly critical look at the artifact, the years having robbed him of much of his sight and perhaps clear recall.  We might have simply only gotten another big 'maybe' in an anecdotal way at the time.

2-2-V-1 remains an enigma to me personally despite all of my hopes and the hard-won positives gained to-date.  That TIGHAR continues to press forward with the examination of more photos is a credit both to the steadfast spirit that keeps the search focused on Niku, and to the hard-headed scientific approach of keeping all of our creative hypothesizing honest: questions still remain and must be answered.  One golden photo out there somewhere may yet do that better than all other paths of evidence.

Should 2-2-V-1 prove to be the patch beyond doubt, then we'll realize that we once had a living link that slipped away before the connection could be made, and that will become part of this very human story.  Should that day come, it will be bittersweet to think we might have reunited the man with the hardware of his last effort for Earhart in his time.  Problem is, none of us seem to know how to make all good things to happen at once - ideas just don't emerge that way often enough.

Maybe this is a testament to this process we work: it takes ideas based on what little can be understood, then a refined hypothesis - which must be tested, at risk.  It is not an exercise for the impatient or gutless to suffer well.  It probably helps to have a taste for bittersweet irony.

updated to provide the correct spelling of Bo McKneely's name

[Ron Lyons]

It is not an exercise for the impatient or gutless to suffer well. 

Luckily, I showed up near the end and didn't have to wait through Ric and Co's tireless efforts to do all the hard work  

I believe we'll have our answer in the near future. 

[Diego Vásquez]

… is there evidence that warbirds were manufactured or patched with un painted aluminium during WW2?
I'm sure I've seen somewhere that it was a practice in the later stages of the war.

…. "Squadron Signal Air Force Colors Vol. 1 1926-1942" by Dana Bell is a great resource showing the evolution of Army Air Force paint schemes in the pre-war/early war period.  The Navy was experimenting during this period as well, of course….
It was not until 4 months after Pearl Harbor in March 1942 that the Joint Aircraft Committee had issued its standardized color schemes for the Army, Navy and RAF (including RAAF and RCAF) ... all aircraft in theater not conforming to these schemes were stripped and repainted by the end of June, 1942, with all aircraft rolling off the assembly lines painted in these schemes at the factory until January 1944.  The one lone exception I am aware of was in the Aleutians, where the enemy air strength was so weak as to not pose more than a nuisance, and operational losses were the primary driver of aircraft attrition, so with air superiority and a greater concern for reducing the weight of aircraft to improve performance (particularly on treacherous takeoff and landing roll-outs in consistently poor flying conditions), many American aircraft in the Aleutians were unpainted.  There was also the occasional C-47 General's transport that was unpainted, thought more attractive by the ground crews who maintained them and more "ballsy" by the Generals who flew around in them.

In December 1943, the War Department announced the removal of paint from aircraft to save weight, which primarily affected army aircraft rolling off the assembly lines beginning in 1944 . By mid-1944, you see photos of B-17 squadrons where half of the planes are painted and half are in "naked" aluminum finish, and the prevalence of unpainted aluminum aircraft becomes very noticeable ... especially P-51s, P-38s and B-29s. Of course the Navy painted all of their aircraft through the end of the war, and even with the War Department announcement, many local army units preferred to continue with painted aircraft to the end of the war.
[emphasis added]

 
Ric –

   I read your article, “Is TIGHAR Artifact 2-2-V-1 from a PBY?” and noticed the following statement:  “All PBYs were painted on both the exterior and interior surfaces.”  As far as I could tell, your article did not mention any sources for this statement.  Nathan and Chris seem to have raised at least some doubt about later war birds not being painted at the direction of the War Department.  The source that Nathan cited only goes up to 1942, whereas he suggests that post-1943 birds did not have any paint. 

Could you please describe how you arrived at your conclusion that all PBYs were painted both interior and exterior and provide sources.

Is it possible that exposure to seawater and/or the elements for 50 years could have removed any traces of paint from 2-2-V-1? 


Nathan –The book you cited only deals with Army Air Force planes and only until 1942, could you please provide a source(s) about Navy planes always having been painted.  If you could cite the 1943 War Department announcement that would be much appreciated as well.


I don’t mean to imply any claims one way or the other about the presence or absence of paint, just trying to understand it better.  Thank you.

Diego

[Ric Gillespie]

Could you please describe how you arrived at your conclusion that all PBYs were painted both interior and exterior and provide sources.

It's a logically unsupportable statement because I have not examined all PBYs.  It's an assumption drawn from a fairly large sampling of photographs (over the years, probably a thousand or more).  I've never seen a photo of an unpainted PBY.  Have you?

Is it possible that exposure to seawater and/or the elements for 50 years could have removed any traces of paint from 2-2-V-1? 

I don't know.  How would you test that hypothesis?

[Nathan Leaf]

Nathan and Chris seem to have raised at least some doubt about later war birds not being painted at the direction of the War Department.  The source that Nathan cited only goes up to 1942, whereas he suggests that post-1943 birds did not have any paint.

I did not raise some doubt ... I can say unequivocally that the exterior surfaces of most warbirds were no longer painted in camouflage at the factory beginning from January 1944 ... many army aircraft were being stripped of paint at their local bases in mid-1943.  Nowhere did I suggest that post-1943 birds did not have any paint ... in fact many did, including all Navy tactical and strategic aircraft, as well as many Army aircraft that either retained their earlier paint schemes or chose to adopt new paint schemes as a matter of local preference.  The photographic evidence is 100% supportive of this ... you will find:

a) Post-1943 photos of Army bombers and fighters from the same squadrons on missions in Europe, some painted and some unpainted.
b) No photos of Navy tactical or strategic aircraft without paint at any time during the wartime period in active theaters of combat.  The Navy painted all such aircraft, period.  Many Navy transport aircraft, mainly R4D (naval designation for C-47 Skytrain), were unpainted particularly as the war progressed and air superiority was achieved in both theaters.

Nathan –The book you cited only deals with Army Air Force planes and only until 1942, could you please provide a source(s) about Navy planes always having been painted.  If you could cite the 1943 War Department announcement that would be much appreciated as well.

Certainly:

Navy Air Colors: United States Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard Aircraft Camouflage and Markings, Vol. 1, 1911-1945.  Doll, Jackson, Riley, Greer.

U.S. Naval Aviation.  Naval Aviation Museum Foundation, Goodspeed.

Aircraft Camouflage and Markings, 1907-1954.  Robertson.


I do not have the time or inclination to dig through my materials to find original source documents on the USAF Materiel Department, Joint Aircraft Committee, or War Department's orders on paint schemes during the war ... I am knowledgeable of this through years of research.  But a quick google search yielded these, hope they help you:

http://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/the-u-s-army-air-forces-strips-its-planes-of-paint/

The below link is interesting, a copy of the original CBI Roundup, the U.S. Army's newspaper to those serving in the China-Burma-India theater, from December 23, 1943.   Scroll to headline "UNPAINTED SHIPS FLOWN OVERSEAS":

http://home.comcast.net/~cbi-theater-5/roundup/roundup122343.html

[Monty Fowler]

Is it possible that exposure to seawater and/or the elements for 50 years could have removed any traces of paint from 2-2-V-1? 

I don't know.  How would you test that hypothesis?

We had 2-2-V-1 analyzed by a variety of methods for any paint/paint residue. I have to believe the lab boys would have found some if there were some, because paint can be an incredibly tenacious substance.

And no, there is no way to reasonably test the hypothesis that whatever paint 2-2-V-1 might have had on it had all been worn off by the elements. There are far to many unknown variables to the life history of 2-2-V-1 to even attempt to construct a reasonable experimental protocol to test that.  In my opinion.

LTM, who is content with no paint as opposed to dry paint,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 ECSP