Print

[Martin X. Moleski, SJ]

Okay, anybody see where in the video the grab with the objects was taken? I couldn't pick it out from the post on Youtube.

I don't think it is in the YouTube video.

My impression is that this is just a sample of what the HD Video on the ROV can do.

I may be wrong.

[C.W. Herndon]

Ric has just posted a High Definition (HD) ROV video on YouTube.

The note beneath it says: "This short clip demonstrates the quality of the video image recorded on the HD camera aboard the ROV during the Niku VII expedition. We were not able to view this imagery until after the expedition."

The quality of the video is amazing. If there is anythig there we should be able to find it.

Thanks TIGHAR!!

[Rob Seasock]

13:00 horizontal bottle with neck turned to left and slightly
toward back, marine growth on top. Lower right corner.

[jgf1944]

Re: Niku VIII

Certainly a lesson learned in the past two decades is the critical necessity of the AE smoking gun. With the Niku VIII check I am mailing today goes my hope that TIGHAR takes whatever steps necessary to ensure that history authors will someday write as definitively about Amelia Earhart at Nikumaroro (Gardner) Island as they do about Crockett at the Alamo and Armstrong on the moon. All Best, John #3245

[Jeff Victor Hayden]

Debris field found?, yes for sure. Jeff Glickman is going to be busy.
Some of it matches 2010 footage, fish get in the way but, on the plus side, they give us some idea of scale (not fish scales), hooray!!!! Who says fish are only good for eating or gawking at in a fish tank.
Also a length of electrical wire, not the wire/rope from 2010, yes, ships have electrical wire too.
Lots to point out but, I am still trawling through the MIA B-17's for the B-17 found in Italian lake thread.

[Malcolm McKay]

As an addendum to what I have posted above regarding the problems of defining exactly which debris is in the debris field, i.e. the real possibility of the much larger field from the Norwich City contaminating what ever remains of the Electra, I would like to add that I agree with Dr King's thoughts on the chances of Electra parts survival as he outlined here http://ameliaearhartarchaeology.blogspot.com.au/2010/12/why-i-dont-think-well-find-airplane-and.html where he reiterates the comments of the late Howard Allred.

[Malcolm McKay]

Given enough time, I'm afraid that is a very real risk, Malcolm.  This is where the 'race' part comes in that has been mentioned a time or two in the past - no, we're not in a race with those who search elsewhere, but mother nature wins the race given enough time by destroying what might be left of artifacts.

It could be too late for many parts of the Electra, etc. - no doubt that is a danger.

(And my apologies, Malcolm - you might notice that I 'edited' your post above - by accident I hit 'modify' when I intended to 'quote' - but retracted my 'edit' to your post and placed it here, properly.  Very sorry!)

No apologies necessary Jeff - I didn't notice. 

[John Gregory Walker]

This picture showing the debris field really looks like an aircraft undercarriage (fender, strut, tire/rim).  Its unfortunate that there is nothing to compare the scale of these pieces.

[john a delsing]

     Dr. King doesn't think, other than the engines, there is little to nothing left of the Electra.  Ric and Jeff G. seem to think they have discovered a debris field, composed of 'man made objects' and this field is not part of the Norwich City's field.  And of course from this debris field some members have already identified over 50% of the Electra, along with at least one of Amelia's suit cases.
    If Dr. King is correct we are probably wasting time and money re searching the ocean. We should go back and 'dig' at the site that most of us think AE and FN spent their first five or six days.
    However, since both ideas can't be correct, it seems that one or the other idea is quite far off base and if we follow the wrong one, it will cost us millions of dollars and atleast a couple years of looking in the wrong area.
     Does any one have Julia's telphone number ?

[Malcolm McKay]

     Dr. King doesn't think, other than the engines, there is little to nothing left of the Electra.  Ric and Jeff G. seem to think they have discovered a debris field, composed of 'man made objects' and this field is not part of the Norwich City's field.  And of course from this debris field some members have already identified over 50% of the Electra, along with at least one of Amelia's suit cases.
    If Dr. King is correct we are probably wasting time and money re searching the ocean. We should go back and 'dig' at the site that most of us think AE and FN spent their first five or six days.
    However, since both ideas can't be correct, it seems that one or the other idea is quite far off base and if we follow the wrong one, it will cost us millions of dollars and atleast a couple years of looking in the wrong area.
     Does any one have Julia's telphone number ?

I am afraid that in the still entirely hypothetical situation that the Electra actually landed on the reef and was washed off, then it is undeniable that it was subjected to the same prevailing current conditions as the Norwich City wreckage, and given its proximity there will be intermingling of whatever debris remains. Also, as I have pointed out before, ships like the Norwich City have a myriad of components like railing, davits, instruments, electrical circuitry, switches and control boxes that are of a size to mimic putative aircraft wreckage. The same applies to radio components - the Norwich City had one as we know.

Now the one certainty is that we have absolute 100% proof that the Norwich City wound up on the outer reef and then distributed parts down the outer face of the reef as wave action, tidal forces and corrosion have taken their toll. But for the Electra we have, as yet, zero proof that it ended up on the reef and then accordingly distributed parts down the outer face of the reef. But if it had then given its position and the prevailing conditions then there is more than a strong possibility that parts are intermingled.

So far, I would add, there is absolutely no evidence in the video of a single identifiable ship part, let alone that of an aircraft. And I would go further and, with respect to those involved, say that some of the suggested identities, like radio parts, switches etc. for what appear to be simply natural features fly in the face of we know about the corrosive effects of sea water and the dynamic environment in which they are purported to lie. Dr King himself has expressed doubt as to the survival of parts http://ameliaearhartarchaeology.blogspot.com.au/2010/12/why-i-dont-think-well-find-airplane-and.html and I see no evidence in that video to doubt him.

But we come again to the essential difficulty which is that so far, as I said above, while we have demonstrable evidence of a shipwreck we have none of an aircraft. Now searching the video might find something identifiable as man made but it is a very long way from there to demonstrating that it is an Electra part and not a part of the Norwich City or a more recent piece of jetsam. That is why a task like ascertaining the exact parameters of the Norwich City debris field is the primary task, after that you at least can identify those parts of the outer reef slope that offer the best places to find aircraft wreckage uncontaminated by the debris of the Norwich City.

[Oskar Erich Heinrich Haberlandt]

Well, I think, the Bevington-object (and ist seems ist was discovered, far left) should be examined. Therefore ist must be brought up. It seems to be the "best" object down there.

[Martin X. Moleski, SJ]

I am afraid that in the still entirely hypothetical situation that the Electra actually landed on the reef and was washed off, then it is undeniable that it was subjected to the same prevailing current conditions as the Norwich City wreckage, and given its proximity there will be intermingling of whatever debris remains. Also, as I have pointed out before, ships like the Norwich City have a myriad of components like railing, davits, instruments, electrical circuitry, switches and control boxes that are of a size to mimic putative aircraft wreckage. The same applies to radio components - the Norwich City had one as we know.

Some people value observation over theory.

Some people have actually observed what conditions are like underwater near the wreckage of the Norwich City.

I personally judge that making more observations with tools better adapted to the circumstances is a worthwhile project.  More observations should help to determine whether there is identifiable aircraft wreckage in or near that location.  TIGHAR has definitely not exhausted the search space--it has only begun to define the magnitude of the problem.

[Ric Gillespie]

I am afraid that in the still entirely hypothetical situation that the Electra actually landed on the reef and was washed off, then it is undeniable that it was subjected to the same prevailing current conditions as the Norwich City wreckage,

True.

and given its proximity there will be intermingling of whatever debris remains.

False.

Also, as I have pointed out before, ships like the Norwich City have a myriad of components like railing, davits, instruments, electrical circuitry, switches and control boxes that are of a size to mimic putative aircraft wreckage. The same applies to radio components - the Norwich City had one as we know.

Now you're an expert on both ships and airplanes. 

Now the one certainty is that we have absolute 100% proof that the Norwich City wound up on the outer reef and then distributed parts down the outer face of the reef as wave action, tidal forces and corrosion have taken their toll. But for the Electra we have, as yet, zero proof that it ended up on the reef and then accordingly distributed parts down the outer face of the reef. But if it had then given its position and the prevailing conditions then there is more than a strong possibility that parts are intermingled.

Is it "undeniably true" that "there will be intermingling of whatever debris remains" or is there "more than a strong possibility that parts are intermingled."?  How about, "Based on what little I know, it seems to me there is a possibility that parts could have become intermingled."

So far, I would add, there is absolutely no evidence in the video of a single identifiable ship part, let alone that of an aircraft.

Opinion stated as fact.  Surely somewhere in your archaeological training you were taught not to do that.

And I would go further and, with respect to those involved, say that some of the suggested identities, like radio parts, switches etc. for what appear to be simply natural features fly in the face of we know about the corrosive effects of sea water and the dynamic environment in which they are purported to lie.

And what exactly do you know about the corrosive effects of sea water and the dynamic environment in which they are purported to lie?

Dr King himself has expressed doubt as to the survival of parts http://ameliaearhartarchaeology.blogspot.com.au/2010/12/why-i-dont-think-well-find-airplane-and.html and I see no evidence in that video to doubt him.

To my knowledge, neither you nor Tom King is schooled in photo interpretation or forensic imaging.

But we come again to the essential difficulty which is that so far, as I said above, while we have demonstrable evidence of a shipwreck we have none of an aircraft.

The fact that your opinion differs from that of scientists trained in forensic imaging does not make them wrong. 

Now searching the video might find something identifiable as man made but it is a very long way from there to demonstrating that it is an Electra part and not a part of the Norwich City or a more recent piece of jetsam.

True.

That is why a task like ascertaining the exact parameters of the Norwich City debris field is the primary task, after that you at least can identify those parts of the outer reef slope that offer the best places to find aircraft wreckage uncontaminated by the debris of the Norwich City.

And what makes you think we haven't done that?

[Bill Mangus]

Looking at the HD video for the 117th time this afternoon I was suddenly struck by how much the "pulley/wheel" object inside what is supposed to be a main gear fender looks like one of the fuel tank selector switches from the lower-center instrument panel.  Anyone else see that?

[Malcolm McKay]

I am afraid that in the still entirely hypothetical situation that the Electra actually landed on the reef and was washed off, then it is undeniable that it was subjected to the same prevailing current conditions as the Norwich City wreckage,

True.

and given its proximity there will be intermingling of whatever debris remains.

False.

Also, as I have pointed out before, ships like the Norwich City have a myriad of components like railing, davits, instruments, electrical circuitry, switches and control boxes that are of a size to mimic putative aircraft wreckage. The same applies to radio components - the Norwich City had one as we know.

Now you're an expert on both ships and airplanes. 

Now the one certainty is that we have absolute 100% proof that the Norwich City wound up on the outer reef and then distributed parts down the outer face of the reef as wave action, tidal forces and corrosion have taken their toll. But for the Electra we have, as yet, zero proof that it ended up on the reef and then accordingly distributed parts down the outer face of the reef. But if it had then given its position and the prevailing conditions then there is more than a strong possibility that parts are intermingled.

Is it "undeniably true" that "there will be intermingling of whatever debris remains" or is there "more than a strong possibility that parts are intermingled."?  How about, "Based on what little I know, it seems to me there is a possibility that parts could have become intermingled."

So far, I would add, there is absolutely no evidence in the video of a single identifiable ship part, let alone that of an aircraft.

Opinion stated as fact.  Surely somewhere in your archaeological training you were taught not to do that.

And I would go further and, with respect to those involved, say that some of the suggested identities, like radio parts, switches etc. for what appear to be simply natural features fly in the face of we know about the corrosive effects of sea water and the dynamic environment in which they are purported to lie.

And what exactly do you know about the corrosive effects of sea water and the dynamic environment in which they are purported to lie?

Dr King himself has expressed doubt as to the survival of parts http://ameliaearhartarchaeology.blogspot.com.au/2010/12/why-i-dont-think-well-find-airplane-and.html and I see no evidence in that video to doubt him.

To my knowledge, neither you nor Tom King is schooled in photo interpretation or forensic imaging.

But we come again to the essential difficulty which is that so far, as I said above, while we have demonstrable evidence of a shipwreck we have none of an aircraft.

The fact that your opinion differs from that of scientists trained in forensic imaging does not make them wrong. 

Now searching the video might find something identifiable as man made but it is a very long way from there to demonstrating that it is an Electra part and not a part of the Norwich City or a more recent piece of jetsam.

True.

That is why a task like ascertaining the exact parameters of the Norwich City debris field is the primary task, after that you at least can identify those parts of the outer reef slope that offer the best places to find aircraft wreckage uncontaminated by the debris of the Norwich City.

And what makes you think we haven't done that?

Ric I don't claim to be a world class expert in either aircraft or ships, but in a varied life I have had modest working experience with both. When I was much younger (before I became an archaeologist) I spent 3 years working with ships of the general cargo variety as a traffic officer for a shipping company - a lot of that time was spent on them (not all of us follow straight paths to tertiary qualifications - I left school at 16 and worked for 14 years before I went to university). And while I freely admit I was a lousy pilot and a threat to all about me (or under me on the ground  ) I did actually go through the process of learning to fly - a task which I was clearly unsuited for. So however humble my background knowledge of ships and aircraft I do have some first hand knowledge of these, enough for me to be able to respectfully suggest that there are many small parts in both that can be easily confused without clear identification. Especially after over 75 years of marine growth, corrosion and damage by being ground against a reef face.

Now while I am prepared to agree with you that neither Dr. King nor myself (Dr. McKay) are experts in forensic imaging that doesn't alter the simple fact that I cannot see any identifiable machinery parts or man made objects in the video. That is just a simple statement of what I can see, or in this case can't see. Therefore if I may return to my professional qualification which is as an archaeologist then I would respectfully suggest (following the information published by TIGHAR) that I am not wrong in suggesting that the prevailing marine conditions may have a tendency to sweep Electra wreckage if it exists into the same area as that of the Norwich City debris field.

But to clear up any misconception I, and others, might have about the Norwich City debris field and its extent, and to which you refer, vis-à-vis the hypothesised Electra debris field is it possible for TIGHAR to publish what they consider to be the extent of these. I may have missed something but the only map I have seen is a very vague sketch of the reef face with a couple of straightish lines on it - I respectfully submit that that is not a map. I also concede that in the case of the Electra any such map can only be at this stage hypothetical. Those might allow people to see more clearly what you at TIGHAR are faced with in your analysis.

I might add that if I was approaching a task like this I would want to know in order to prevent any confusion later, the extent of the one proven debris field which is that of the Norwich City so that the extent of the hypothetical Electra debris field would not become subject to endless debates over artifact identification. Which is to say that if the prevailing currents and other influences combine to push the debris fields in one direction (SE) then if the Electra is located to the north of the Norwich City that should allow the initial assessment of any artifacts found to concentrate on small parts that might be found at the northernmost extent of the hypothesised field rather than at the end where it will become confused with the known ship wreck field (I would assume that for the same reasons that this is where you have concentrated your search). That is as you can see and as I have noted only my view and also just a simple statement of how I would approach the task. It also recognises that TIGHAR really do not have to find all remaining Electra debris - they need only find one artifact that can be given absolute provenance linking it to Earhart's Electra and you case is proven.