Print

[Martin X. Moleski, SJ]

The problem remains that unless there is clear data on the extent of the Norwich City debris field, and importantly what is in it, vis-à-vis that of the hypothesised debris field of the Electra then I do not think that any clear conclusions can be reached.

I think that is why TIGHAR is not planning to declare victory on the basis of photo interpretation.

If I'm not mistaken, the plan is to go pick things up on Niku VIII.

It's a kind of archaeology, except that it takes place underwater.

[Randy Conrad]

Hey...I've been somewhat catching up with all of your posts. It's been pretty hard! Anyway, I stumbled upon a pic and wanted your all inout thanks!!!!

[Malcolm McKay]

I think that is why TIGHAR is not planning to declare victory on the basis of photo interpretation.

If I'm not mistaken, the plan is to go pick things up on Niku VIII.

It's a kind of archaeology, except that it takes place underwater.

The reality is that it is an immensely complex archaeological project if further examination of the pictures do show enough evidence to warrant further investigation. There is no escaping the fact that you have to establish the identity and relevance of any object before you attempt to recover it because of the things that always rule any archaeological project - time and money. But in this case there is the complication that I doubt anything could be recovered for examination simply because it would be firmly attached to the reef by marine growth and coral, and given the age and probable levels of corrosion it would be immensely fragile.

And further to that you don't just spot an object then recover it by trying to cut out a block of coral with the artifact attached because that would then create immense methodological problems, not only in the not so simple task of actually doing that, but much more importantly both in establishing identity prior to recovery and ascertaining what lies beneath it and its relationship is to any objects around it. You could recover one object but in doing so destroy an existing connection to other in situ artifacts and thus completely corrupt the site's archaeological integrity. For example you might find that in recovering the back of a seat you have destroyed Noonan's skull, or destroyed what was a large section of the navigator's compartment that had escaped destruction up until then. Undersea archaeology works in the same fashion as its land based equivalent* and in this case just to complicate matter further TIGHAR is not working in an undersea environment where everything is covered by a nice layer of sand or silt which can be just vacuumed away.

At least on the plus side, however, something like an engine or a large airframe component such as the horizontal stabilizers, wings etc. would stand out as such and would be the proof needed and what's more need not be recovered, unless there was some imperative to actually have a chunk of the Electra in a glass case in a museum. If it was possible to actually lift an item without damage then as we are all aware, that needs conservation facilities and of course prior permission from the Kiribati' government.   

* Late edit: The thing is that it is essential to recover (if recovery is attempted) the entire artifact which includes anything that it is attached to also. For example if one located an engine and decided to recover it and you found that the engine still had its bearers and these where attached to part of the wing and nacelle then you would have to find a way to recover the whole assemblage not just the engine by cutting it loose. The same would apply on a lesser scale to instruments, cockpit parts, switches etc. That is why it would be a complex archaeological undertaking if artifact recovery was considered. It would be hard enough on land - underwater in that environment would be many times more difficult. 

[Rob Seasock]

Hey Randy, I wondered that too or is it an illussion.  I  thought it was a 5 blade prop for a skiff, 6" to 8" in diameter.  I thought some of the blades didn't line up correctly thought. are you see all the rings, some with shanks littering that entire center mass?  What is the light colored arc just below you prop, some kind of sack with grommets all over it? It's driving me nuts.

Thanks Rob

[Martin X. Moleski, SJ]

That is why it would be a complex archaeological undertaking if artifact recovery was considered. It would be hard enough on land - underwater in that environment would be many times more difficult.

Yes, Niku VIII will be difficult.

[Rob Seasock]

Hey Malcolm

Yes that would be delicate work for a full recovery.  In the oil fields ROVs can now do amazing tasks and preform almost to human diver standards. Machines are up to 15' to 20' in size.  If the seabed is soft enough a water jet nozzle can gently excavate the silt and sand away to expose objects.  Getting  the  piece rigged to move into some kind of lifting basket would be a challange as well.  1000' and even a little deeper is still within human saturation diving range, but not cheap.  A small work class ROV and the right pilots "should" be able to rig the strut and tire for a quick snatch and grab easily in order to provide a serial number for final proof.  4 guys,  2 zodiacs, ROV system, generators, rigging, small winch, small lift bags, small compressor, lift bag whips, living supplies and it's done, LOL.  Of course traveling there and back can't be cheap.   And then there is always the Glomar Explorer for fine work!

Thanks Rob

[Malcolm McKay]

Hey Malcolm

Yes that would be delicate work for a full recovery.  In the oil fields ROVs can now do amazing tasks and preform almost to human diver standards. Machines are up to 15' to 20' in size.  If the seabed is soft enough a water jet nozzle can gently excavate the silt and sand away to expose objects.  Getting  the  piece rigged to move into some kind of lifting basket would be a challange as well.  1000' and even a little deeper is still within human saturation diving range, but not cheap.  A small work class ROV and the right pilots "should" be able to rig the strut and tire for a quick snatch and grab easily in order to provide a serial number for final proof.  4 guys,  2 zodiacs, ROV system, generators, rigging, small winch, small lift bags, small compressor, lift bag whips, living supplies and it's done, LOL.  Of course traveling there and back can't be cheap.   And then there is always the Glomar Explorer for fine work!

Thanks Rob

Aaaaah yes, but you left out the most important piece of equipment - more than several millions of dollars. 

But in all seriousness if wreckage that was identified as being from the Electra was found then I would leave it where it is. Its recovery would add nothing to the story from our understanding of Earhart and Noonan's fate and it would be so fragile that you might simply wind up destroying it. It isn't as if the wreckage, if any, is some artifact of which we know nothing or one that will add to our knowledge of Lockheed Electras.

In archaeology digging or recovery is like an operation in medicine - it is the action of last resort. Once you remove an item from its archaeological context it can never be put back so you only dig if the information you seek outweighs the destruction of the site that is involved. In this case I would suggest that if TIGHAR had clearly demonstrated by non-invasive or non-destructive means that the Electra lay off the reef at Nikumaroro then it would have proved its case satisfactorily.

In my opinion any recovery of wreckage parts would achieve little other than occupy a place in a glass case in a museum. We have seen how the debris field of the Titanic and parts of the wreck were plundered, and for what purpose - just so some entrepreneurs could make some money. The relics added nothing of significance to our knowledge of the events of that night in 1912. I would argue the same for what remains of the Electra if it is there - just protect the site by leaving it untouched or perhaps create the Earhart/Noonan Marine Park. 

[Malcolm McKay]

Malcolm,

I tend to agree, leave any wreckage in peace.

However even if that was TIGHARS stance then unless the nation of Kiribati could station a suitable security unit on and near the island then i'm affraid someone with less morals and desire to make a quick buck will just come along and releive the island of its treasures.

That would also be fore the seven site as proof of the plane being there would make it more likely that AE/FN ended up on the island and the seven site would be just the place for souvenier (sp) hunters.

Sadly you are right. I can't see the Kiribati government having the resources to station a guard there either and despite its remoteness someone after a quick buck will always find a way. In fact the real difficulty with finding the Electra, whichever hypothesis is correct, is what do you do after isn't it? The same would apply if it was in East New Britain or the ocean floor - although with the latter its location could be kept vague.   

[Rob Seasock]

I completely agree with all you gentlemen, leave it be mystery solved. Chris you have a very valid point on poachers. It is deep but not that deep.  There are more privately owned submarines nowadays as well, if someone had the money and desire to take it they could and it would end up in Vegas.

On a lighter note, that would be one remote duty station-Security Detail Nikumaroro.

Well time for me to retire.

Thanks Rob

[Rob Seasock]

Chris, seriously what flag is that, I was stationed at RAF Mildenhall 82-87?   I loved it there and probably should have dropped anchor there permanently.

[Martin X. Moleski, SJ]

... There are more privately owned submarines nowadays as well, if someone had the money and desire to take it they could and it would end up in Vegas. ...

I'm not sure that there is an "it" to be taken.

There may yet be some big pieces, here and there, that didn't show up on the AUV sonar plots but that might be found with a more systematic ROV or manned submersible search.

I haven't seen any specs on the usable field of view available from the HD cameras on the ROV, but I speculate that it is a much narrower band than that provided by side-scan sonar or the multibeam sonar on the ship.  If TIGHAR has found some pieces of the Electra, then an exhaustive HD search around that area might turn up some more pieces that would provide photographic evidence that is relatively indisputable.

But I don't feel that this is a certainty by any means.  If, by good fortune, TIGHAR has stumbled across the remains of the Bevington object, then it is clear that that object got to its present location by a different set of circumstances than those that seem to have (or must have?) swept the plane (or plane parts) off the reef.

As I've said before, I don't think there is anyone more experienced than TIGHAR in mapping and searching the side of an atoll's seamount.  I don't see any abstract reasoning that could substitute for going back and making more observations of the area--so I'm committed to Niku VIII.

[Martin X. Moleski, SJ]

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."

[Jeff Victor Hayden]

Wow!
Superb quality footage and, after just one quick look there is something identical in this clip to the previous 2010 footage. What a bit of luck.
There are fish in this footage which was something I noted was missing from the 2010 footage, no life of any description visible. I'll post later this weekend as I'm in the middle of the discovered B-17 in Italy research.

Well done to the 2012 expedition members, great job.

[Danny L. Holt]

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.

[Rob Seasock]

Good morning still or again Gents

I just watched the documentary, Ric what a slug of rotten luck on the lost search time with all that  good support and equipment. The terrain is formidable and then there is the Norwich mess.
At 40:57-58 the right side is bit more exposed and no arrows are in the way.  I was not able to make a screen grab copy, just paused the video.  A tire is faintly seen full diameter side view with the hub centered.  There is a light colored line vertically that may be the thin support rod for the fender.  The tire is just under half way up the screen, all very faint.  Strut and Black Squiggly is as previously noted.  As far as the upper right quadrant goes, that is not a pulley or  (tire as I though).  It is a shackle pinned to an eyebolt that a forum member pointed out a few days ago. At one point I had the notion that the shackle was made up to an anchor stock with the remains of the chain pipe (Woodinville Jeffs "fender"), it is not.  Hense my question asking if the ship had a stern anchor system. The anchor hawse piping is all very clear in Martin X's Norwich Debris Field photo and a beach close up photo in 2007 showing the sloted chain stopper plate. But a bottle (Guiness, Richie jets hot nasal coffee again) is laying horizonally with the neck to the left directly below that shackle in the "fender".

Kevin Weeks my apologies for making fun of your searchlight opinion,  that was immature, I was punch drunk from little sleep.

Woodinville Jeff, greetings from Shilshole Bay Marina.  I have no clue of what may be located in the lower right area.

As far as the strut and tire go, I cannot say if it is the same one as the Still From ROV, viewing angle is too low and it is too far away.

Thanks Guys
Rob