Print

[Martin X. Moleski, SJ]

... I don't know if I can post URLs here.

Please do.  Cf. "How to insert links into posts."

So: how much do you need to pay the bills and launch Niku VIII? -- Bill Warren, #3480

Niku VII cost over $2 million.

I doubt that Ric has a firm figure for Niku VIII.  It is clear that the Autonomous Underwater Vehicle (AUV) with side-scan sonar didn't perform as well in the seamount environment as such tools have done in other deep-water searches.  When you get a chance to watch a re-run of the show, notice how labor-intensive the ROV work is.  I imagine you'd need more skilled operators to use a tool like that to do a thorough search of the seamount and recording the results in high-def (HD) video.

When the time comes to start fundraising for Niku VIII, I'm sure Ric will provide another gauge showing what is needed, what has been pledged, and the gap between them.

[jgf1944]

The object I circled in red looks interesting. It appears to be a hubbed wheel attached to a vertical piece. I hope this image proves to be a great fund raiser. It caused me to open my checkbook as visions of NIKUVIII danced in my head. All Best, John #3245   

[Greg Daspit]

pardon my crude rushed artistic additions, but this is the object that I am seeing. An aluminum framework encrusted with coral

Kevin, I see it.
Just above the main landing gear on it's side is what looks like one engine in an upright position with prop sticking straight up from the hub. What may be the top of the valve rods can be seen around it.
Beyond that, the area I think you are indicating to look, is very fuzzy but may be a big peice of the plane seen from behind. Including the tail, rear fuselage and part of the wings. The tail wheel may be there too. The cockpit forward of the wing seems to be missing or covered. Very fuzzy though and in no way am I saying it is those things, only that it may be. The only thing I am confident about is a main landing gear on it's side with part of the fender seen.

Also, in the foreground, bottom right, there is a big piece of equipment of some kind.
This area seems to be a ledge right next to a slope where things came to rest.

[Brice Payne]

If you mean, "Why is a man whose profession is photo analysis and who works as an unpaid volunteer on behalf of TIGHAR not submitting all of his raw materials for the inspection and criticism by members of the Forum?", then you will have to ask that question of Glickman himself. 

marty,
yeah... no, that wasnt the nature of my question whatsoever. i think the meaning behind my queery was fairly self evident. if you dont know the answer (as to where TIGHAR stands on getting the actual objects photographed for a comparison) then simply dont respond to the question. no need to reword my question so you can provide speculative obvious answers.

[Tom Swearengen]

Gentlemen: I 'd like to propose a cease-fire against Jeff Glickman. The man is trying to digest alot of video and still pictures, and cant possibly have enough time to do it.
Having met Jeff in DC, I can assure you that he is professional, methodical, and NOT under any timetable to view and gather the necessary information. As much as we would love it (ME TOO), I'd rather his work be exhaustive, precise, and conclusive, than rushed, generic, an slip-shod.
There is WAYY to much at stake here to get it wrong. Jeff will give us the answers when he has finished his evaluation. And as Mary pointed out, he may have other work that has some priorities. I'm not privy to his arrangements with TIGHAR, but I will extend my hardest good wishes to Jeff. I thank him for all he has done, is doing, and what he will be doing for us in the future. Lets cut him some slack--please.
Tom

[Martin X. Moleski, SJ]

yeah... no, that wasnt the nature of my question whatsoever. i think the meaning behind my queery was fairly self evident.

What seemed queer about your "queery" was the impression you gave that TIGHAR was dragging its feet unreasonably in providing material for you to look at.

... my point is that it's a photo now and the object has been scrutinized for over a week. what is the progress and the reason for a hold-up (if it can accurately be called a hold-up at this point) in getting proper photos of actual Electra parts so a side by side analysis can be done?

Most TIGHAR researchers do not provide a day-by-day account of the work they are doing.  I believe Jeff Glickman is the only person who could answer your question, since it concerns his work, and I think it is very strange that you seem to think he should be reporting what he has done, what he is doing, and what he intends to do to the Forum.

I imagine, without proof, that Jeff has or can get a copy of the Harney drawings to aid him in his work.

[Tom Swearengen]

We all want to "help" Jeff----but sincerely, I don think we should 'cloud' the issue, but trying to manipulate Jeff's findings. My friend Gary would object to it being inadmissible, heresay, or badgering of the witness. (Gary did I get that right?)

We have ALOT of smart people on here----lets see how we can help each other, and figure this thing out.
I'm guilty too. Tom

[Jeff Victor Hayden]

Having gone back and checked the maps of the main players in the scenario, the prevailing currents and storm directions I would expect the debris field to be a bit mixed up. The lighter elements from an aircraft wreck would follow the prevailing current patterns and storm direrctions towards the NC debris field and, maybe into the lagoon itself.
IMHO
http://tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/2010Vol_26/whereelectra.pdf

[Tom Swearengen]

Hi Leon---I personally would say a big YES to any and all pics.
tom

[Dave Potratz]

it isn't a race it is just a search for an answer. Those answers cannot be found if the basic hypothesis has flaws.

I can agree with the first, not the second, and I really believe this defines a basic difference in posters here.

In fact, answers can always be found regardless of a hypothesis, flawed or not, or whether there even is one.   One way is pure serendipity, and it's likely been a factor in many of the greatest discoveries.

Not that one would ever RELY on serendipity, that would be foolhardy. 

IMO, to believe that any evidence not 100% verified is to be rejected as irrelevant to the hypothesis, seemms a very limiting attitude indeed.  Seems alot like "throwing out the baby with the bathwater"...not a 100% perfect analogy, I know!

LTM,
dp

[Monty Fowler]

Ummmm, fellow very enthusiastic TIGHARs?

How many of us in here are Board Certified Forensic Examiner Fellow, American College of Forensic Examiners Senior Member, Institute of Electical and Electronics Engineers President-Elect, American Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, Puget Sound Region?

*scans the room, notes the absence of raised hands* Jeff Glickman is the "pro from Dover." We leave him alone to let him do his job - in peace. This is getting akin to offering to "help" a bomb disposal technician right when he's debating which wire to cut. The only genuinely helpful expertise we can offer right now is $$$$$ to help move things along, in my opinion.

I will be sending in another check at the end of the month, my next payday. Who's with me?

LTM, who puts his money where his considerable mouth is,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 CER

[Martin X. Moleski, SJ]

Are pix permitted or not? (a 'yes' or 'no' question.)

If your question is "are pictures permitted on the Forum," the answer is yes.

That is why I created a tutorial on how to insert pictures into your posts.

If that's not the question, well, nemmermind. 

[Greg Daspit]

See pdf. for interesting things that I see. The fuzzy objects marked in the back are mostly for fun.
The Landing gear with fender is what I am confident about.
Very curious about the machinery in the bottom right.
What looks like a liquor bottle above that made me laugh when I saw it.

It's more clear looking at the 2nd B&W image Peter Kearney posted earlier with the red box.

[Rob Seasock]

Hello Folks

I'm Rob in Seattle and have been following the forum closely since the Still From ROV  Video thread started.   Firstly I'd like to congratulate Ric and all his crew, past and present, for their fine work in bringing this interesting mystery to a near close; persevering for over 20 years is an extraordinary accomplishment.   The online crowd has done much to help unravel photo interpretations and draw interest to the story as well.
 
Below is an outlined and annotated copy of the Debris Field Frame Grab to try to clearify locations and  target identification, including objects other forum members have observed along with items I have noted.  Expanding on those areas up to another 30% to 40% helps bring out "some" of the objects. The object labelling is guess work only of course.  I feel pretty strongly about the Padeye with possible interconnected ring (the ring laying horizontally to the right, interconnected thru the padeye and viewed from slighly above).  The Padeye also appears to be surprisingly free of marine growth but the ring is not.  It looks to be too thick to be the DF antenna.   Scale wise this would have to be quite large in comparison to the other objects and possibly throw those opinions out of wack, this probably could have only come from the SS City Of Norwich wreck, maybe the rigging for the cargo handling Kingpost type boom cranes common back then.

What do you think?

[Malcolm McKay]

Just to clarify, there are no public funds involved here; I think I understand your point - that a public appeal is made for private donations to support this effort: but the monies TIGHAR gets are from private sources, for sure.  The distinction?  Each donor can make a choice whether to support or not and cannot be 'taxed' into 'donating' without choice as would be the case with 'public' funds (which I could nearly read 'public donation' as meaning).

As Winston Churchill said "two nations separated by a common language" (or words to that effect)  . I meant private donations by the public, not donations of public money (i.e. government funding). When I was a kid a public school was in our terminology what we now call a private school (i.e. a school or college etc. not in the public education system) now the terminology has changed and a public school is a state run school or college and a private school is one not in the public education system. And then when I was young "inflammable" meant something that caught fire easily, now because we had a demographic shift to migrants whose first language was not English the word has become "flammable" because the prefix "in" implied to them that a thing wouldn't burn. It is very hard getting old