TIGHAR
Amelia Earhart Search Forum => Join the search => Topic started by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on November 02, 2012, 04:28:27 PM
-
Ric and Pat have just uploaded "the entire video clip from 2010 in which the rope and wire appear." (http://youtu.be/P9NXJnwJmRY)
-
That's a pretty long rope. You'd almost think someone wanted to tie something very large down with a rope that long. You wouldn't suppose the Electra had some sort of kit to tie something down, would you? Now where did that Luke Field Inventory run off to... And where was Nessie in relation to that find? Hmm...
(see p. 3 col. 3 atttachment)
LTM,
who always liked her son to put his stake in the ground
but also knew he was incorrigible
(but on the other hand knew about fishing with ropes, purse seiners and flotsam)
Joe Cerniglia
TIGHAR # 3078 ECR
-
Thank's Ric & Pat
I have wanted to see surrounding area of wire an rope for ages, i was tempted to go there an drop a home made rov, just to see for my self lol
Can understand you's didn't post sooner that is some bad Rov driving haha
thanks again
Richie ;D
-
Thank's Ric & Pat
I have wanted to see surrounding area of wire an rope for ages, i was tempted to go there an drop a home made rov, just to see for my self lol
Can understand you's didn't post sooner that is some bad Rov driving haha
thanks again
Richie ;D
You ain't justa woofin' Richie. I got vertigo just watching that full screen. Kinda like flying in the clouds. Maybe the flyer of that ROV had too much kickapoo joy juice before he sent it down there. ;D
-
When you get an ROV rating on your ticket, let me know.
-
Doubt that would happen
Tighar would probably find Rov wreckage among the Electra wreckage if i was driving, U should see what is left of my petrol radio controlled car
A ingine to be precise :)
-
Maybe the flyer of that ROV had too much kickapoo joy juice before he sent it down there. ;D
I have a few hours of ROV stick time and I can tell you it's harder than it looks.
-
Maybe the flyer of that ROV had too much kickapoo joy juice before he sent it down there. ;D
I have a few hours of ROV stick time and I can tell you it's harder than it looks.
I am sure you are right Ric. Having flown numerous types of aircraft, I couldn't fly a darn radio controlled plane to save my life. I could take it off ok but returning it was a disaster. I gave that hobby up in a hurry. I am sure Marty can attest that it takes some skills to fly one of those things as well as a radio controlled ROV.
Ya gotta love this Ric. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NTX2BjL139Y)
-
so---drive a submirsible---
-
Rick and Pat, my sincere thanks for making the additional Niku VI footage available - the increased resolution, consecutive and added footage are a tremendous improvement!
To my eyes there is a WEALTH of information in this new footage. First posting - attached is an annotated snapshot at 13:41:25 frame 13. To my eyes we're looking at NR16020 interior fuselage with right fuel tank plumbing and left fuselage section around the cabin door. I think we also see the remains of one of parachutes lying on the left side of the cabin door frame.
Sincerely, John
(note: updated to include cabin door image)
-
BUBBLE OCTANT?
-
Would it be helpful or instructive for John, Tim, Richie and others who have posted so their observations on the forum in analyzing the Wire & Rope footage, to offer some rough estimates of typical or average thickness of sediment coating these possible aircraft parts? I think it would help those of us who are less capable and/or expert in photo analysis. Sediment buildup seems to mask just about everything, but it is virtually impossible for me to determine just how thick this actually is. Obviously, the original underlying shape and configuration of the encased objects are evident to these sharp-eyed forum observers, but no one to my knowledge has as yet commented re the thickness of the encasing sediment or coral. Also, and perhaps this has already been covered, but why is it that the wire/rope seems to be relatively free of sediment buildup? Perhaps it landed in-place more recently or perhaps it has constantly moved around and avoided corrosion?
Hatch
-
BUBBLE OCTANT?
Compare with what the Pioneer octant used by Noonan actually looks like here. (https://sites.google.com/site/fredienoonan/topics/pionneer-octant)
gl
-
Would it be helpful or instructive for John, Tim, Richie and others who have posted so their observations on the forum in analyzing the Wire & Rope footage, to offer some rough estimates of typical or average thickness of sediment coating these possible aircraft parts?
The thickness depends upon depth, and to a certain extent the verticality of the surface on which the sediment lands. If you observe the ROV landing and blowing off the sediment around time 13:37:30, you will see that it is not very thick. The scallop shell is identifiable even before the sediment is blown off by the ROV. Hope this helps.
-
BUBBLE OCTANT?
Compare with what the Pioneer octant used by Noonan actually looks like here. (https://sites.google.com/site/fredienoonan/topics/pionneer-octant)
gl
Gary, thanks very much. I was thinking sextant with bubble/artificial horizon. I did a quick search of your site - very impressive by the way - but couldn't determine if FN used one. There is a wealth of information on the TIGHAR website as well as your site - I will check it out. Thank you!
-
I took a cut at stitching two images to give a better sense of dimensionality to my postulated fuselage interior. Attached.
-
BUBBLE OCTANT?
In this image, the ROV camera is inches from the surface it is filming. The total area visible on the screen is probably smaller than your computer screen.
-
BUBBLE OCTANT?
Compare with what the Pioneer octant used by Noonan actually looks like here. (https://sites.google.com/site/fredienoonan/topics/pionneer-octant)
gl
Gary, thanks very much. I was thinking sextant with bubble/artificial horizon. I did a quick search of your site - very impressive by the way - but couldn't determine if FN used one. There is a wealth of information on the TIGHAR website as well as your site - I will check it out. Thank you!
The only evidence we have as to the type of bubble octant that Noonan had on the flight from Lae to Howland is this receipt for a Pioneer octant that he got from Manning after the Hawaiian crash. Although this was in March, three months prior to departing on the second attempt, it was obviously done in contemplation of it being used on a second attempt otherwise there was no reason to get that octant from Manning. This also indicates that Noonan had no other octant to use or else he wouldn't need Manning's octant. There is no evidence that he carried any other type of octant or sextant on the last flight.
gl
-
In this image, the ROV camera is inches from the surface it is filming. The total area visible on the screen is probably smaller than your computer screen.
Ok, thanks. It's taking some mental recalibration but I'm now understanding that my interpretation of the reef slope was off by an order of magnitude - what I thought was 200 feet of slope is actually 20; what I saw as a main landing gear wheel is actually the size of a large button, rope is actually thread or twine, etc. Still wrapping my head around it but I will get there! :-[
-
Ok, thanks. It's taking some mental recalibration but I'm now understanding that my interpretation of the reef slope was off by an order of magnitude - what I thought was 200 feet of slope is actually 20; what I saw as a main landing gear wheel is actually the size of a large button, rope is actually thread or twine, etc. Still wrapping my head around it but I will get there! :-[
Oh, I get it now. We must be looking at the wreck of Mr. Harney's model Electra...
-
BUBBLE OCTANT?
In this image, the ROV camera is inches from the surface it is filming. The total area visible on the screen is probably smaller than your computer screen.
Thanks for that clarification, Ric.
This has been one of the tough realities in all the excitement about what we're 'seeing' here that is hard for those of us who have not been immersed in the ROV environment to get our heads around. I recall my own excitement over the 'main gear with squiggley' at the beginning of the ROV stills string and your own thought that whatever it was we were seeing was likely only inches in size, not feet. I appreciate that sobering reminder.
-
About the black "squiggly" stuff. We found a length of it and videoed it up close during Niku VII. Somebody aboard KOK recognized it as a type of gasket material commonly used aboard ship and showed me a handful of it. Clearly the same stuff we saw in the video. Now I wish I had taken time to photograph and document exactly what it is, but at the time it was just "Okay, so we don't need to worry about that."
-
Thanks Ric. And that solves another mystery.
Scale is everything. These videos provide tons of visual clues as to depth etc just by the amount of natural daylight in the scenes but "scale" is the most important element that has to be kept in mind. This has been stated time and again in this forum.
-
kinda like a rope/graphite packing material?
-
kinda like a rope/graphite packing material?
Kinda .. and segmented. I had never seen anything like it before.
-
not unlike packing material for prop shaft stuffing boxes on ships.?
-
not unlike packing material for prop shaft stuffing boxes on ships.?
I'm the wrong guy to ask about that.
-
Yep---me too
-
not unlike packing material for prop shaft stuffing boxes on ships.?
That stuff is square in cross-section, not round. Does this help?
gl
-
not unlike packing material for prop shaft stuffing boxes on ships.?
That stuff is square in cross-section, not round. Does this help?
gl
This might help Gary. You are right.
-
Glad the 'squiggley' is cleared up - makes perfect sense.
So much for congealed strut fluid. :P
-
so much for my brake hose. Damn
-
Yeah, but the brake hose idea was pretty good, and under different circumstances might have been correct.
-
A fresh observation from the newly-provided "Wire & Rope entire" footage (and I think more in line with the accepted visual scale :)). At 13:36:51, frame 19, left side of the image, we see what appears to be man-made debris. Upon closer observation the debris seems to resemble the structure from the inboard side of the right engine mount. Comparison of the debris and the inboard right engine mount attached.
-
A fresh observation from the newly-provided "Wire & Rope entire" footage (and I think more in line with the accepted visual scale :)). At 13:36:51, frame 19, left side of the image, we see what appears to be man-made debris. Upon closer observation the debris seems to resemble the structure from the inboard side of the right engine mount. Comparison of the debris and the inboard right engine mount attached.
John,
Doesn't it strike you as odd that suddenly, previoius interpretations having failed due to scale realizations, you now have 'new' targets of essentially the same kinds of things as before, only now among different formations after being 'adjusted' for a better understood scale? ???
That suggests to me what we've been advised of before - that our mind's eye tends to 'see' desired 'things' in such shapes at times. :P It's very nearly as if there is always Electra wreckage to be seen in the world's natural environment - if only we are willing to spot it.
Just a thought... IMHO, of course.
---
That is a nice close-up of an Electra wing / engine mount truss arrangement - and the relative close-up of that chord-strap is of interest to me.
TIGHAR holds an aircraft artifact found at Niku that is strikingly similar in make-up, although perhaps with counter-bored holes for flush rivets. I have not found the item among the artifacts listed here from Niku, but Irv Donald's picture from the D.C. Earhart Symposium (https://picasaweb.google.com/irvdonald/Earhart75thSymposium?authkey=Gv1sRgCIKup5u7tdXUlQE#5749209074646767346) displays this rather thick piece that could have come from such a location, given the heavy 'strap' I can see in this shot. Might be interesting to follow that up.
-
All the more reason to have brought some of it home.
Tom
-
All the more reason to have brought some of it home.
Tom
If all of you wandering around the bottom in the VI HD video in February had stuck to your guns, you too might have found these things. As it was, you did find things like the wheel and squiggle, but for some reason were talked out of believing they represented man-made articles, because of "scale". At the very least, you might have noticed that the first 33 seconds of the video showed a time span later than the last 90-some seconds, and could have requested seeing the entire eight minutes.
I repeat, again, we have just scratched the surface of this debris field. It is littered with man-made objects. But none of them could have beeen brought home by the KOK because at the time of the Niku VII expedition no-one recognized the existance of this debris field as a possibility, and therefore no effort was made to find it again and explore it further. That all changed with John Balderston's post of August 22 (#1567). I appreciate Richie Conroy weighing in again in a new spirit of discovery.
-
Heres another anomaly that needs clearing up as well. The 'rope' in the 2010 video has a strange solid black fitting at its end, first image. The problem is that how do you splice a rope, middle image, to a metal fitting that doesn't have a loop for the rope to thread through? You can do it if the 'rope' wasn't rope but metal cable, as in the last image. Which leads onto the other length of 'rope' in the full length 2010 video, which also ends in a very un-rope like fashion.
-
Thats the first time i've sen the 'eye' at the end of the rope object.
Also black 'squigle' type material around/near it.
-
The other length of 'rope' in the full length 2010 video, which also ends in a very un-rope like fashion...
-
Tim---
Several of us EARLY on in the still pics of the video that Richie and Jeff Victor were using, were saying that there was 'possible' aircraft wreckage. A certain member even called Ric to have him look at the 'gear with the squiggley'. So it appears that there may be some aircraft wreckage in a debris frield that was videoed in 2010. We were told the coordinates were not available due to some technical malfunction with the system. So, even though it appeared the debris field existed, its location wasnt known.
Now, 2 years later, you are saying that "none of them could have beeen brought home by the KOK because at the time of the Niku VII expedition no-one recognized the existance of this debris field as a possibility, and therefore no effort was made to find it again and explore it further."
Sir I respectfully disagree with you. Richie, Jeff, and others 'spotted' multiple targets, and I would think that with their locations being near each other, that would constitute a 'debris field.' This WAS recognized, not only by members here, but surely others as well. It was discussed in DC, it was the only underwater video we had of the location.
So---it was recognized, but yes, apparently no effort was made to find it again. Well, maybe so, with the initial AUV, and side scan mapping of the KOK. But it wasnt found, so other AUV/ROV searches were employed. You were there, and can speak better than the rest of us.
I assume that you were familiar with the still pics from the 2010 video, before you sailed. So I would also assume, as a sponsor, you may have been able to 'suggest' looking at possible locations of the 2010 video targets, which I assume was attempted. Guessing that things in the 2010 video and 2012 video dont match up. But saying no one recognized the existance of a debris field, IMHO contradics the efforts of many members, old and new.
Tom
-
All the more reason to have brought some of it home.
Tom
If all of you wandering around the bottom in the VI HD video in February had stuck to your guns, you too might have found these things. As it was, you did find things like the wheel and squiggle, but for some reason were talked out of believing they represented man-made articles, because of "scale". At the very least, you might have noticed that the first 33 seconds of the video showed a time span later than the last 90-some seconds, and could have requested seeing the entire eight minutes.
I repeat, again, we have just scratched the surface of this debris field. It is littered with man-made objects. But none of them could have beeen brought home by the KOK because at the time of the Niku VII expedition no-one recognized the existance of this debris field as a possibility, and therefore no effort was made to find it again and explore it further. That all changed with John Balderston's post of August 22 (#1567). I appreciate Richie Conroy weighing in again in a new spirit of discovery.
I'm happy for your confidence, Tim - but WHAT 'things' are we talking about?
I too have a wonderful spirit of discovery, and I'd love for there to be parts there - but I do not see anything so definitive in these frames. Would you launch a mission over what you're seeing? If so you have far more confidence or better eyesight than me.
Now if you want to launch a deeper, wider and more able mission to explore the whole area (necessary IMO if you are to have a chance of solving this mystery) then I'm all over it: may or may not be there, but if it is that's the best shot you'll have in my view. Go kick the dust off these 'items' to heart's content, and if you're wrong about them continue into the abyss and look-man-look.
So, I respect your opinion - but that's all it is: no one is demonstrating that we absolutely have 'wreckage' here so far as I can tell. That's my opinion.
-
All the more reason to have brought some of it home.
Tom
If all of you wandering around the bottom in the VI HD video in February had stuck to your guns, you too might have found these things. As it was, you did find things like the wheel and squiggle, but for some reason were talked out of believing they represented man-made articles, because of "scale". At the very least, you might have noticed that the first 33 seconds of the video showed a time span later than the last 90-some seconds, and could have requested seeing the entire eight minutes.
I repeat, again, we have just scratched the surface of this debris field. It is littered with man-made objects. But none of them could have beeen brought home by the KOK because at the time of the Niku VII expedition no-one recognized the existance of this debris field as a possibility, and therefore no effort was made to find it again and explore it further. That all changed with John Balderston's post of August 22 (#1567). I appreciate Richie Conroy weighing in again in a new spirit of discovery.
Somehow 'scale' seems vital - and Ric was able to help us understand the scope of the image we were seeing.
The 'squiggly' was defnitively identified as man-made as Ric relates in here somewhere - it was found to be the same as some shipboard gasket material common to marine use, perhaps packing material for a shaft as described.
As to only having scratched the surface - I wholly agree: not only with regard to this limited area, which appears to hold limited promise to me so far, but as to the region where the Electra might lie today. Hate to see it, but I think you need a bigger boat and more groceries for a longer stay and more toys to rove around the bottom with if you want success. No guarantees at best, of course, but always that chance of discovery, in the right spirit, of course.
-
Re rope etc.: What is known of the settler's fishing activities off the reef?
-
Re rope etc.: What is known of the settler's fishing activities off the reef?
Don't know myself, probably modest is my guess. The kind of 'tackle' I see could have come from any number of more substantial visiting vessels over many years though. A lot of those guys drag huge tackle with many small lines, etc. and such stuff is constantly lost or cut loose.
Its been documented that settlers were seen to be using 'aircraft' cables to fish with on Niku.
There has also been much discussion on drift net fishing etc..
-
That's what was initially theorised Jeff some sort of fishing gear/ships whatever gear but, what we couldn't work out was how the 'fishing line' managed to get trapped underneath whatever it is and, weave its way through whatever it is. They might just have been the unluckiest fishermen in history when whatever it is down there landed/fell on top of their lines or weaved itself around the lines, maybe they caused a huge underwater landslide which trapped their lines. That'll teach them to trawl a seamount, sonar faulty or, just ignored it?
$36,000 rig cut loose (North sea, 2009 prices) no wonder fish is so expensive >:(
-
Image one versus image two. Perhaps they would have had more chance catching fish if they had scaled down their fishing tackle. Even I could spot that tackle from a thousand yards. If that tackle was designed or fashioned to catch fish then we should consider the fish in image three as the likeliest candidate for that type of rig...
-
You were there, and can speak better than the rest of us.
I assume that you were familiar with the still pics from the 2010 video, before you sailed. So I would also assume, as a sponsor, you may have been able to 'suggest' looking at possible locations of the 2010 video targets, which I assume was attempted.
Tom, earlier in some thread (I forget which) I stated that I did not learn of the 2010 video (either 2 or 8 minute version) as being possibly related to a debris field until after the VII expedition, specifically on 22 August. On shipboard, I did review some 2010 footage with Ric (on the return trip), but it was at a much shallower depth, and involved a shape that might have been an aileron. Wolfgang also looked at the same shape and was firmly convinced it was only sand. If all you had in February was still snapshots from that 2 minute video, then I'm amazed you found as much as you did. When did you first see the 2 minute 2010 video?
Had I been familiar with even the contents of the 2 minute section, and been able to review it, I would have suggested concentrating our efforts there first, rather than wasting time looking at steel piles from the Norwich City, which were in a totally separate area. I had no problem with the announced strategy, though, knowing what I knew AT THE TIME. Spilt milk, as it were.
-
Ok I see. I wish we all were looking at the same things.
-
Tim, the 2 minute wire and rope video...
"Uploaded by TIGHARchannel on 8 Dec 2010"
-
Through the open pilot's hatch that I identified in Reply #35 to the "Landing near the Norwich" thread, I think I am able to identify the following instruments (see time 13:41:53, frame 12 of the subject video, upper righthand quadrant):
Eyebrow Panel -
#9 Direction finding control apparatus (the reference number is to the Harney drawings)
#4 Left and right thermocouple switches
Main Panel -
#4 Left and right manifold pressure guages
#5 Left tachometer
#11 Bank and turn indicator
#12 Rate of climb
#26 Autopilot RUD and AIL adjustment knobs
#26 Autopilot directional gyro
#16 Wing tanks fuel guage
#25 Selector switch for wing tank guage
#18 Sensitive altimeter
Knee panel -
Ignition switches
4 slots, 2 each for Throttle and Mixture levers, partially obscured by pilot's wheel
Pilot's wheel is seen now to be in the neutral position, not turned 80 degrees to the right, as I thought several days ago.
Western Electric 27A Remote main dial with
FREQ knob (lower left) and AUDIO GAIN knob (lower right)
2 of 5 toggle switches (REC/OFF and DAY/NITE)
Co-pilot's wheel (not the Western Electric 9A Remote, as I originally thought)
Pilot's seat cushion, which appears to have the standard "cut-out" in the middle of the forward edge (not shown in Harney drawing)
Aircraft exterior -
The rectangular cover to the fueling port for the left forward cabin fuel tank can also be seen (faintly) aft of the rear edge of the open pilot's hatch.
Folks with better viewing equipment will probably be able to identify other features.
Might I ask Ric to please post the subject frame, along with the Harney drawings of the various instrument panels? I am not confident that I have the computer savvy to do so myself, and I certainly would not want to violate any copyright by doing so. I respectfully request that these findings also be forwarded to Jeff Glickman. Thanks.
-
Ok----someone please educate this non-computer savvy member: How do you guys run the video, then stop it frame by frame, and get a good enough picture to find all of this stuff?
Tom
-
Tom, it's hit or miss; just takes a little practice. Landing within a few frames is usually OK, just depends upon how fast the camera is moving. Some computers if you click on the little gear, you can slow the speed down to one-fourth. That's why I asked Ric to post the exact frame, if he can.
-
Ok----someone please educate this non-computer savvy member: How do you guys run the video, then stop it frame by frame, and get a good enough picture to find all of this stuff?
Tom
Tom, just pause the video and use the slider to run the video to the time, minutes and seconds that are being referenced. You will see thumbnails of each frame. When you release the mouse you can then screen capture the image you want to your computer.
Also, here is a link to a screen capture add-on to your Browser. You can save your pic to a URL or a .png file that will open in your photo editor.
http://awesomescreenshot.com/
Example saved as URL: http://awesomescreenshot.com/000lqm4a5
Example saved as .png.
-
Technology is a wonderful thing! Today isnt a total loss.
Thanks guys!
-
Mr. Mellon, are you still to meet with Mr. Glickman? He may fit that bill.
Jeff, the plan is set for December 11 in Seattle. But I hope he will be able to review this long before then.
-
Hi All
First 3 image's, I would like some suggestions on what they maybe
Pic 1. Analyze the big piece of coral on right ?
Pic 2. Analyze the upside down triangle on left of image
Pic 3. Analyze the objects under Jeff Hayden squiggle,
I think i know what they resemble, Think being the key word here ;)
-
And then there's the fondness for the wire/cable to run between 2 opposite bits/remains of ? like a channel? duct? If you or I were to toss a length of cable/wire overboard in the Pacific ocean what are the odds of us getting it to land between 2 opposite bits/remains of ? channel? duct? trillion to one?
-
Me Again
In the following image notice wire going between A & B object
Pic 1. normal still
Pic 2. Rotated 90%, Inverted, Object A appear's to be a tap shaped dial knob maybe on a radio or something.
I have found loads of new coral for us to make shapes out off aswell ;D
-
Tim--
I would like to heartedly second J. Nevill's good wishes to both you and Jeff Glickman per the upcoming image assessment meeting; I know the Forum would very much like to have the imagery issues and possibilities further explored and resolved, just as we have high hopes of some definitive finds both above and below sea level after so much time, effort and outlay. Although I am no expert at imagery interpretation, I certainly appreciate all of the hard work expended by you and other Forum members who have been reporting their possible/tentative findings to the group! Sincere thanks and good luck to everyone involved in this commendable effort!
--Hatch
TIGHAR #3955
-
Hi All
While there is plenty of possibility to the wire rope i still haven't found a reason as to why it ends with a connection like the one in image i have attached
Thanks Richie
-
Richie--
Please elaborate on just what you see per the rope end of the rope, as it may not all that obvious to some of us novices.
Thanks,
--Hatch
TIGHAR #3955
-
Jeff--
Thanks for sharing your insight and knowledge; it helps. I was at the end of my rope!
--Hatch
TIGHAR # 3975
-
Hi Jeff
Am on about the wire nearest right of image, As outlined in white lines here
:)
-
As you see,
The wire goes through mesh like material, An then is wrapped in something which is secured with wire ties ?
-
Ok Jeff
Here is a close up of the rope just above were it goes through mesh, same area but better quality picture
:)
Thank's Richie
-
Richie--
The close-up makes a difference at least to my vision of the thing...and the distinct lighter (metallic?) color of the "rope" in comparison to the darker color of the one to the left, both under the same lighting conditions, makes me wonder if what you're seeing isn't indeed a metal cable and not a rope as such? These appear to me to be different types of lines, one dark and perhaps of some kind of fabric, the other metallic and more likely a metal cable of some sort. Just my thoughts on it. What do you think? ???
--Hatch
TIGHAR # 3975
-
Might I ask Ric to please post the subject frame, along with the Harney drawings of the various instrument panels? I am not confident that I have the computer savvy to do so myself, and I certainly would not want to violate any copyright by doing so. I respectfully request that these findings also be forwarded to Jeff Glickman. Thanks.
Requested images attached. I have also forwarded these to Jeff Glickman.
-
Requested images attached. I have also forwarded these to Jeff Glickman.
Thank you, Ric.
-
More requested images.
-
Ric, I'm afraid some definition has been lost between the extended video frame at 13:41:03;12 and what I can see in your attachment of the same frame. Is this a function of the Forum software?
-
I'll see if I can get better resolution.
-
Is this better?
-
Is this better?
Yes, somewhat better. But I think folks should go to the original frame for the best sharpness. Do you know what the original definition is? My computer only allows up to 480.
Also, does Mr. Glickman have access to the list I produced in Reply #54?
-
Is this better?
Yes, somewhat better. But I think folks should go to the original frame for the best sharpness. Do you know what the original definition is? My computer only allows up to 480.
I'm not sure but Jeff has a copy of the original clip.
Also, does Mr. Glickman have access to the list I produced in Reply #54?
I'll send it to him.
-
Ric, CONGRATULATIONS on finding the final landing site of Amelia Earharts's round-the-world flight attempt! Your perserverance has paid off big time. Many have contributed to this gargantuan effort and the praise must be spread to all, for every little insight, right or wrong, has narrowed the possibilities and finally created an inevitability. I am proud to have been able to contribute a tiny portion of this effort, and to be associated with such a fine group of people.
-
Ric, CONGRATULATIONS on finding the final landing site of Amelia Earharts's round-the-world flight attempt! Your perserverance has paid off big time. Many have contributed to this gargantuan effort and the praise must be spread to all, for every little insight, right or wrong, has narrowed the possibilities and finally created an inevitability. I am proud to have been able to contribute a tiny portion of this effort, and to be associated with such a fine group of people.
Thanks Tim. Your support is vitally important. You know we have the right place. I know we have the right place. Many of the folks on this forum know we have the right place. But the world won't be satisfied until we lay hands on that illusive "smoking gun," whatever it turns out to be.
-
But the world won't be satisfied until we lay hands on that illusive "smoking gun," whatever it turns out to be.
I don't know what could smoke more than a unique cockpit. The License Authorization from the Department of Commerce can't be seen because it is posted on the bulkhead behind the pilot, and unfortunately your video captures the cockpit from behind.
If you are considering an attempt to return to grab a chunk of this aircraft debris, you might want to consider the possibility that the aircraft itself might be the tomb for one or more of the flight crew, and therefore hallowed ground.
My advice would be: (1) Declare Victory; (2) Move on to the next challenge. IMHO.
-
But the world won't be satisfied until we lay hands on that illusive "smoking gun," whatever it turns out to be.
I don't know what could smoke more than a unique cockpit. The License Authorization from the Department of Commerce can't be seen because it is posted on the bulkhead behind the pilot, and unfortunately your video captures the cockpit from behind.
If you are considering an attempt to return to grab a chunk of this aircraft debris, you might want to consider the possibility that the aircraft itself might be the tomb for one or more of the flight crew, and therefore hallowed ground.
My advice would be: (1) Declare Victory; (2) Move on to the next challenge. IMHO.
Well, with all due respect to the dead, if this is it maybe they wouldn't mind if we went out there and just dusted the tombstone off a bit before moving on...
-
Well, it would seem that you have abandoned the project. Wow in view of your latest declaration of your meeting in December with Mr. Glickman that you are not quite finished. Now if you are so confident of your above statement, then put your "riches" where your mouth is and spend what ever it takes to find that hallowed ground. God knows, you have it.
Well, in fairness, he didn't quite say he was abandoning anything. But I certainly agree with you and others above (Ric and Jeff Nevill) that declaring victory without more follow-up of some sort is going to fall a bit flat in the eyes of the world in general, and some on the forum in particular.
-
Richie,
As I've recently stated here, it appears consistent with the loop and spliced end of a cleat line for a surface vessel to me - not a 'fitting' - IMHO, YMMV.
OK, there seems to be a lot of verbiage spent on something that is obviously not part of the Electra.
gl
-
Well, with all due respect to the dead, if this is it maybe they wouldn't mind if we went out there and just dusted the tombstone off a bit before moving on...
.
Jeff, I agree. This would be the proper approach.
-
I wish I had your guys eyes as I fail to see nothing but coral and shadow plus some form of cable/rope that dosn't seem to have any marine growth suggesting to me that it is recent as opposed to vintage 1937 :(
However I'd love to be proved wrong ;D
-
I'm with the rest of the tired old eyes group who can't discern much of anything from the latest still photo. Maybe it's me, maybe my 6 year old laptop, maybe a combination. Any chance of some outlines/arrows/whatnot of what is thought to be present? Thanks. LTM who would love to see what she thinks she sees. -John
-
Respectfully, I'm with Chris and John. I do agree that it may be a tomb, but until you have first hand proof, you cant declare victory.
Go get the proof.
-
Through the open pilot's hatch that I identified in Reply #35 to the "Landing near the Norwich" thread, I think I am able to identify the following instruments (see time 13:41:53, frame 12 of the subject video, upper righthand quadrant):
Eyebrow Panel -
#9 Direction finding control apparatus (the reference number is to the Harney drawings)
#4 Left and right thermocouple switches
Main Panel -
#4 Left and right manifold pressure guages
#5 Left tachometer
#10 Cambridge exhaust gas analyzer
#11 Bank and turn indicator
#12 Rate of climb
#26 Autopilot RUD and AIL adjustment knobs
#26 Autopilot directional gyro
#16 Wing tanks fuel guage
#25 Selector switch for wing tank guage
#18 Sensitive altimeter
Knee panel -
Ignition switches
4 slots, 2 each for Throttle and Mixture levers, partially obscured by pilot's wheel
Pilot's wheel is seen now to be in the neutral position, not turned 80 degrees to the right, as I thought several days ago.
Western Electric 27A Remote main dial with
FREQ knob (lower left) and AUDIO GAIN knob (lower right)
2 of 5 toggle switches (REC/OFF and DAY/NITE)
Co-pilot's wheel (not the Western Electric 9A Remote, as I originally thought)
Pilot's seat cushion, which appears to have the standard "cut-out" in the middle of the forward edge (not shown in Harney drawing)
Aircraft exterior -
The rectangular cover to the fueling port for the left forward cabin fuel tank can also be seen (faintly) aft of the rear edge of the open pilot's hatch.
Folks with better viewing equipment will probably be able to identify other features.
Might I ask Ric to please post the subject frame, along with the Harney drawings of the various instrument panels? I am not confident that I have the computer savvy to do so myself, and I certainly would not want to violate any copyright by doing so. I respectfully request that these findings also be forwarded to Jeff Glickman. Thanks.
Today I have been able to identify the co-pilot's wheel, and have edited the original Reply #54 accordingly.
-
Through the open pilot's hatch that I identified in Reply #35 to the "Landing near the Norwich" thread, I think I am able to identify the following instruments (see time 13:41:53, frame 12 of the subject video, upper righthand quadrant):
Eyebrow Panel -
#9 Direction finding control apparatus (the reference number is to the Harney drawings)
#4 Left and right thermocouple switches
Main Panel -
#4 Left and right manifold pressure guages
#5 Left tachometer
#10 Cambridge exhaust gas analyzer
#11 Bank and turn indicator
#12 Rate of climb
#26 Autopilot RUD and AIL adjustment knobs
#26 Autopilot directional gyro
#16 Wing tanks fuel guage
#25 Selector switch for wing tank guage
#18 Sensitive altimeter
Knee panel -
Ignition switches
4 slots, 2 each for Throttle and Mixture levers, partially obscured by pilot's wheel
Pilot's wheel is seen now to be in the neutral position, not turned 80 degrees to the right, as I thought several days ago.
Western Electric 27A Remote main dial with
FREQ knob (lower left) and AUDIO GAIN knob (lower right)
2 of 5 toggle switches (REC/OFF and DAY/NITE)
Co-pilot's wheel (not the Western Electric 9A Remote, as I originally thought)
Pilot's seat cushion, which appears to have the standard "cut-out" in the middle of the forward edge (not shown in Harney drawing)
Aircraft exterior -
The rectangular cover to the fueling port for the left forward cabin fuel tank can also be seen (faintly) aft of the rear edge of the open pilot's hatch.
Folks with better viewing equipment will probably be able to identify other features.
Might I ask Ric to please post the subject frame, along with the Harney drawings of the various instrument panels? I am not confident that I have the computer savvy to do so myself, and I certainly would not want to violate any copyright by doing so. I respectfully request that these findings also be forwarded to Jeff Glickman. Thanks.
Today I have been able to identify the co-pilot's wheel, and have edited the original Reply #54 accordingly.
Tim, with all due respect. Hone you computer skills and post identifiers in screenshots to defend your position and your analysis. Short of that most are not willing to go back and search for the numbered items you cite. That stuff down there is alluding most here and you seem to have become the resident expert on the debris field. I could do that for you but I am not willing to do the heavy lifting for you. Good luck with your meeting with Jeff Glickman but frankly, I think you will come up very short of your analysis.
-
Ok---where do we go from here? Another expedition to take more video and pictures?
-
...post identifiers in screenshots to defend your position and your analysis.
Bob, I'd love to be able to do this. Tell me where I can learn how to place arrows and baloons on a picture. Perhaps you could give me a tutorial.
-
...post identifiers in screenshots to defend your position and your analysis.
Bob, I'd love to be able to do this. Tell me where I can learn how to place arrows and baloons on a picture. Perhaps hou could give me a tutorial.
Tim, I gave a simple tutorial on this thread. General discussion / Re: Wire & Rope entire.mov
« on: November 08, 2012, 07:56:55 AM » If you need more help, you are free to PM me for a more in depth tutorial.
-
Ok---where do we go from here? Another expedition to take more video and pictures?
Tom, that all depends on who will put up the "Big Bucks" and we're not talking pocket change like the last expedition.
-
Hey Doc---Happy Birthday!!!!!!!!! :)
True--really big bucks. Sorry, I suffer from an affliction known as myfundsarelow. Thats why I was thinking on why when the State Dpet asks "how can we help", something like --"well gee Mr/Mm. Secretary, we sure could use some subsalvage teams. Can you help with that?"
We have these things we want to bring up and really analyze, but dont have the funding. So---
Tom
-
...post identifiers in screenshots to defend your position and your analysis.
Bob, I'd love to be able to do this. Tell me where I can learn how to place arrows and baloons on a picture. Perhaps hou could give me a tutorial.
Tim, I gave a simple tutorial on this thread. General discussion / Re: Wire & Rope entire.mov
« on: November 08, 2012, 07:56:55 AM » If you need more help, you are free to PM me for a more in depth tutorial.
Doc - like this? Last of four attachments is Ric's copy of cockpit frame.
-
Hi Tim
Just a few images to show what we should be seeing rear of cockpit control's
Hope this helps
Thank's Richie
-
...post identifiers in screenshots to defend your position and your analysis.
Bob, I'd love to be able to do this. Tell me where I can learn how to place arrows and baloons on a picture. Perhaps hou could give me a tutorial.
Tim, I gave a simple tutorial on this thread. General discussion / Re: Wire & Rope entire.mov
« on: November 08, 2012, 07:56:55 AM » If you need more help, you are free to PM me for a more in depth tutorial.
Doc - like this? Last of four attachments is Ric's copy of cockpit frame.
Good job Tim, you got it. Glad I could help.
Regards,
-
And a couple moor
-
Ok----someone please educate this non-computer savvy member: How do you guys run the video, then stop it frame by frame, and get a good enough picture to find all of this stuff?
Tom
...post identifiers in screenshots to defend your position and your analysis.
Bob, I'd love to be able to do this. Tell me where I can learn how to place arrows and baloons on a picture. Perhaps hou could give me a tutorial.
Tim, I gave a simple tutorial on this thread. General discussion / Re: Wire & Rope entire.mov
« on: November 08, 2012, 07:56:55 AM » If you need more help, you are free to PM me for a more in depth tutorial.
Tim/Tom,
(Note: Tim, I saw a recent post of yours showing annotated frame grabs. I decided to post this anyway as the video viewer described below makes it so much easier to analyze the TIGHAR Youtube videos).
An alternate, slightly more complicated, but very useful way to grab/annotate a frame:
- Step 1: Download the Youtube video to your computer
- Step 2: Find the video location using the scroll bar, short jumps in the video using the middle mouse wheel, then finally zeroing in on a frame by frame basis
- Step 3: Take a frame grab (to the clipboard) or snapshot (to file)
- Step 4: Annotate the image
for a PC is below. I like to do it this way because I have a lot more control over video playback (and enhancements) than with Youtube.
Step 1: Download the Youtube Video
I use the Firefox "Easy YouTube Video Downloader" to download Youtube videos. You can find it by searching under Tools/Add-ons/Get Add-ons for "Easy YouTube Video Downloader". It's quite easy to use. There is likely a similar add-on for internet explorer. See the image below to see where to click to download the Youtube video after the Add-on is installed. You'll have to select the download resolution and specify a file location.
Step 2: Find something interesting in the video
VLC is a really good FREE audio/video viewer that makes it easy to navigate to specific frames, take snapshots, or loop continuously over a segment of video. You can download it at http://wiki.videolan.org/. I've used it for years. It's very good and provides a lot of control over moving around in the video. Note that Richie used it to create the first snapshot here (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1006.msg21303.html#msg21303).
After downloading and installing VLC, to set it up for TIGHAR video viewing:
Go to Tools/Preferences
Click "All" under Show settings at the lower left.
Go to "Hotkeys settings"
Set your "Jump Sizes". These are the lengths of time you can jump forward or backwards through the video. I use:
- Very short jump length = 1 sec (controlled with center mouse wheel)
- Short jump length = 5
- Medium jump length = 10
- Long jump length = 25
Now look at the hotkey settings in the scolling box. Useful keys:
- f Go to full screen mode
- ESC Leave fullscreen mode
- Space Pause/restart
- = Normal speed
- [ Slower
- ] Faster
- jumps Shows various ways to jump forward/backward in the video
- e Advance forward one frame
===> Make sure to "SAVE" when you're done.
I use the image scroll bar to position the image just before where I want it, then use the mouse wheel and "e" single frame advance to find a specific frame.
You can create a bookmark via Ctrl-B or via Playback/Custom Bookmarks/Manage. If you click a bookmark you'll jump to that bookmark.
You can loop over a segment of video by clicking the loop icon. I find this useful to view something interesting over and over again at slightly different angles.
Step 3: Grab a screen snapshot
Alt-Print Screen (i.e., hold down the Alt key then press Print Screen) will copy the current screen to the clipboard.
Or, you can take a snapshot from the control panel at the bottom (the icon looks like a camera) or "Take a snapshot" under the "Video" command set at the top of the screen. You'll have to tell VLC where to store the image.
Step 4: Add your annotations
An easy way to do this is using the Microsoft Paint program. See Programs/Accessories/Paint. It's very easy to use. You can either paste a screen grab into Paint (Ctrl-V) or import your video snapshot.
I find Powerpoint or Photoshop to be more useful because you have better control over image enhancements and moving shapes/text around the image.
-
Here is the first of several comparisons of the actual instrument from the cockpit frame of the Niku VI HD video (extended) and the comparable drawing from the Harney compendium, the Sensitive Altimeter (#18):
-
Next, just to the left and below the Sensitive Altimeter, is the Selector switch for the wing tank guage:
-
#16, the Wing tank fuel guage, shows the level of fuel in the tank selected by the switch (#25) previously shown.
Its right half is obscured by an as yet unidentified vertical column:
-
#26 Autopilot directional gyro and knobs, to the right and higher than the Sensitive Altimeter, especially the "smiley mouth" at the bottom of the gyro:
-
In the top row of the main panel, just above the directional gyro, #4 left and right manifold pressure guages:
-
Just to the right of the manifold pressure guages can be seen #5 left tachometer:
-
On the knee panel, the HF radio controller (still tuned to 3105 and 6210) including the FREQ and AUDIO GAIN knobs:
-
The pilot's seat (seen from above), with the standard "cut-out", which is not shown in the Harney drawings. Just aft of the cut-out appears the seatbelt buckle. The little black spec at the rear of the cut-out may be the front edge of the dynamometer, which was positioned under the pilot's seat:
-
The whitish oval is the pilot's wheel; the lower right-hand bend frames the Sensitive Altimeter. The vertical object on the viewer's side of the wheel has not yet been identified:
-
Hi All
Thought i would post this image, As i think it's too random that these objects appear to be the same dimensions.
Thanks Richie
-
Now that I've been able to dabble in artistic presentation (LOL), allow me to present various cockpit features (all from frame 13:41:53;21) in a broader visual context, namely that part of the cockpit that is visible through the open hatch:
-
...that these objects appear to be the same dimensions.
Definitely a metal piece, Richie, but I'm pretty sure that HF Radio Remote sits in the knee panel in the cockpit (see Reply #117).
-
Tim--
I'm curious whether you or anyone else have spotted evidence of the superframe nearby?
Hatch--
TIGHAR # 3975S
-
...evidence of the superframe nearby?
I'm not sure of this one, Hatch. But the angle pointed to by the red arrow looks suspiciously like the acute angles that are shown in the lightening holes in the Main Beam in the Harney drawings (which I can't reproduce here until Ric can post them).
-
I'm not sure of this one, Hatch. But the angle pointed to by the red arrow looks suspiciously like the acute angles that are shown in the lightening holes in the Main Beam in the Harney drawings (which I can't reproduce here until Ric can post them).
Here's an actual photo of the Main Beam.
-
Tim--
Kind thanks. Plentiful flat, platy surfaces and unnatural angles in view here. Wish we knew more about coral and salt water corrosion of aluminum vs. ferrous metallic items in such an environment. To me at least, it would help to know this. :-\
-
Hatch, I see in the photo Ric just posted that the same angles are present in the visible rib of the right wing. Hard to tell...
-
Wish we knew more about coral and salt water corrosion of aluminum vs. ferrous metallic items in such an environment. To me at least, it would help to know this. :-\
This aircraft has been in 125 feet of water in a coral atoll lagoon for 70 years. There is some corrosion in areas where dissimilar metals are joined and, for some reason, where oil was present. But otherwise the aluminum exhibits minimal corrosion and very little coral growth.
-
This aircraft has been in 125 feet of water in a coral atoll lagoon for 70 years.
Almost still airworthy!
-
Here's another view of the cockpit, from almost straight "above" (relative to the normal attitude of an airplane):
-
Hi All
I Believe the object with white lines on is some kind of hatch cover.
On the left side you can make out L shaped hinge straps an if you look in middle you can see what appears to be handle lock catch.
Also look at the right edge of object an below it how smooth it look's
Thank's Richie
O an check out the A shaped object underneath :)
-
Hi All
I Believe the object with white lines on is some kind of hatch cover.
On the left side you can make out L shaped hinge straps an if you look in middle you can see what appears to be handle lock catch.
Also look at the right edge of object an below it how smooth it look's
Thank's Richie
O an check out the A shaped object underneath :)
See below image Richie. You see how ones eyes can cheat themselves as to what they see down there. This image appears to be a woman wearing a v necked white shirt and tank top underneath. No of course that isn't what it appears to be. This is from the image you posted below.
-
No lady Bob, just a joy stick ;)
-
Wish we knew more about coral and salt water corrosion of aluminum vs. ferrous metallic items in such an environment. To me at least, it would help to know this. :-\
This aircraft has been in 125 feet of water in a coral atoll lagoon for 70 years. There is some corrosion in areas where dissimilar metals are joined and, for some reason, where oil was present. But otherwise the aluminum exhibits minimal corrosion and very little coral growth.
Which only underscores, IMO, that IF we were seeing real Electra debris in these shots SOMETHING out of that pile would most likely be distinctive enough to be "KNOWN" - and not just some vague shape in the rock mist...
With all due respect to the guys 'seeing' this stuff - Richie, Tim, etc. - I don't see it, nor do I think any of this stuff is 'Electra' at all. After months and months and now at least two significant strings I now believe I cannot take these strings seriously at all, no matter how sincere all this speculation is.
IMO now it is pure nonsense. It's not for a lack of desire or spirit - it's merely that wishful thinking seems to have stolen the day here.
No one will be happier than me if you all prove me wrong but I'd lay big odds against that now. The 'seers' here are simply rehashing much that has already been speculated on before - and 'readjusted' when 'scale' was pointed out to us - and off she continues to fly...
I can't take this seriously anymore and if this is what the Niku search is down to then it appears to me that the hypothesis is in trouble. IF that bird is at Niku it is going to take an awful lot more than this footage to find it.
-
Wish we knew more about coral and salt water corrosion of aluminum vs. ferrous metallic items in such an environment. To me at least, it would help to know this. :-\
This aircraft has been in 125 feet of water in a coral atoll lagoon for 70 years. There is some corrosion in areas where dissimilar metals are joined and, for some reason, where oil was present. But otherwise the aluminum exhibits minimal corrosion and very little coral growth.
Which only underscores, IMO, that IF we were seeing real Electra debris in these shots SOMETHING out of that pile would most likely be distinctive enough to be "KNOWN" - and not just some vague shape in the rock mist...
With all due respect to the guys 'seeing' this stuff - Richie, Tim, etc. - I don't see it, nor do I think any of this stuff is 'Electra' at all. After months and months and now at least two significant strings I now believe I cannot take these strings seriously at all, no matter how sincere all this speculation is.
IMO now it is pure nonsense. It's not for a lack of desire or spirit - it's merely that wishful thinking seems to have stolen the day here.
No one will be happier than me if you all prove me wrong but I'd lay big odds against that now. The 'seers' here are simply rehashing much that has already been speculated on before - and 'readjusted' when 'scale' was pointed out to us - and off she continues to fly...
I can't take this seriously anymore and if this is what the Niku search is down to then it appears to me that the hypothesis is in trouble. IF that bird is at Niku it is going to take an awful lot more than this footage to find it.
Well Jeff -
Perhaps, as a former moderator, you may know why the mods have not questioned the findings of Tim and Richie when, in fact, Jeff Glickman has not determined any of this to be true? Yet mods/admins question pure science/facts relative to disputing the hypothesis?
-
I can't take this seriously anymore and if this is what the Niku search is down to then it appears to me that the hypothesis is in trouble.
This is by no means what the Niku search has come down to and the hypothesis is not in trouble.
-
Did either of the submersibles include underwater metal detectors? (Some are especially sensitive to aluminum.)
Were there any other types of detectors included on the submersibles?
Did any of the L-10 instruments use emitters for lighting, or was radium not used on dials by the 1930s?
How about imaging? Anything other than video?
Being a USN contractor suggests the operators have access to a wide range of technology.
-
Did either of the submersibles include underwater metal detectors? (Some are especially sensitive to aluminum.)
No. I'm not aware of an underwater metal detector that is especially sensitive to aluminum.
Were there any other types of detectors included on the submersibles?
The AUV was equipped with side-scan sonar. The ROV had standard defintion video, high-definition video and sector scan sonar.
Did any of the L-10 instruments use emitters for lighting, or was radium not used on dials by the 1930s?
Several of the instruments had needles and numbers painted with radium.
How about imaging? Anything other than video?
The ROV high-defintion video camera was supposed to have still photo capability but it didn't.
Being a USN contractor suggests the operators have access to a wide range of technology.
Theoretically they could have had anything they wanted. We got what they recommended.
-
Thanks for reply.
Sorry for delay. Have been inside a wing for much of the day (not an L-10 wing.)
I recall that Ebinger Gmbh makes some detectors that they advertise as being sensitive to aluminum.
See, Deep search metal detector TREX® 150 at
http://www.ebingergmbh.com/index.php?Itemid=8&id=5&option=com_content&task=blogcategory
(hand-held tech can be transplanted to a submersible)
-
i'm assuming that the contractors recommended specific assets based on the information they were given. I'm also assuming that technical difficulties with both the ship and the ROV/AUV equipment made this expedition much more difficult.
So---assuming another underwater search/recovery mission is undertaken, what does the wishlist look like?
-
So---assuming another underwater search/recovery mission is undertaken, what does the wishlist look like?
Dunno yet.
-
Ok.
-
So---assuming another underwater search/recovery mission is undertaken, what does the wishlist look like?
This would be the first two items on my wishlist:
- Retirement of the debt incurred for Niku VII.
- Full funding of Niku VIII prior to docking out.
Other items will undoubtedly fall into place as time goes on. :)
-
So---assuming another underwater search/recovery mission is undertaken, what does the wishlist look like?
This would be the first two items on my wishlist:
- Retirement of the debt incurred for Niku VII.
- Full funding of Niku VIII prior to docking out.
Other items will undoubtedly fall into place as time goes on. :)
Absolutely.
-
Oh Yess---i agree 100%.
Was thinking of the equipment that you might want to take on VIII
Tom
-
I shall take this opportunity to move out of the way of the "Bevington Object" discussion by reposting the newly discovered starboard wing analysis to the thread most closely associated. This shot came from the full length 8.55 minute 2010 High Definition video.
Additionaly, based on Richie's comments about two shadows, I have revised my opinion slightly about what can be seen in this still. I went back to the Harney drawings and measured the distance from the position light to the seam between the wingtip and the wing: approximately 17 inches. I then measured from the seam back to the top of the "0" to the left: approximately 63". This means that the "0" is the first of the two "0"s ("NR16020"), and that therefore it is the same "0" that appears in the post by John Balderston last month. The visible "0" lies within the confines of the leftmost shadow.
-
I answered Jeff about the squigglies just seconds after Ric locked the thread, so here goes again:
I think there are two different squigglies. The one at the wingtip is at frame 13:39:42;08, 70 seconds later than Tom's at 13:38:32;08 and only seeable in the full 8.55 minute extended video. I think in space they may be no more than 10 meters apart, or so, but I am just guessing about this.
Close examination suggests to me that the material is flat, and may have been released from tension. Could it have been some sort of insulation used to cushion the metal fuel tanks in the cabin from one another, to prevent chafing? The fact that there are multiple squiggles (more than two) in the 8.55 minute video leads me to believe they are part of the debris, and not some modern material that just happened to float down onto the debris field.
-
What is interesting is that the squiggleys appear around objects that from my untrained eye, resemble struts, with a hose attached. Sorry guys. I find no other pictures of the black squiggleys, except around these 2, apparently different objects.
If it were modern gasket packing material for a ship, then why would if appear that it is connected to these 2 targets, and we dont see it other places?
-
If it were modern gasket packing material for a ship, then why would if appear that it is connected to these 2 targets, and we dont see it other places?
I don't see any indication that it is connected to anything. To me it looks like it's just laying there.
-
Hum---ok.
Does it appear anywhere else? I didnt see it, but I'm probably not looking in the right place.
-
Does it appear anywhere else?
I'm not sure but I don't have time to review many hours of video looking for something that we have reason to believe is not significant.
-
Ok I undersand that. Was just thinking that if the squiggley only shows up around these 2 objects, then possibly there is a relationship between the 2. If it was whip coral, or gasket material, there may be more, and maybe we would have seen it.
-
For today's entertainment, we present the wingtip from a different vantage point, to the left of the first camera location (near the rope), and looking Northeast. The squigglie appears clearly in both pictures. This shot shows the bottom right side of the last "0" in the registration number NR16020. The wingtip is pointing up and away from the viewer.
-
"And now for something completely different!" (Monty Python...)
Close examination of the Harney drawing of the underside of the fuselage of NR16020 reveals these parts to be as indicated in the annotation. Airplanes are made up of more things than just wings and instrument panels. (Correction: should be STARBOARD, not PORT side).
-
Here are two more interesting details. Compare the unobscured part of the star to the photo of the logo on the tail of the airplane.
-
Could this be your removable cap?
-
Woody, I suppose. But the one on top of the engine looks like it has a smooth rim, whereas the one underwater looks knurled. Dunno.
Wait a minute --- what's that round thing inside the cockpit, like on the back of the copilot's seat?
-
Can't see it! How about and arrow pointing at it?
-
Tim---My thoughts were that if it were gasket packing material from a ship, then why do we just see it around 2 objects, that 'look like' landing gear struts? I would think that if it were something other than an accessory to the 'struts', then we would see more of it in other locations. Not to contradict Ric, but I havent seen this in any other parts of the video, or the pictures. Only around these 2 targets.
Thoughts?
-
Tim---My thoughts were that if it were gasket packing material from a ship, then why do we just see it around 2 objects, that 'look like' landing gear struts? I would think that if it were something other than an accessory to the 'struts', then we would see more of it in other locations. Not to contradict Ric, but I havent seen this in any other parts of the video, or the pictures. Only around these 2 targets.
Thoughts?
I have looked carefully again, Tom, and now think you are correct: one to the right (South) of the end of the rope, and the other lying on the wingtip trailing edge. I thought there might be others, but what I saw were just duplicates of these two from different angles. And these two are quite close together in real space, I estimate less than ten meters apart. I can't yet identify the "strut" you refer to, but I agree that whatever the "squiggly" is, it came with the plane in 1937.
-
I think the process is backwards. We don't know what the squiggly stuff is, but we do know, rather precisely, the shape and dimension of the wing. Therefore it should be the wing, if anything, that gives scale to the squiggly, not the other way around. Ric, I thought, was reporting the opinion of a mariner. Since this material is not part of the shipwreck, I can't see any reason to put too much credence in an opinion so far removed from an airplane.
-
John Balderston, I think it was, opined that he thought the round object in the attached still shot was a main landing gear folded back up alongside the port engine.
My own interpretation of this picture (now that I have looked at it hundreds of times) is that we are looking at the upside-down tail section of the airplane, with the tailwheel assembly, somewhat broken up, lying above the rather distinctively shaped "tailcone". The Harney drawings have a good presentation of the tailwheel assembly.
-
So, Tim, this was in a different area that was searched on Niku VII? See anything between the 2 , or the live feeds that are duplicated?
-
So, Tim, this was in a different area that was searched on Niku VII? See anything between the 2 , or the live feeds that are duplicated?
I think "lawn-mowing" attempts were made in the vacinity of VI area, but I am sure we saw nothing of it. The rope would have been a huge visual magnet, and surely noticed by someone of the four or five people who were monitoring the real-time standard definition video that was part of the ROV.
-
I think "lawn-mowing" attempts were made in the vacinity of VI area, but I am sure we saw nothing of it. The rope would have been a huge visual magnet, and surely noticed by someone of the four or five people who were monitoring the real-time standard definition video that was part of the ROV.
Tim is right. We didn't see this piece of rope during the 2012 trip. There is a tangle of rope - possibly a fishing net - on the reef slope just a bit north of the Norwich City that we saw in 2010 and saw again this year.
-
I appreciate your reply, Tim.
However, I still find the scaling of this stuff challenging -
I think the process is backwards. We don't know what the squiggly stuff is,...
Ric indicated that it actually was identified (if the different pieces of 'squiggly stuff' are the same kind of material, which seems indicated by what I understand so far) -
About the black "squiggly" stuff. We found a length of it and videoed it up close during Niku VII. Somebody aboard KOK recognized it as a type of gasket material commonly used aboard ship and showed me a handful of it. Clearly the same stuff we saw in the video. Now I wish I had taken time to photograph and document exactly what it is, but at the time it was just "Okay, so we don't need to worry about that."
Is there new information on that which suggests the squigglies are something other than what Ric was shown at the time the close-up views were being studied?
So, as to 'scale' again, you suggested the 'wing' itself can now scale what we see -
...but we do know, rather precisely, the shape and dimension of the wing. Therefore it should be the wing, if anything, that gives scale to the squiggly, not the other way around.
I agree that we know the shape and dimensions of a Lockheed L10 wing - but shouldn't we try to determine if what we're seeing is 'inches' in scale, or feet more objectively? It seems then that we could have more confidence that we are actually seeing a wing, not the other way around.
You discounted the 'squigglies' as unknown and say we can't reliably use them for scale, but if we can still rely on Ric's shipboard assessment it seems we can still have confidence in 'what the squiggly stuff is' - and the means of scale actually may be turned somewhat the other way - Ric did give an idea of scale of this stuff in an earlier post -
...I personally think the black squiggly thing is natural organic material and only a few inches long... I don't see a strut. I see some curious straight edges that may indicate a man-made object - but whatever it is, if anything, is quite small...
I realize you both were there, and I'm sure neither of you is meaning to contradict each other. I also realize you both are making the best judgments that you can from what you've been able to observe and understand of the process, but this appears to be a striking difference between your individual observations.
As to discernment of what was seen -
Ric, I thought, was reporting the opinion of a mariner. Since this material is not part of the shipwreck, I can't see any reason to put too much credence in an opinion so far removed from an airplane.
I am sure we're all glad you were able to be there, Tim - it is surely important to have strong 'eyeballs' for an airplane when looking for one, agreed. Of course Ric is no slouch at knowledge of airplanes either - I'm sure you two make a strong team. In particular I'd bet Ric probably has Electra details etched into his retinas by now. I am sure you are both doing your honest best to provide your most meaningful assessments - which suggests to me that the differences in opinion between you is actually an indication of how tough jthe udgment of these images really is.
Thanks for all your work on this and your tremendous support. Whatever the outcome, and few people would hope you are right here more than me - except probably you and Ric, the pursuit of Earhart is a dream from childhood. It is always a wonder to me to see the enthusiasm continue after seven and a half decades.
-
...I personally think the black squiggly thing is natural organic material and only a few inches long... I don't see a strut. I see some curious straight edges that may indicate a man-made object - but whatever it is, if anything, is quite small...
I realize you both were there, and I'm sure neither of you is meaning to contradict each other. I also realize you both are making the best judgments that you can from what you've been able to observe and understand of the process, but this appears to be a striking difference between your individual observations.
Jeff, that quote is from January.
-
So is Rics quote about identifying the black squiggleys as ship gasket material correct or not?
I noticed Jeff Neville Posted that, and Tim is still talking about "we know it's not from the ship it must be from the plane."
Ship Gasket , or another part of Amelias Plane? Please let me know.
-
Ric sugested in January that it was organic. During NIKU VII someone on the vessel suggested gasket material.
If in doubt follow the bear ;)
-
So is Rics quote about identifying the black squiggleys as ship gasket material correct or not?
I noticed Jeff Neville Posted that, and Tim is still talking about "we know it's not from the ship it must be from the plane."
Ship Gasket , or another part of Amelias Plane? Please let me know.
.
The two are not mutually exclusive: as I suggested days ago, gasket or caulking material or weather stripping could be used between cabin fuel tanks to prevent them from chafing with one another.
-
If the two are not mutually exclusive, why did you state TODAY that the squiggly doos are not part of the shipwreck?
-
...ship gasket material correct or not?
Two informative resources for propeller packing material:
West Marine (http://www.westmarine.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?productId=473868&catalogId=10001&langId=-1&storeId=11151&storeNum=50366&subdeptNum=50420&classNum=50424#.UKPygIZw7Rg) shows a sample of Shaft Packing material. This version comes in 1/8" to 7/8" diameter. This is very close to the photo posted here (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1006.msg21184.html#msg21184).
Pages 2 and 3 of this site (http://www.pbase.com/mainecruising/stuffing_box&page=2) show how the stuff is inserted around a propeller shaft. Start about half way down page 2. You'll see the material. However, the bottom of page 2 and the top of page 3 show that the material is cut into rings that are inserted around the prop shaft.
If the squiggly thing is packing material it's raw and has not been installed. It looks too loose to be the raw material.
-
and I only see it in 2 places in the pictures. Sorry.
-
:)
If the two are not mutually exclusive, why did you state TODAY that the squiggly doos are not part of the shipwreck?
.
Because they are sitting next to airplane parts, not next to ship wreckage. And because one simple material could be used on both ships and airplanes.
-
I only see it in one place from all angle's ;)
Thank's Richie
-
...I personally think the black squiggly thing is natural organic material and only a few inches long... I don't see a strut. I see some curious straight edges that may indicate a man-made object - but whatever it is, if anything, is quite small...
I realize you both were there, and I'm sure neither of you is meaning to contradict each other. I also realize you both are making the best judgments that you can from what you've been able to observe and understand of the process, but this appears to be a striking difference between your individual observations.
Jeff, that quote is from January.
I know that Ric, the date is clearly posted as such.
Is it no longer relevant? If your position on the matter has changed, fine, please advise.
I quoted these two of your posts because they seem to relate here -
The first (January) as to 'scale' of these 'things' - which I've not seen changed; to paraphrase, you advised us we were looking at things that were 'inches' - smaller than we were believing at the time.
The second, more recent post, had to do with identifying the material as 'gasket' stuff when you got a close-up view and were shown similar material from aboard KoK. I've quoted both.
But if your views have changed since then, I certainly accept that and will welcome any correction. Just trying to keep a grip on scaling these 'objects' as objectively as I can. I've been aware of that need since it was pointed out to us early in the ROV Stills string - rightly so I thought.
Thanks -
-
...I personally think the black squiggly thing is natural organic material and only a few inches long... I don't see a strut. I see some curious straight edges that may indicate a man-made object - but whatever it is, if anything, is quite small...
I realize you both were there, and I'm sure neither of you is meaning to contradict each other. I also realize you both are making the best judgments that you can from what you've been able to observe and understand of the process, but this appears to be a striking difference between your individual observations.
Jeff, that quote is from January.
Ah - I am sorry - I think I see your point now:
Yes - I used a quote from January - and then rather sloppily implied "you were both there" - which you were NOT given the January post - I apologize for the confusion and need to clarify - the January post obviously involved the Niku VI footage / effort.
My meaning was you were both there when the latest sighting of the material was made - Niku VII - when you were shown similar material - and
The January post involving the 2010 footage was referenced because of the 'scale' comment - 'inches', not larger. Which so far as I can tell is still your thought on that, but if it changed with observations during Niku VII I certainly understand that too.
My bad.
The point stands, however - by your posts we seem to have some reliable information of 'scale' (2010 footage - 'inches') and 'substance' (2012 expedition - 'shipboard gasket stuff'). That was my intent.
-
I don't know why this is so confusing to everybody.
• We saw some black squiggly material in the 2010 video. The ROV we used on the 2010 trip was small and, although we didn't have scale in the video, we did get a feel for how close the ROV was to the things we were seeing in the video. I have always felt that the black squiggly stuff was only a few inches (less than a foot) long. I didn't know what it was but thought it was probably some kind of organic material. Hence my posting in January
• In 2012 we saw more of what seemed to be the same stuff, this time more clearly. Someone on the ship recognized it and produced an example. We all agreed it looked just like the stuff we saw in the video.
• Objects seen underwater at Niku are going to fall into one of three categories:
- Natural
- Man-made
- Indeterminate
Man-made objects are going to fall into one of four sub-categories:
- Identifiably Norwich City
- Identifiably modern
- Identifiably aircraft
- Indeterminate
We have lots of man-made objects that are identifiably Norwich City.
We have a few of objects that are identifiably modern.
We have considerable disagreement about whether we have anything that is identifiably aircraft.
We have a few man-made objects of indeterminate origin.
If our shipboard identification was correct, the black squiggly stuff is in the modern category. Some argue that if could also be in the identifiably aircraft category. If our identification of the material was wrong it belongs in the indeterminate category.
The only way I know of to settle this question is for me to find out exactly what the gasket material aboard the ship was. I'll see if I can find somebody who was there and knows the correct terminology. We should then be able to find out whether there is any chance that there was such material aboard the Electra.
At the time, I felt that the chances that gasket material used aboard a ship in 2012 was also used aboard an aircraft in 1937 were so remote as to be not worth further consideration. I still feel that way, but I'm willing to try to find out the proper terminology for the stuff.
-
I still feel that way, but I'm willing to try to find out the proper terminology for the stuff.
Just google "shaft packing" or "packing gland material", you'll find numerous sources. I believe it has been available for a very long time in its basic form, just the materials have changed. Its use is for sealing rotating shafts where there is liquid on one side, such as marine propeller shafts, pump shafts, etc. Offhand I can't think of any potential aircraft use, but I certainly can't claim exhaustive factual knowledge as to that. It is not a general-purpose material used for insulating, padding, or cushioning purposes.
-
:).
OK, the size of the squiggly: in reply #144 I determined the distance from the starboard position light perpendiculaly to the seam between the wingtip and wing to be approximately 17 inches. I used the Harney wing drawing to reach this estimate.
In that still shot the squiggly sits on the same wingtip, and appears to me to be only slightly larger, maybe 20 inches across.
I think we are approaching another "absolute landslide of nonsense" wasting time on this (IMHO) trivial subject.
-
I think we are approaching another "absolute landslide of nonsense" wasting time on this (IMHO) trivial subject.
Um....
Never mind. LMAO
-
Sorry if I'm wasting time on nonsense. But, frankly, out of all the pictures from the 2 videos, this is all I can make out. No wing tips, marker lights, altimeters, wings with N numbers, verticals with a Lockheed star sticking out from under some coral. Nope the black thing I can see. May be packing material like your boys on the KOK say it is. Maybe it is something natural. I dont know-----I'm NOT in photo recognition, especially where scale is involved. But--you are looking for something you can identify----try that. Gee-- maybe its nothing but a dead eel. Maybe its more rope, that just happens to show up in 2 different places along with 2 similar objects.
Too bad it wasnt seen in the 2012 video with better equipment. Too bad Mr. Glickman with all his toys cant make out what it ISNT. If it isnt Electra wreckage, what is it and I'll shut up.
Trival subject---maybe. Most say probably. But ---what if?
-
Tom, if it's a landing gear you see, tell us where. Point to it in a still, like everyone harangued me to do. Is the squiggle a pointer to it? If you've already posted this info, please tell me where. ;)
-
Sorry if I'm wasting time on nonsense. But, frankly, out of all the pictures from the 2 videos, this is all I can make out. No wing tips, marker lights, altimeters, wings with N numbers, verticals with a Lockheed star sticking out from under some coral. Nope the black thing I can see. May be packing material like your boys on the KOK say it is. Maybe it is something natural. I dont know-----I'm NOT in photo recognition, especially where scale is involved. But--you are looking for something you can identify----try that. Gee-- maybe its nothing but a dead eel. Maybe its more rope, that just happens to show up in 2 different places along with 2 similar objects.
Too bad it wasnt seen in the 2012 video with better equipment. Too bad Mr. Glickman with all his toys cant make out what it ISNT. If it isnt Electra wreckage, what is it and I'll shut up.
Trival subject---maybe. Most say probably. But ---what if?
Ya gotta step back to three feet from your computer to see it.
-
... with a Lockheed star sticking out from under some coral.
Actually, it's sticking out from under another piece of metal. But if you are noticing that much, you are making real progress. No-one said this was going to be easy. :)
-
:)If the two are not mutually exclusive, why did you state TODAY that the squiggly doos are not part of the shipwreck?
.
Because they are sitting next to airplane parts, not next to ship wreckage. And because one simple material could be used on both ships and airplanes.
Once again your are using one opinion, " sitting next to plane parts", to influence a secondary opinion, therefore the black squiggly item might be from the plane, and definitely not the ship.
This is simple logic being abused and it can be harmful to any search.
There are rules for evidence for a reason Tim.
-
:)If the two are not mutually exclusive, why did you state TODAY that the squiggly doos are not part of the shipwreck?
.
Because they are sitting next to airplane parts, not next to ship wreckage. And because one simple material could be used on both ships and airplanes.
Once again your are using one opinion, " sitting next to plane parts", to influence a secondary opinion, therefore the black squiggly item might be from the plane, and definitely not the ship.
This is simple logic being abused and it can be harmful to any search.
There are rules for evidence for a reason Tim.
.
I see the wing. You don't. Let's leave it at that.
-
Well I see the plane in the lagoon based on the overhead satellite pictures. I can also see it clearly on the Helicopter tour over the lagoon. The water is fairly clear on that day. I have located both wings, and reflections of underwater glass as well, so you must be mistaken. Two wings beat one wing.
-
oops ---sorry---this is the pic I wanted to show. Its from early in the 2010 video. Scale: yep using
the pic of AE kneeling beside the gear, I make the length from the axle to the bottom of the strut about 26 inches +-. The tire was 36 inches. The axle to the top of the strut was about 60 inches+- So, looking at the object, the center part of the squiggley to the bottom of the strut (top of the fork) is 30 inches+-, if thats a tire of 36 inches in diameter at the bottom. That means, the ROV was a pretty good distance away to see this.
Tim the timestamp on the pic is 13:38:32:07, and I think Richie originally posted it. The pic of AE and the gear, I got from the Purdue Archives. The pic of the rusted gear is from the Idaho crash site of a 10E that Tighar uses for field school I think. (havent been).
Tom
-
My bust-----it was Jeff Victor Hayden. Very first pic on the stills from the the ROV footage thread.
Tom
-
:)
oops ---sorry---this is the pic I wanted to show. Its from early in the 2010 video. Scale: yep using
the pic of AE kneeling beside the gear, I make the length from the axle to the bottom of the strut about 26 inches +-. The tire was 36 inches. The axle to the top of the strut was about 60 inches+- So, looking at the object, the center part of the squiggley to the bottom of the strut (top of the fork) is 30 inches+-, if thats a tire of 36 inches in diameter at the bottom. That means, the ROV was a pretty good distance away to see this.
Tim the timestamp on the pic is 13:38:32:07, and I think Richie originally posted it. The pic of AE and the gear, I got from the Purdue Archives. The pic of the rusted gear is from the Idaho crash site of a 10E that Tighar uses for field school I think. (havent been).
Tom.
.
Tom, looks proimising. I have to see it in motion at home on Friday. If the tire diameter is 36, would you estimate the squiggle at 20?
-
Tim--I estimated the brake hose length, from the caliper to the bottom of the strut, where the fork is welded, at about 20 inches.
-
I'd like to point out that the video pictures that clearly show a shadow already have a built-in distance and size calibration, if the distance between the ROV lens and the light source were known. In simplest terms, the apparent width of the shadow will be small at great distances. Conversely, an apparently large width of shadow indicates the object is near the lens.
There are videos from different ROVs and two expeditions. To precisely judge distance/size for any particular video shot we need to know which ROV took the picture, and the distance from lens to light of that particular ROV.
It becomes a bit more challenging with the shadow is cast on a surface some distance beyond some object of interest.
-
Anyone here today, or did we take a day off?
-
I guess it's just the two of us Tom. Are we missing something important?
LTM,
Dave
-
yeah----no one posted anything today!
-
Is the squiggly material what could have been inside the strut cylinder to provide the cushioning? Today it would be oil and nitrogen. :).
-
Thats a good question, and we all discussed that some time ago. Who knows what it would look like after 75 years under water. Some thought is was congelled strut oil. It actually looks like it may be coming from either the strut charge port, or the weld at the bottom of the strut. That would make my brake hose theory null and void. Not going to know for sure until we find them again, and raise them, if that is even possible.
-
Is the squiggly material what could have been inside the strut cylinder to provide the cushioning? Today it would be oil and nitrogen. :).
It was nitrogen and oil then. Earhart had a bottle of nitrogen with her. It's in the stack of stuff in front of the cabin door in the photo taken in Darwin.
-
Well guys, what has intrigued me about this from the start, is that we only see this 'thing' around the target, that 'appears' to be a strut. I havent seen it anywhere else, on any picture, or video. I wasnt questioning Ric about the packing material theory, because, we really dont know what it is. And, wont know unless we go find it, raise it, or at least touch it and see what consistency it has. Finding it would be a task in itself, since we didnt have a location on the 2010 video.
Maybe there is a way to do that.
-
Let's not forget the significance of the black squiggly thing, whatever it is. It's not so much about the black squiggly thing or, what it's trapped under but, the fact that it stood out like a sore thumb in the 2010 ROV footage. Where we were once all concentrating on the 'wire & rope' in the footage, because of the black squiggly thing everything in the footage was scrutinised and more 'anomalies' became apparent.
Points to note:
Scale is an issue
Gardner island was a busy place
It's a hostile environment down there
Time has taken it's toll
-
JVH---even as blind as I am, the black squiggley was apparent. Whatever it was, or is, or will be when they raise it.
-
I don't realy do cloud camels or coral pigs but my poor attempt at marking around the 'squiggle' looks man made to me :)
-
Thats It Chris. Look around and see if you see this anywhere else in the videos. I didnt, but I'm a casual observer. Just made sense to me that they were related somehow. Maybe it is a lifeform of Nikumaroro. Maybe is is cylinder packing material. But whatever it is or isnt, it shows up pretty well in the videos.
-
Aghhhhh....i'm being dragged to the dark (squiggly) side. It looks like it comes out of a hole in a tube to me with at least 2 'flanges', a bit like the effect in cartoons when bugs bunny puts his finger in a shotgun muzzle and the dupe pulls the trigger.
-
in that case, congelled oil may be the answer. So----whats the cylinder?
-
Hi All
Thought i would post some images of squiggle from different angle's
Thank's Richie
-
And a 5th one
-
I think I'm going to leave this to the experts.
Tom
-
Further up the slope I think I can make out the non-Bevington landing gear assembly. See frame #04 at time 13:37:09. The concave side of the fender is up, and lying on top of the somewhat deflated tire. No squigglies here.
All of the components seem to be in scale with each other.
-
This is really interesting reading what people can see in that video. I've been looking at what some folks call the black squiggly thing and to me it looks just like a length of some cable or something that has been wound up then just let lie so that it unfurls a little but still holds the kinks it gets. The cord on my cell phone charger does that every time I unwind it to charge up the phone.
-
Dan---I thought so too. But I asked myself why I didnt see it in other places as well.
-
Tim---when you see Jeff Glickman next month, show these to him, especially the real clear pic, and see what he can do to sharpen the image. I'll leave it in his capable hands.
-
Tom, I'll do my best, but I hope Jeff Glickman will have examined all these anomolies long before I get to Seattle. Hopefully Ric will have forwarded him all the references we have all made.
-
Tom Swearengen previously posted a picture I thought was helpful. In analyzing this video and others it may help to look at the Gillam crash survey (http://tighar.org/Contract_Services/Gillam/Gillam01.html) and the Kellogg Crash Survey (http://tighar.org/Contract_Services/Kellogg/Kellogg01.html) pictures. Are there any more pictures from those wreck site surveys available?
-
It's not just the recognizable aircraft components that are imortant in this quest: the attached example of a man-made object (13:37:09, frame 04), lying right beside the landing gear assembly previously reported, demonstrates the profound abundance of materials affected by man. A modest section of sheet metal, who knows from where, has three 90 degree angles and numerous straight edges defining its shape. Coral NOT. There are hundreds of these anonymous pieces in the 8.55 minute video we now enjoy. They have all descended together into one mass graveyard, ripped asunder by who knows what forces, but all giving testimony, collectively, to the final resting place of an aircraft pushed to its limits. Unbelievable.
-
Further up the slope I think I can make out the non-Bevington landing gear assembly. See frame #04 at time 13:37:09. The concave side of the fender is up, and lying on top of the somewhat deflated tire.
At the risk of displaying my ignorance, can somebody please tell me how it's possible that the Electra's fender could be inverted?
~Travis Wallace
-
Inside airplanes of that period, and through WWII, controls of flight surfaces were accomplished with cables and pivots, some with arms termed yokes, by levers, bars, pulleys and by channels. Some airplane makers substituted rods for the cables. The fittings that connected these controls, especially where they change direction are often unique. Do we know what they look like in the L-10?
So, a couple of questions occur to me:
Did the L-10 use cables or rods or both?
One thing I've not seen used is a chain. But I can quite see how such might be desirable in several applications
Were there any chains in the links to engines, fuel tanks, control surfaces, etc that might end up looking like a bike chain that has been tossed? Esp. one that included copper, as in bronze etc.
Does anyone know what shape fitting was used to change control forces from for/aft to abeam, and back to fore/aft in the wings. Same in the empennage?
How were flaps extended?
How were cowl flaps opened?
How were fittings attached to the cables (or rods if they were used?)
Did the late author of the drawings do details of the interior of the fuselage control tunnels and wings? (I don't have the collection)
Answers to these questions may provide some views on the cables, squiggles, and, the ends of the cables.
-
Inside airplanes of that period, and through WWII, controls of flight surfaces were accomplished with cables and pivots, some with arms termed yokes, by levers, bars, pulleys and by channels. Some airplane makers substituted rods for the cables. The fittings that connected these controls, especially where they change direction are often unique. Do we know what they look like in the L-10?
So, a couple of questions occur to me:
Did the L-10 use cables or rods or both?
One thing I've not seen used is a chain. But I can quite see how such might be desirable in several applications
Were there any chains in the links to engines, fuel tanks, control surfaces, etc that might end up looking like a bike chain that has been tossed? Esp. one that included copper, as in bronze etc.
Does anyone know what shape fitting was used to change control forces from for/aft to abeam, and back to fore/aft in the wings. Same in the empennage?
How were flaps extended?
How were cowl flaps opened?
How were fittings attached to the cables (or rods if they were used?)
Did the late author of the drawings do details of the interior of the fuselage control tunnels and wings? (I don't have the collection)
Answers to these questions may provide some views on the cables, squiggles, and, the ends of the cables.
I think, but I am not sure, that chains were used in the trim systems, with the chains going around the overhead cranks.
gl
-
Further up the slope I think I can make out the non-Bevington landing gear assembly. See frame #04 at time 13:37:09. The concave side of the fender is up, and lying on top of the somewhat deflated tire.
At the risk of displaying my ignorance, can somebody please tell me how it's possible that the Electra's fender could be inverted?
~Travis Wallace
Travis, many of us have asked that same question, yet some think that it is. It is not possible and anyone who visualizes that it is the fender is delusional. No ignorance displayed on your part, just common sense.
-
At the risk of displaying my ignorance, can somebody please tell me how it's possible that the Electra's fender could be inverted?
~Travis Wallace
Travis, without the Harney drawings to study, it might be difficult to imagine the following scenario:
The landing gear assembly starts tumbling down the underwater cliff. The fender is jarred loose from the attachment point at the bottom of the strut. The short front end is forced back under ths strut by the rotation of the tire when it contacts the cliff surface. Once clear of the strut, and still attached by the two rear braces, the fender flips over backward (180 degrees) and ends lying bottom-side up on the surface of the tire.
-
It is not possible and anyone who visualizes that it is the fender is delusional. No ignorance displayed on your part, just common sense.
If you believe it is not possible it is up to you to explain why. We do not call people "delusional."
-
It is not possible and anyone who visualizes that it is the fender is delusional. No ignorance displayed on your part, just common sense.
If you believe it is not possible it is up to you to explain why. We do not call people "delusional."
I will apologize for my use of the term "delusional", my bad Ric. That said, there are a number of members who have said that image is the wrong shape to be the fender of an Electra L10E. It is patently obvious that image is too concave in the wrong direction and that is "why".
Now that begs the question, when you had an arm down there, why didn't you pick up some of the debris and bring it up to see what it is? Isn't that the purpose of having it? That question has been asked of me numerous times and of course, I don't have the answer. Since that claw had a six inch grasp, something could have been grabbed and brought up. Why not?
-
Bob, I believe it was an agreement between Tighar and the Kiribati Republic that under the PIPA , Phoenix Islands Protected Area, marine protection agreement, nothing would be removed, yet.
-
Not only that, Bob, but the site videoed in 2010, from which all these components have been identified, was not even found in 2012. I believe this has been explained several times before.
-
Further up the slope I think I can make out the non-Bevington landing gear assembly. See frame #04 at time 13:37:09. The concave side of the fender is up, and lying on top of the somewhat deflated tire. No squigglies here.
All of the components seem to be in scale with each other.
Tim, can you clarify what you mean by the "non-Bevington landing gear assembly"?
-
Not only that, Bob, but he site videoed in 2010, from which all these components have been identified, was not even found in 2012. I believe this has been explained several times before.
Tim, I missed this point as I'm sure others may have also missed it earlier, but exactly what were the circumstances of not having found the site videoed in 2010 during the 2012 expedition? Was it some technical glitch or equipment failure, or was the a matter of knowing exactly where down the slope the 2010 area was located and simply being unsuccessful in relocating it? Or is the implication that the site and its contained items had somehow be obliterated or moved during the 2-year interval? In other words, is there any hope of locating the 2010 site again?
-
Not only that, Bob, but he site videoed in 2010, from which all these components have been identified, was not even found in 2012. I believe this has been explained several times before.
Tim, I missed this point as I'm sure others may have also missed it earlier, but exactly what were the circumstances of not having found the site videoed in 2010 during the 2012 expedition? Was it some technical glitch or equipment failure, or was the a matter of knowing exactly where down the slope the 2010 area was located and simply being unsuccessful in relocating it? Or is the implication that the site and its contained items had somehow be obliterated or moved during the 2-year interval? In other words, is there any hope of locating the 2010 site again?
As far as I know, not enough had been identified from the 2010 HD video by the start of the 2012 expedition to warrant making the specific effort of finding the 2010 filmed site. Instead, the strategy was to sonar scan the entire square mile target area, then hone in on specific "hits" to see if any of them could possibly be aircraft debris. Much time was then squandered getting the AUV operational, saving the AUV from unfortunate encounters with cliff caves, filming the Norwich City debris field, and so forth. The little remaining time devoted to sending the ROV up and down the mountainside did not lead to any additional discoveries, even though the tracks taken by the ROV apparently came quite close to the area filmed in 2010. Ric may wish to elaborate on this analysis, he having been in charge of strategy.
So, the answer to your question, is there any hope of finding the 2010 field again, I would say "Absolutely!" The giveaway pointer would be that long stretch of taught rope that runs down the slope. The general area of that debris field is known, the specific GPS co-ordinates are not known because the position equipment on the 2010 ROV was not functioning at the time of the dive that resulted in the 8.55 minute video.
-
Further up the slope I think I can make out the non-Bevington landing gear assembly. See frame #04 at time 13:37:09. The concave side of the fender is up, and lying on top of the somewhat deflated tire. No squigglies here.
All of the components seem to be in scale with each other.
Tim, can you clarify what you mean by the "non-Bevington landing gear assembly"?
Greg, I described the landing gear assmembly as "non-Bevington" because it is my understanding that the analysis of the Bevington photo led Ric and Jeff Glickman to conclude that the components of the landing gear in the 1937 photo were not really in the correct relationship to one another, the tire being bent around, for instance. The components of the gear assembly in the picture I annotated, by contrast, are pretty much in the correct position, with the exception of the fender, which appears to me to be upside-down (already controversial, for some reason). Ric may have to explain how the Bevington photo appears out-of-whack, as I am not familiar with those details.
-
It is not possible and anyone who visualizes that it is the fender is delusional. No ignorance displayed on your part, just common sense.
If you believe it is not possible it is up to you to explain why. We do not call people "delusional."
It is patently obvious that image is too concave in the wrong direction and that is "why".
Bob, maybe the scenario I presented to Travis in Reply #223 (of how the fender came to be upside down) is not reasonable or acceptable to you, but IMHO it is a possibility.
Ric asked you to explain why it is not possible, and I am keenly awaiting your answer.
-
Further up the slope I think I can make out the non-Bevington landing gear assembly. See frame #04 at time 13:37:09. The concave side of the fender is up, and lying on top of the somewhat deflated tire. No squigglies here.
All of the components seem to be in scale with each other.
Tim, can you clarify what you mean by the "non-Bevington landing gear assembly"?
Greg, I described the landing gear assmembly as "non-Bevington" because it is my understanding that the analysis of the Bevington photo led Ric and Jeff Glickman to conclude that the components of the landing gear in the 1937 photo were not really in the correct relationship to one another, the tire being bent around, for instance. The components of the gear assembly in the picture I annotated, by contrast, are pretty much in the correct position, with the exception of the fender, which appears to me to be upside-down (already controversial, for some reason). Ric may have to explain how the Bevington photo appears out-of-whack, as I am not familiar with those details.
I understood from Jeff Glickman's presentation (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iLxjEU1VJHA)that the Bevington object showed 4 possible components. I see 3 of them in Glickman's presentation, including the main strut, including axle, upside down (with no tire or fender), shown in front of a tire with a fender over it. Since the fender is attached to the strut and not the tire or wheel, I believe that the part of the tire and fender seen above water could be attached to the 2nd strut but un seen because it is underwater. So the tire and fender seen next to the strut could be from the 2nd landing gear. This is just my opinion of the presentation. I understand there will be a research paper on the Bevington object that will explain the latest analysis. It may be that the Bevington object includes just the one gear where the tire and fender somehow came off and ended up next to the strut. Or there are components of both main landing gear there.
-
Now comes some further analysis of the upside-down fender shown as part of the landing gear assembly at time 13:37:09, frame 15. The attachment point of the fender to the bottom of the strut, as drawn in the Harney diagram, is almost exactly one-third of the way from the more pointed front end of the fender to the blunter rear end. Same as in the detached fender in this photo.
-
It is not possible and anyone who visualizes that it is the fender is delusional. No ignorance displayed on your part, just common sense.
If you believe it is not possible it is up to you to explain why. We do not call people "delusional."
It is patently obvious that image is too concave in the wrong direction and that is "why".
Bob, maybe the scenario I presented to Travis in Reply #223 (of how the fender came to be upside down) is not reasonable or acceptable to you, but IMHO it is a possibility.
Ric asked you to explain why it is not possible, and I am keenly awaiting your answer.
It kind of looks like if it's "too concave in the wrong direction" as Bob sees it then he answered, just MHO.
I agree to the extent that I can't seem to see this as you are describing it, Tim. No offense, only MHO of course, and YMMV - granted.
-
I agree to the extent that I can't seem to see this as you are describing it, Tim. No offense, only MHO of course, and YMMV - granted.
Jeff, it would be helpful to learn what you can see, not just what you can't see. We all see things differently, and you might be able to provide details that I haven't noticed.
-
It kind of looks like if it's "too concave in the wrong direction" as Bob sees it then he answered, just MHO.
If it's too concave in the wrong direction, as Bob asserts, he needs to explain why it is then impossible for it to have arrived in that position. I have given a plausible explanation of how it could have become so.
-
I agree to the extent that I can't seem to see this as you are describing it, Tim. No offense, only MHO of course, and YMMV - granted.
Jeff, it would be helpful to learn what you can see, not just what you can't see. We all see things differently, and you might be able to provide details that I haven't noticed.
All I can see in this one is natural sea floor - that is what it looks like to me, Tim. By what you've described, the 'image' is too '2-D' to be all that IMO, for one thing - I would expect there to be more third-dimensional form to it somehow. 'Flattened' is my impression.
Sorry I cannot help more. Perhaps I am simply missing some key point of it all, but I understand both your view and enthusiasm and accept that.
-
It kind of looks like if it's "too concave in the wrong direction" as Bob sees it then he answered, just MHO.
If it's too concave in the wrong direction, as Bob asserts, he needs to explain why it is then impossible for it to have arrived in that position. I have given a plausible explanation of how it could have become so.
I merely took it as his opinion once he explained himself; of course I'll leave it to him, but if it is only his opinion I don't understand why he'd be obligated to explain further, IMHO.
I can offer an opinion though: if I've followed your logic, I don't see how the various components could become disturbed that much (fender from gear) and yet redistributed together again so neatly (back 'in place' except inverted). Just MHO, of course - which I cannot really explain further I'm afraid, and not saying it cannot be - I just don't see how.
I guess too 'concave in the wrong direction' is more like '2-D / lacking apparent body' to me: the image appears too flat IMO. YMMV, of course, all due respect.
-
Here is same object from distance
I have commented on this before in Rov thread
-
I can offer an opinion though: if I've followed your logic, I don't see how the various components could become disturbed that much (fender from gear) and yet redistributed together again so neatly (back 'in place' except inverted). Just MHO, of course - which I cannot really explain further I'm afraid, and not saying it cannot be - I just don't see how.
Thank you for your thoughts, Jeff. I believe the two braces could have prevented the fender from separating from the rest of the assembly, yet still allowed the fender to assume its apparent position as it descended the cliff. The fender has not found its original position under the strut, but is about 30 degrees around the wheel axis.
-
All I can see in this one is natural sea floor - that is what it looks like to me, Tim. By what you've described, the 'image' is too '2-D' to be all that IMO, for one thing - I would expect there to be more third-dimensional form to it somehow. 'Flattened' is my impression.
Jeff, if you run the 8.55 minute video between 13:37:06 and 13:37:18 (12 seconds) maybe you will be able to see that the tire sticks up towards the viewer as the camera scans back and forth. Hope this helps.
-
Now comes some further analysis of the upside-down fender shown as part of the landing gear assembly at time 13:37:09, frame 15. The attachment point of the fender to the bottom of the strut, as drawn in the Harney diagram, is almost exactly one-third of the way from the more pointed front end of the fender to the blunter rear end. Same as in the detached fender in this photo.
I'm no expert but just looking at that picture (thanks Tim) I can't see a plane part in it. It reminds me of sedimentary rocks I've seen when I've been hiking where the layers have been rubbed off so that the layers are exposed. I'm wondering the same thing happens with coral.
-
I'm no expert but just looking at that picture (thanks Tim) I can't see a plane part in it. It reminds me of sedimentary rocks I've seen when I've been hiking where the layers have been rubbed off so that the layers are exposed. I'm wondering the same thing happens with coral.
The picture is only a reference. Please look at the video, 12 seconds I referred to in the post reply #242 to Jeff.
-
I'm no expert but just looking at that picture (thanks Tim) I can't see a plane part in it. It reminds me of sedimentary rocks I've seen when I've been hiking where the layers have been rubbed off so that the layers are exposed. I'm wondering the same thing happens with coral.
The picture is only a reference. Please look at the video, 12 seconds I referred to in the post reply #242 to Jeff.
Thank you Tim for your reply. But I did that and I'm no expert around airplanes or rocks but it still just looks like a bit of coral or rock that's been split or something - sort of like you see in an onion. But you seem to know what you are looking at so I won't argue. :)
-
Hi Dan
Like everyone else, Including my self, We all see one thing. And that is coral shaped objects on the slope of Nikumorro. Agreed ?
Now the problem is, Too many of them objects are uncannily in appearance, To aircraft parts
What u have to remember is Aluminum and dust/silt/sand etc are like Bee's to honey, I know this because i have been installing Aluminum windows for the last 10 years on schools university's shops and so on, Now on the odd occasion in Wire/Rope video's you see places that are covered over, But are view able, the difference in color is so obvious.
Now the reason am so confident that we are looking at a debris field is, That in the second image i have added look by loop antenna you see 1 cable which branches of to 2 cables that go to each tail fin, And you see same thing in Video's
Thanks Richie
-
Hi All
This is a question for Ric
At the end of Bevington object topic, U said yous had identified the squiggle as being of modern gasket,
My question is, Is the gasket you claim to be modern, The same one in 2010 video or a different one all together ?
-
Hi Dan
Like everyone else, Including my self, We all see one thing. And that is coral shaped objects on the slope of Nikumorro. Agreed ?
Now the problem is, Too many of them objects are uncannily in appearance, To aircraft parts
What u have to remember is Aluminum and dust/silt/sand etc are like Bee's to honey, I know this because i have been installing Aluminum windows for the last 10 years on schools university's shops and so on, Now on the odd occasion in Wire/Rope video's you see places that are covered over, But are view able, the difference in color is so obvious.
Now the reason am so confident that we are looking at a debris field is, That in the second image i have added look by loop antenna you see 1 cable which branches of to 2 cables that go to each tail fin, And you see same thing in Video's
Thanks Richie
Thank you Richie, I hadn't seen that, but there's a lot I don't know, well that's what they tell me. I can see what you are talking about there in that picture. I wonder what the folks at TIGHAR think?
-
Now the reason am so confident that we are looking at a debris field is, That in the second image i have added look by loop antenna you see 1 cable which branches of to 2 cables that go to each tail fin, And you see same thing in Video's
Thanks Richie
Certainly more plausible than my first guess (a bosun's chair from the Norwich City)!
Well done, Richie.
-
Certainly more plausible than my first guess (a bosun's chair from the Norwich City)!
Well done, Richie.
Yeah it does look like it is. One thing that can't make out is that the cable that's behind it looks to be made different, or am I wrong. Does anyone have a pic of what the aerial wire that was on Amelia's airplane looks like up close?
-
Looks like batteries haven't changed much over the decades. Here are two shots, one clear and one annotated, of a battery with one of the posts visible. Impossible for me to tell whether it is the main battery, or (more likely) the auxiliary battery which sat just under FN's navigation table.
-
Just "uphill" from the landing gear assembly appears to be one of the four filler pipes to a cabin fuel tank. We are looking forward to aft, with the port in the side of the fuselage at the upper right. The 4" pipe leads diagonally down to the left into a collar on top of the tank. This is frame #08, time 13:37:16.
-
Certainly more plausible than my first guess (a bosun's chair from the Norwich City)!
Well done, Richie.
Yeah it does look like it is. One thing that can't make out is that the cable that's behind it looks to be made different, or am I wrong. Does anyone have a pic of what the aerial wire that was on Amelia's airplane looks like up close?
This is not up close Dan but here are the drawings with some detail of the antennas.
http://aircraftdrawingsdownload.com/files/l10.pdf
Here is a picture from Purdue Archives of the Dorsal antenna. It appears to be 16 or 18 AWG solid core copper clad steel used in those days.
http://tinyurl.com/ao2gxpx
More Info here:
http://tighar.org/wiki/NR16020_antennas
-
I was talking about this one. With all due respect, I dont see it in the 2012 video.
Now---as for the question about the marine sanctuary--I may be wrong and ric can surely set me straight on this point, but I was under the impression that Tighar COULD raise some part for identification, as long as the reef and sanctuary wasnt disturbed. If you cant find and object, prove beyond any doubt that it is AE's by actual examination, then whats the point of doing a subsurface search? If you think you see something, but cant physically examine it, then IMHO you have spend alot of money on a south seas vacation.
So----how does that agreement work?
-
Well I answered my own question about the recovery thing. Andrew had a post back in June about it, part of the 'ownership' discussion.
Amazing thing this forum.
-
Andrew had a post back in June about it, part of the 'ownership' discussion.
Tom, can you give us reference by thread and reply #?
-
Yep--
thread "who owns the electra today", Andrew McKenna, post #8
-
Through the open pilot's hatch that I identified in Reply #35 to the "Landing near the Norwich" thread, I think I am able to identify the following instruments (see time 13:41:53, frame 12 of the subject video, upper righthand quadrant):
Eyebrow Panel -
#9 Direction finding control apparatus (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1006.msg21971.html#msg21971) (the reference number is to the Harney drawings)
#4 Left and right thermocouple switches
Main Panel -
#4 Left and right manifold pressure guages (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1006.msg21317.html#msg21317)
#5 Left tachometer (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1006.msg21319.html#msg21319)
#11 Bank and turn indicator
#12 Rate of climb
#26 Autopilot RUD and AIL adjustment knobs (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1006.msg21314.html#msg21314)
#26 Autopilot directional gyro (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1006.msg21314.html#msg21314)
#16 Wing tanks fuel guage (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1006.msg21313.html#msg21313)
#25 Selector switch for wing tank guage (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1006.msg21312.html#msg21312)
#18 Sensitive altimeter (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1006.msg21310.html#msg21310)
Knee panel -
Ignition switches
4 slots, 2 each for Throttle and Mixture levers, partially obscured by pilot's wheel
Pilot's wheel (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1006.msg21322.html#msg21322) is seen now to be in the neutral position, not turned 80 degrees to the right, as I thought several days ago.
Western Electric 27A Remote main dial with
FREQ knob (lower left) and AUDIO GAIN knob (lower right) (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1006.msg21320.html#msg21320)
2 of 5 toggle switches (REC/OFF and DAY/NITE)
Co-pilot's wheel (not the Western Electric 9A Remote, as I originally thought)
Pilot's seat cushion (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1006.msg21321.html#msg21321), which appears to have the standard "cut-out" in the middle of the forward edge (not shown in Harney drawing)
Aircraft exterior -
The rectangular cover to the fueling port (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1006.msg21771.html#msg21771) for the left forward cabin fuel tank can also be seen (faintly) aft of the rear edge of the open pilot's hatch.
I think the time has come to summarize the components that can be seen in the High Definition video from 2010. Starting with the various items in the cockpit (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1006.msg21328.html#msg21328), which I have included above by Quote from Reply #54, I can see:
1. Top of right wing, with the numerals "0" and "2" (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,571.msg20689.html#msg20689),
2. Wingtip of right wing, with position light (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1006.msg21497.html#msg21497),
3. Underside of left wing with aileron (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,571.msg20916.html#msg20916),
4. Bottom of the star in the Lockheed logo from the outside of the right rudder (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1006.msg21528.html#msg21528),
5. Possible landing gear by the squigglie (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1006.msg21758.html#msg21758),
6. HF radio antenna cable, at least two strands (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1006.msg21739.html#msg21739),
7. Engine and propeller (John Balderston) (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,571.msg18667.html#msg18667),
8. Tailwheel and tailcone (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1006.msg21546.html#msg21546),
9. Battery (probably auxiliary) (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1006.msg21748.html#msg21748),
10. Top of fuel tank with filler pipe from port in side of fuselage (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1006.msg21749.html#msg21749),
11. Landing gear assembly with upside-down fender (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1006.msg21656.html#msg21656),
12. Numerous pieces of sheet metal evidencing man-made characteristics, such as straight edges, 90 degree corners, round holes, etc. (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1006.msg21671.html#msg21671)
13. Co-pilot's windows (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1006.msg21793.html#msg21793)
14. Another engine (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1006.msg21978.html#msg21978)
15. Fuselage fuel tank selector (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1006.msg21971.html#msg21971)
No doubt, there will be more to follow.
-
This is not up close Dan but here are the drawings with some detail of the antennas.
http://aircraftdrawingsdownload.com/files/l10.pdf
Here is a picture from Purdue Archives of the Dorsal antenna. It appears to be 16 or 18 AWG solid core copper clad steel used in those days.
http://tinyurl.com/ao2gxpx
More Info here:
http://tighar.org/wiki/NR16020_antennas
Thank you Mr Lanz - that wire in the water just looks like plain wire cable or nylon rope to me. Something like you might see on a boat.
-
I think the time has come to summarize the components that can be seen in the High Definition video from 2010. Starting with the various items in the cockpit, which I have included above by Quote from Reply #54, I can see:
1. Top of right wing, with the numerals "0" and "2",
2. Wingtip of right wing, with position light,
3. Underside of left wing with aileron,
4. Bottom of the star in the Lockheed logo from the outside of the right rudder,
5. Possible landing gear by the squigglie,
6. HF radio antenna cable, at least two strands,
7. Engine and propeller (John Balderston)
8. Tailwheel and tailcone,
9. Battery (probably auxiliary),
10. Top of fuel tank with filler pipe from port in side of fuselage,
11. Landing gear assembly with upside-down fender,
12. Numerous pieces of sheet metal evidencing man-made characteristics, such as straight edges, 90 degree corners, round holes, etc.
No doubt, there will be more to follow.
That's a lot of airplane bits there - what does TIGHAR say. If it was me I'd say well done we've found her!.
-
I think the time has come to summarize the components that can be seen in the High Definition video from 2010. Starting with the various items in the cockpit, which I have included above by Quote from Reply #54, I can see:
1. Top of right wing, with the numerals "0" and "2",
2. Wingtip of right wing, with position light,
3. Underside of left wing with aileron,
4. Bottom of the star in the Lockheed logo from the outside of the right rudder,
5. Possible landing gear by the squigglie,
6. HF radio antenna cable, at least two strands,
7. Engine and propeller (John Balderston)
8. Tailwheel and tailcone,
9. Battery (probably auxiliary),
10. Top of fuel tank with filler pipe from port in side of fuselage,
11. Landing gear assembly with upside-down fender,
12. Numerous pieces of sheet metal evidencing man-made characteristics, such as straight edges, 90 degree corners, round holes, etc.
No doubt, there will be more to follow.
- what does TIGHAR say.
TIGHAR silence is deafening....
-
Through the open pilot's hatch that I identified in Reply #35 to the "Landing near the Norwich" thread, I think I am able to identify the following instruments (see time 13:41:53, frame 12 of the subject video, upper righthand quadrant):
Tom. I have had no luck with YouTube, Tighar channel. please post some of these exciting images for those of us eager to see what you are seeing...perhaps the wing with the "2" and "0" and an instrument or two.
Thanx, G. Ford
-
TIGHAR silence is deafening....
Busy week and haven't gotten here much, but have been chomping at the bit to see what's been going on. There is so much that it will be DAYS before I catch up. For one thing, Tim's reckoning about the cockpit has opened a whole new door in my thinking. I can't see everything Tim is seeing, but I certainly see what could potentially be the fuel door behind the cockpit hatch. Upper right quarter of the attached image. I checked the Purdue on-line exhibit for a reference photo of the open fuel door, but couldn't find one. If anyone can help here please do! More soon, John
-
I have had no luck with YouTube, Tighar channel. please post some of these exciting images for those of us eager to see what you are seeing...perhaps the wing with the "2" and "0" and an instrument or two.
Thanx, G. Ford
John, go back to Reply #258 and click on any line.
-
Busy week and haven't gotten here much, but have been chomping at the bit to see what's been going on. There is so much that it will be DAYS before I catch up. For one thing, Tim's reckoning about the cockpit has opened a whole new door in my thinking. I can't see everything Tim is seeing, but I certainly see what could potentially be the fuel door behind the cockpit hatch. Upper right quarter of the attached image. I checked the Purdue on-line exhibit for a reference photo of the open fuel door, but couldn't find one. If anyone can help here please do! More soon, John
I find the way people are smart enough to see these things is cool. I just see funny looking rocks.
-
- what does TIGHAR say.
TIGHAR silence is deafening....
Ric was away this weekend.
The board won't meet again for a while.
There probably isn't a research paper in development about this.
I doubt it will make the next TIGHAR Tracks.
You have an appointment to meet with Jeff, don't you? If so, I doubt that there will be any official comment from TIGHAR until after that.
-
I think the time has come to summarize the components that can be seen in the High Definition video from 2010.
- what does TIGHAR say.
TIGHAR silence is deafening....
Ric has stated he sees nothing in this video, no airplane and no identifiable airplane parts. He has stated he sees none of the listed parts Tim and a couple of others claim to "see", unless further developments occur.
But out of courtesy seems to have allowed a few folks speculating in that particular sandbox to continue.
So there is no "deafening silence" from Tighar. How many times does Ric have to say he sees nothing airplane related? His opinion has been well stated.
-
These two versions of the same frame (one clear and the other annotated) show the left side of the fuselage and the open cockpit hatch. The various pilot windows are indicated.
-
As luck would have it, the co-pilot's windows are visible to me in the following frame. The location is way up the hill from the cockpit location, and beyond the cable in a gully. A picture of the intact airplane can be used for comparison.
-
Tim, what you are calling the “co-pilot’s windows” is probably a piece of coral a few inches wide. The cable/rope is visible before you see it and gives a sense of scale.
-
Tim, what you are calling the “co-pilot’s windows” is probably a piece of coral a few inches wide. The cable/rope is visible before you see it and gives a sense of scale.
Don't think so, Greg.
-
Tim---what do you think Tighar should do about this?
-
Tim---what do you think Tighar should do about this?
About what?
-
Well it seems to me the only way to see if there is actually something there, is to go back and take a good look. Maybe bring something up, to either verify, or deny.
-
Mr. Mellon, let's put your examination into perspective of what you think you are seeing there. Here is the whole screen grab of the 13:36:40:26. I believe you have your scale way off.
Bob, what do you have in the way of scale that proves my scale is off?
-
Well it seems to me the only way to see if there is actually something there, is to go back and take a good look. Maybe bring something up, to either verify, or deny.
It will probably depend ultimately on what the "preponderence of the evidence" shows. The "experts" will have to determine whether that standard has been met. But I don't represent TIGHAR, so it's their decision.
-
Tim, I'll go by an actual picture of the pilot's and co-pilot's side window. Your depiction is off, way off.
You should recognize that the picture you put up shows only the PILOT's windows (front, quarter, and side). In fact, there's the actual pilot! Copilots sit on the right in airplanes, and on the left in most helicopters. So your criticism is inapt.
-
Here are two more interesting details. Compare the unobscured part of the star to the photo of the logo on the tail of the airplane.
I don't have the tools to do this, but each of the Lockheed star's acute angles is 72 degrees. One with the tools might take a reading on the angle shown in the ROV image. JGF
-
I don't have the tools to do this, but each of the Lockheed star's acute angles is 72 degrees. One with the tools might take a reading on the angle shown in the ROV image. JGF
Good idea, John. But aren't the star points themselves only 36 degrees, and the obtuse angles between the points 108 degrees, adding up to 720 degrees divided by 2 circles = 360 degrees per circle? I admit to rusty geometry, but the points look sharper than 72 degrees, which is practically a right angle.
-
Myself I can't see anything I can say for sure what it is or where it came from at this time except for the clear wire or rope still's and that is pretty common item in use until we can pin point it down better..
I wait on offical announcement.
-
Good idea, John. But aren't the star points themselves only 36 degrees, and the obtuse angles between the points 108 degrees, adding up to 720 degrees divided by 2 circles = 360 degrees per circle? I admit to rusty geometry, but the points look sharper than 72 degrees, which is practically a right angle.
i'm clearly more rusty than you. given that resolution, someone drag out a compass!
-
Good idea, John. But aren't the star points themselves only 36 degrees, and the obtuse angles between the points 108 degrees, adding up to 720 degrees divided by 2 circles = 360 degrees per circle? I admit to rusty geometry, but the points look sharper than 72 degrees, which is practically a right angle.
I'm afraid I just can't see what you are talking about Tim - are you sure about those things? Honestly most of it seems just to be rocks and sand.
-
I can't see them either.
I have tried. Going well back to January of this year in the ROV Stills string (very long - and any who 'look' here ought to review that 115 pages or so). By example, here is an interesting thought by Richie from that time -
right have attached still pic u have to step back from ur screen an let ur eyes focus on it unless u can see it straight away :)
I'm not certain of the film segment but the picture he used was from the 2010 footage and somewhat altered in coloration for clarity of what he was trying to show us. It is the first of the three posted just below.
Just to demonstrate what we can 'see' when we 'try real hard', I've used the same photo and added some additional 'features' of 'the Electra' - which I believe are not really there at all (just MHO, of course), but to 'illustrate' how ideas can really take-off here. This is the second photo posted here.
Finally, there is a shot of about the same (or maybe exactly the same frame) in more 'normal' coloration - I think close to 'as-taken' - from reply #447 of the ROV Stills string by Richie (and I am not picking on Richie here - just using what I think are good examples of how this sea-floor stuff can raise hopes). This is the third of the three posted photos here.
It is apparent to me that no Electra lies there. YMMV of course, knock yourselves out - but I've learned that the mind and eye won't always agree with my 'desires' when I take pains to be carefully objective. Wish I could 'see' these things, but I just don't. And by the way, as near as I can tell, 'my Electra' in this photo would be mere inches across as best I can tell by the proximity of the rope, etc. - but of course YMMV here as well.
Just thoughts - and thought this return to an earlier exercise might be a bit enlightening. And maybe Ric was right back in January of this year when he told a bunch of us -
You guys are in Fantasy Land. Every shape becomes a man-made object. Every dark spot becomes a rivet hole. It's like the folks who find the Electra on Google Earth (daily and twice on Sundays). I want to find airplane debris in the ROV video as much as the next guy but I've learned (through bitter experience) that forensic imagery interpretation is best left to the professionals.
So I guess that's what the professional photogrammatry forensic experts are for.
-
So---I'll ask my question again---where do we go from here?
-
Just thoughts - and thought this return to an earlier exercise might be a bit enlightening. And maybe Ric was right back in January of this year when he told a bunch of us -
You guys are in Fantasy Land. Every shape becomes a man-made object. Every dark spot becomes a rivet hole. It's like the folks who find the Electra on Google Earth (daily and twice on Sundays). I want to find airplane debris in the ROV video as much as the next guy but I've learned (through bitter experience) that forensic imagery interpretation is best left to the professionals.
So I guess that's what the professional photogrammatry forensic experts are for.
Jeff, no-one is obliged to see anything, of course. But I think it not particularly fair to imply that those of us who are able to discern patterns are ditzo (and you, to your credit, haven't). Ric's opinion was rendered in January, before anyone had an opportunity to view the full 8.55 minute 2010 HD video. I have found over the past two months that recognizing patterns is a process that builds on itself. I might not have seen anything had not John Balderston presented the digits on the right wing segment. Once I saw that, I was encouraged to look further, and took the time to compare things that I saw with the precise Harney drawings. The more I looked, the more I saw, because I was able to build upon the fabric of the scenery in the video. Because so much debris is concentrated in such a small area, it stood to reason that almost everything I was looking at had some significance, whether large or small.
Ric's last word on the subject was that he reserves the right to change his mind. That is just as it should be. This is a voluntary effort, and no-one is insisting that anyone change their minds based on things that are presented. But I would hope that we could all keep minds as open as Ric. For my part, I am ready to be proven totally wrong about every single thing I have asserted. I ask only that people propose sensible alternatives to the location of the Electra and provide some visual backup to their assertions.
-
So---I'll ask my question again---where do we go from here?
1. Retire the debt from Niku VII.
2. Raise funds for Niku VIII--to find out what, if anything, is down there.
-
I Think we need to start identifying objects in 2012 video
Were we know Jeff an Ric have told us there is a debris field, What we should be doing is helping trying to prove it is Earhart's Electra.
I me that is have already been going over 2012 video's the HD ones and the Objects inspected video, And have found objects that don't appear to be rocks, boulders, stick's, rope etc .
I do believe that there is aircraft parts buried under the rubble in 2010 video an were only seeing outlines off them.
At the end of the day, The 2012 video's are the one's that are going to convince people to part with the dollar's s
Just my opinion likeeee :)
Thank's Richie
-
At the end of the day, The 2012 video's are the one's that are going to convince people to part with the dollar's s
Just my opinion likeeee :)
Thank's Richie
Richie, if you found the same antenna in the 2012 video as you found in the 2010 video, I might agree with you. So far as I know, not one single identifiable component of the Electra has been seen in the 2012. And it's been almost three months of looking (including many hours of my own time). I am hoping that consensus can be built around the 2010 "evidence" and that Jeff Glickman's opinions will act as a catalyst towards that end. Rushing out to get yet another peek, at his point, will not be productive until some consensus or another can be attained (IMHO).
-
Hi Tim
Man Made objects have been identified in 2012 video, by Ric and Jeff, i never said they were off the Electra i said let's see if we can prove that it is.
I have already posted some images of relay size boxes with wire attached to each one a couple weeks ago an will post some more later
Thank's Richie
-
Hi All
These images are from the objects inspected video, The wing tip image with light over laps the top of the suspected hull,
The second image is directly behind the poss hull piece.
White line brake hose to caliper.
Yellow circle wheel hub.
Red line wheel fork.
Pink lines twisted fender
This is what i see anyway, Not that it is for certain
-
In this image you can see light guide bent to side of light, I have put red round it.
Could just be a freak piece of coral but worth getting a second opinion
-
I was sent this pic by a friend of mine that follows the forum. Sunglasses?, or a bra? Very conspicuous being black against the white coral background.
Didnt see anything else, well yeah--looks like the tiny eyes of my grandson's white teddy bear. How did that get there?
-
Tom, I see a Polar Bear. Do they travel that far South?
-
Tom, I see a Polar Bear. Do they travel that far South?
You guys missed the pilot-side windows on the lower right of the photo. So there!
-
Bob--or travel north, depending on a Artic polar bear, or an Anartic polar bear
-
Wait a minute, Tom -
You should let us know the scale in order to determine the bra size.
-
oh snap-----thats going to be tough to do Bill---
-
I really can't find what some folks claim to see in that stuff. When I had a bit of a hunt through this site I found pics somewhere of the bits of the ship wreck underwater and they looked like bits of metal and things. But none of what people say looks like airplane parts is as clear as the ship parts. Is this because aluminum doesn't keep its shape as well.
-
I really can't find what some folks claim to see in that stuff. When I had a bit of a hunt through this site I found pics somewhere of the bits of the ship wreck underwater and they looked like bits of metal and things. But none of what people say looks like airplane parts is as clear as the ship parts. Is this because aluminum doesn't keep its shape as well.
Apparently the problem is that steel ship parts look like steel ship parts after being under water and on a reef for a bunch of years. Aluminum and airplane parts look like coral and marine growth after being under water and on the same reef for the same length of time.
-
Apparently the problem is that steel ship parts look like steel ship parts after being under water and on a reef for a bunch of years. Aluminum and airplane parts look like coral and marine growth after being under water and on the same reef for the same length of time.
Thank you Mr Roe, that answers my question. Funny how they turnout looking different. :)
-
Good evening fellow TIGHAR members,
So much discussion - really invigorating. I'm honestly counting the hours until the holiday break to secure the hours to fully catch up!
Those of us who find ourselves solidfying an opinion against Electra wreckage being present on the Niku reef slope - I respectfully request that we challenge ourselves to keep an open mind. We may yet find compelling evidence right here in the 2010 and 2012 ROV video.
Thanks to Richie, Tom, and Tim for continuing to push the boundaries of our thinking.
Very respectfully yours, John
-
Good evening fellow TIGHAR members,
So much discussion - really invigorating. I'm honestly counting the hours until the holiday break to secure the hours to fully catch up!
Those of us who find ourselves solidfying an opinion against Electra wreckage being present on the Niku reef slope - I respectfully request that we challenge ourselves to keep an open mind. We may yet find compelling evidence right here in the 2010 and 2012 ROV video.
Thanks to Richie, Tom, and Tim for continuing to push the boundaries of our thinking.
Very respectfully yours, John
Look John I'm sorry to disappoint you after all that hard work but you're going to have to point those things out to me. I can't see anything but rocks and and old length of cable or rope.
-
I really can't find what some folks claim to see in that stuff. When I had a bit of a hunt through this site I found pics somewhere of the bits of the ship wreck underwater and they looked like bits of metal and things. But none of what people say looks like airplane parts is as clear as the ship parts. Is this because aluminum doesn't keep its shape as well.
Apparently the problem is that steel ship parts look like steel ship parts after being under water and on a reef for a bunch of years. Aluminum and airplane parts look like coral and marine growth after being under water and on the same reef for the same length of time.
Not necessarily Bill, Iron and steel are biologically active and harmful to coral. Aluminum is also but not as much so. Look at the TBD.
http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/63_DebrisField/63_DebrisField.htm
-
Good evening fellow TIGHAR members,
So much discussion - really invigorating. I'm honestly counting the hours until the holiday break to secure the hours to fully catch up!
Those of us who find ourselves solidfying an opinion against Electra wreckage being present on the Niku reef slope - I respectfully request that we challenge ourselves to keep an open mind. We may yet find compelling evidence right here in the 2010 and 2012 ROV video.
Thanks to Richie, Tom, and Tim for continuing to push the boundaries of our thinking.
Very respectfully yours, John
75 years of coral growth and precipitating
sediment and obscures airframe details
“Rope” is the dorsal antenna”
John and with all respect as well, please explain why the dorsal antenna would survive and be on top of all that coral after 75 years. The dorsal antenna was made of solid core copper clad steel and would have corroded and rusted away long ago and at the very least covered in coral. That is not a dorsal antenna and has not been there for 75 years. It is a much more recent object, cable or rope.
-
Bob--or travel north, depending on a Artic polar bear, or an Anartic polar bear
Tom there are no Antartic Polar Bears, they only live in the northern hemesphere (except for Zoo's) :)
-
Bob--or travel north, depending on a Artic polar bear, or an Anartic polar bear
Tom there are no Antartic Polar Bears, they only live in the northern hemesphere (except for Zoo's) :)
Those southern Polar bears sound a bit like the bits of airplane people are claiming to see in those rocks. ;D
-
I didnt know that Chris. Really! I was trying to break the tension with the reply to Bob's question. But , I really didnt know that about polar bears.
Dan---I have to admit, I have only seen 1 item in ALL the videos and stills, and even that is somewhat suspect. A good friend of mine on this forum says I've been working too hard and need a vacation. Thats true for sure!. Either way, we both could be right. But, I doubt that we will find out if I'm right. He, on the other hand is definately right!
-
Tom,
yep Polar Bears are Artic and Penguines are Antartic (so all those cute Christmas Cards with Penguins at the North Pole are bogus).
-
Could just be a freak piece of coral but worth getting a second opinion
Richie, would you please be kind enough to provide the link to this "object video". That picture is new to me. Thanks.
-
Chris ---I'm a warm weather guy! Niku? Maybe a little too warm.
-
Its on the main discussion page under object inspected
-
Hi All
These images are from the objects inspected video, The wing tip image with light over laps the top of the suspected hull,
The second image is directly behind the poss hull piece.
Thanks for the pointer, Richie.
These are without doubt pictures of the Norwich City (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFgckA9DuNk&feature=youtu.be). I saw all of this in real time, and was the one who first thought the sonar scan showed a section of wing. Up close, of course, it turned out to be a section of bulkhead or part of a hatch cover.
-
The dorsal antenna was made of solid core copper clad steel and would have corroded and rusted away long ago and at the very least covered in coral.
How do you know what the dorsal antenna was made of? Cite your source.
-
The dorsal antenna was made of solid core copper clad steel and would have corroded and rusted away long ago and at the very least covered in coral.
How do you know what the dorsal antenna was made of? Cite your source.
Sorry Ric, the "Dog" ate my homework. In other words I since have deleted my browsing history when I looked that up. I started here: http://tighar.org/wiki/NR16020_antennas#Length_of_dorsal_antenna and worked my way back and found that HF antennas of that era were made of solid core copper clad steel. My point was, whatever that antenna was made of would not have been sitting on top of that coral debris after 75 years as intimated, when no other surviving part has been found. I will defer to your source as to the makeup of that antenna and gladly retract my comment.
-
Remember -- wooden ships were clad with copper to prevent marine growth. Some types of anti-fouling paint still contain copper. If steel is copper clad, then it may well survive 75 yrs in tropical sea water. And marine growth on it will be relatively thin.
-
I will defer to your source as to the makeup of that antenna and gladly retract my comment.
I don't know what the dorsal antenna was made of. You may be right. It was probably standard HF antenna wire for that time, but in the absence of documentation we can't state that as a fact as you did.
-
Remember -- wooden ships were clad with copper to prevent marine growth. Some types of anti-fouling paint still contain copper. If steel is copper clad, then it may well survive 75 yrs in tropical sea water. And marine growth on it will be relatively thin.
On the surface of course, but not at the depth they think the Electra debris is and where coral thrives.
-
I will defer to your source as to the makeup of that antenna and gladly retract my comment.
I don't know what the dorsal antenna was made of. You may be right. It was probably standard HF antenna wire for that time, but in the absence of documentation we can't state that as a fact as you did.
You are right of course Ric, I should have stated 'that from what I have found and in my opinion".
Mea Culpa
-
Jeff, no-one is obliged to see anything, of course. But I think it not particularly fair to imply that those of us who are able to discern patterns are ditzo (and you, to your credit, haven't).
Au contrare, Tim - while of course no one is 'obligated', I in no way mean to imply that anyone is 'ditzo' - and more to the point, that ANY of us are able to discern patterns'. I certainly have done so - peruse the 'ROV Stills' string to see for yourself if you like, and I've done so again here for the sake of illustration.
Ric's opinion was rendered in January, before anyone had an opportunity to view the full 8.55 minute 2010 HD video.
And further to that point quite a few of us have been at this same exercise for many more months than some others, now arriving. As to Ric's point, it seems to remain valid, but if you place yourself in that category (of professional analyst) far be it from me to quarrel. Knock yourself out.
I have found over the past two months that recognizing patterns is a process that builds on itself. I might not have seen anything had not John Balderston presented the digits on the right wing segment. Once I saw that, I was encouraged to look further, and took the time to compare things that I saw with the precise Harney drawings. The more I looked, the more I saw, because I was able to build upon the fabric of the scenery in the video. Because so much debris is concentrated in such a small area, it stood to reason that almost everything I was looking at had some significance, whether large or small.
Ric's last word on the subject was that he reserves the right to change his mind. That is just as it should be. This is a voluntary effort, and no-one is insisting that anyone change their minds based on things that are presented. But I would hope that we could all keep minds as open as Ric. For my part, I am ready to be proven totally wrong about every single thing I have asserted. I ask only that people propose sensible alternatives to the location of the Electra and provide some visual backup to their assertions.
I certainly agree that this phenomenon seems to build on itself; we all 'reserve the right' to change our minds, I'm sure, unless I've missed some rule of TIGHAR's that requires otherwise. So far I have extreme doubts that any of the 'things' now written of will do that for me, but time will tell if these things are pursued to the bitter end, I'm sure. All MHO, of course; YMMV.
Happy Thanksgiving -
-
Glad to have Jeff home safe and sound!
-
I believe the frame presented here shows the directional gyro control box (Harney instrument #9), which was attached above the front of the pilot's sliding side window, as well as one of the three fuselage fuel selectors, which were located just undeneath the front of the co-pilot's seat.
-
Forgive me Tim -
But I just don't see that stuff. For one reason it appears that we are looking through a cloud of dust/silt/debris created from maneuvering the machine close to the bottom. For another there is nothing clearly defined except natural formations.
I will observe that the roundish thing could be a canteen. Canteens back in that day were round and flatish like two concave dinner plates put together.
-
The two engines are mere meters away from one another on the slope, in my opinion. Both are oriented the same way: pointed downhill.
-
I will observe that the roundish thing could be a canteen. Canteens back in that day were round and flatish like two concave dinner plates put together.
Could be. Was there a canteen listed in any inventory?
Is that an upside-down glass sitting on the far edge of the canteen?
-
I will observe that the roundish thing could be a canteen. Canteens back in that day were round and flatish like two concave dinner plates put together.
Could be. Was there a canteen listed in any inventory?
Is that an upside-down glass sitting on the far edge of the canteen?
They'd be nuts not to carry a canteen or two.
If that's a glass, maybe it wasn't water in the canteen? LOL
-
Maybe it's just rock and sediment.
Somehow the suggestion of 'the rope' along where the 'engines' lie suggests to me that scale may be off by several degrees of magnitude. I don't see the 'shape' of 'engines' in this.
-
Somehow the suggestion of 'the rope' along where the 'engines' lie suggests to me that scale may be off by several degrees of magnitude. I don't see the 'shape' of 'engines' in this.
.
The shape is like a barrel on its side. But I think you have a valid point about scale when size is compared to the ("alleged") antenna cable. Perhaps this could be a starter-generator. Does anyone have a picture of one to compare?
:)
-
How many times should we argue about whether there is any aircraft debris in the underwater video taken during the Niku VI expedition? Jeff Glickman has said he can't find anything in the 2010 underwater video that he can identify as aircraft debris (e.g. engines, propellers, pilot's seat, vertical stabilizers). When the debris field spotted by Glickman in the Niku VII underwater video is retrieved during the forthcoming Niku VIII expedition, the rope seen in the wire and rope video should be taken out of the water so that no one mistakes it for a two-bladed propeller.
-
This view, at the very beginning of the 8.55 minute 2010 HD video, shows that the line has worn a channel into the surface. Since coral is quite abraisive, I think this means that the line is actually a metal cable and not a rope. The tensions of the shifting wreckage at each end of the cable, I think, have caused the cable to wear this channel into the surface.
-
Jeff Glickman has said he can't find anything in the 2010 underwater video that he can identify as aircraft debris (e.g. engines, propellers, pilot's seat, vertical stabilizers).
This line of reasoning is becoming tiresome. So what?
As I have repeated (ad nauseum) we don't know when, or how much time Jeff Glickman spent looking at the 2010 video. We don't know whether he saw the full 8.55 minutes, or only the abridged 2 minute version. We don't know whether Jeff Glickman has familiarity with aircraft construction. We don't know whether Jeff Glickman has experience looking at underwater environments. We assume Jeff Glickman has no conflict of interest.
We have not heard of any particular component of an airplane that Jeff Glickman (or anyone else, for that matter) has identified from the 2012 HD video, which has been viewed over the course of more than three months now. We have no reason to believe that the 2010 and 2012 debris fields are mutually exclusive with respect to Electra wreckage. Both areas videoed are presumably just West of the "Nessie" feature, although we don't know the exact location of either, or their geographic relationship to each other (except that 2012 appears to be in shallower water than 2010).
Reasonable people have shown what they honestly believe is evidence of Electra components in the 2010 video. If you don't agree, or think it's all coral and rocks, fine. But if the quest is to find the answer to where was the final landing place of NR16020, then I think everyone should keep an open mind and not rush to judgement. You are quite free to point out anything that you think might help us arrive at this goal.
-
Mr. Mellon, I see a lot of WE in your comment. Would you kindly inform us of who "we" is? It appears that you have no confidence in Jeff Glickman nor his ability to evaluate HD Video yet you have "ad nauseum" (your words) for months now posted many of your interpretations. Jeff Glickman unnecessarily posted his CV, IMO, so where is yours, and what is your expertise in evaluating these videos? Last but not least what is your interest in finding the Electra aside from the financial assistance you apparently have provided TIGHAR or, are you just trying to protect your investment?
Royal WE, Bob. "I", if you prefer.
Jeff Glickman obviously cannot pass judgement on anything he has not yet seen, wouldn't you agree?
My investment was in finding the truth. My interest in finding the Electra relates to the fact that Amelia Earhart worked for my company, Boston and Maine Railroad. With two partners, she helped form Boston Maine Airways, which was a joint venture between Boston and Maine Railroad and Maine Central Railway. Both of these railroads are now subsidiaries of Pan American Railways, itself a subsidiary of Pan Am Systems. I am the Chariman and CEO of Pan Am Systems. Fred Noonan worked for Pan American World Airlines, another subsidiary. In addition, our company built two buildings of condominiums on an unused rail yard in Cambridge, Massachusetts, part of Northpoint. Both buildings have addresses on Earhart Street, a name which we suggested to the Cambridge City Planning Board.
Like most others here, I claim absolutely no expertise. But I do have two good eyes, and I report what I think I can see. I do have the experience of watching underwater video for nine days in July. And you?
-
Mr. Mellon did not make an investment. You can't "invest" in a non-profit. Mr. Mellon made a significant financial contribution to the Niku VII expedition. All he got for his money was a boat ride, a tax deduction, and whatever benefit there may be to him personally in being part of this historic investigation. I am grateful for his contribution as I am for all contributions toward TIGHAR's work. I don't know whether the things Tim sees in the videos are what he thinks they are, but I also know that I'm not qualified to judge. That's why I asked Jeff if he would meet with Tim. Jeff graciously agreed. No money will change hands. This meeting is a courtesy that TIGHAR and Jeff Glickman are extending to Tim Mellon in recognition of his past support and continued interest in the project.
Their meeting is only a little over two weeks away and this thread is no longer accomplishing anything meaningful.
This thread is now locked. We can all look forward to Tim opening a new thread after his meeting with Jeff to tell us how it went.