TIGHAR
Amelia Earhart Search Forum => General discussion => Topic started by: Gloria Walker Burger on June 20, 2013, 08:06:38 PM
-
I wonder if, among the MANY misses in the Earhart search, the dot in the top, far, right corner of the Lambrecht photo is an image of a missed flare sent up by AE. I looked on Youtube and saw that some videos of flares could be consistent with this image. Is there a way to determine how high this dot is? Is it possible that a Mark III signal pistol, like the one that was with AE on the Luke Field flight, could send off a flare that high?
(http://tighar.org/images/lambrecht.jpg)
Erik wrote on the thread:
Re: FAQ: Colorado / Lambrecht Search, 9 July 1937
« Reply #10 on: July 26, 2010, 08:58:21 AM »
PS = Did you happen to notice the small 'dot' at the far top-right corner of the island in the original photo? Too far away from Norwich City and awfully close to Nessis. It appears to be just offshore and not part of the island. Interesting and coincidental...
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4116/4830382389_21fb6d6fec_t.jpg)
I had noticed this dot, too and was glad that someone else mentioned it. I thought back of the Bevington photo sitting around so long without anyone noticing the Bevington Object. Is it possible that the Lambrecht photo has sat around even longer without anyone noticing this?
-
Why would a flare show up as a black dot? Besides, if I recall correctly, she supposedly left the flare gun in Lae. Those flare pistols are heavy.
-
Why would a flare show up as a black dot?
I thought it showed up as a black dot because it was a black and white photo.
if I recall correctly, she supposedly left the flare gun in Lae
Do you recall where that info is? The only thing I ever saw was in the Site Map under 'Forum FAQ's' in 'Floating Electra' it said:
The flare gun was aboard but there is an account that she left it in Lae.
Where is that account?
Thanks.
-
Do you recall where that info is? The only thing I ever saw was in the Site Map under 'Forum FAQ's' in 'Floating Electra' it said:
The flare gun was aboard but there is an account that she left it in Lae.
Where is that account?
I don't remember. Can somebody help us out?
-
Is this it?
http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,985.0.html (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,985.0.html)
-
Is this it?
http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,985.0.html (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,985.0.html)
Yeah. Trouble is, it's an anecdotal recollection so we have no way of knowing whether he's remembering correctly. And, of course, he says "pistol and ammunition," not specifically "flare pistol and flares."
In any case, it's hard to believe that the all six crew members of the Colorado's aircraft missed a flare, especially if the cameraman was looking right at it.
-
That's right, it's pretty difficult to miss a flare even in daylight plus, we have no idea of their location on the island at the time of the overflight. But it has been postulated in another thread that they might have expected any rescue/search to come from the sea, not the air, so were caught unprepared when the overflight arrived.
-
Ummm, as someone who has tried to take black and white pictures of aerial fireworks in the bright sunlight (as Ric would say, I don't wanna' talk about it), I can safely say that something like an aerial flare would not show up as a black dot on the actual print. It might show up as a black dot on the negative, but on the actual print, it would be white or light-colored. And even given that there is a contrasting background, it still looks like just a glitch on the 70-odd year-old print. To me at least. I leave more definitive diagnosis to Jeff Glickman.
Also, FWIW, aerial flares, on bright, sunny days, don't show up all that well. It's a little better on cloudy days, as it was in this photo, but not really that much. Flares are for nighttime survivor-finding. During the day you want either smoke or a mirror, which produces a much brighter flash.
LTM, who takes care with who he flashes,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 CER
-
Monty Fowler wrote:
as someone who has tried to take black and white pictures of aerial fireworks in the bright sunlight (as Ric would say, I don't wanna' talk about it), I can safely say that something like an aerial flare would not show up as a black dot on the actual print
When I looked at this video of a parachute flare demonstration in the daylight, I wondered what a RED flare would show up as in a black and white photo. Isn't it possible it might show up as black or gray? In the video, the flare goes off at about 5:40. At about 6:40, you can see the parachute which looks exactly like the dot in the Lambrecht photo! I looked up in Wikipedia and found some Very Pistols had parachutes in them.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WBMhY_TJOFM&NR=1&feature=endscreen
Ric wrote:
In any case, it's hard to believe that the all six crew members of the Colorado's aircraft missed a flare, especially if the cameraman was looking right at it.
As Ric has pointed out numerous times, we weren't there and we don't know what people at that time were thinking or doing or looking at. It certainly is possible that the flare was white and barely viewable, then when it turned red the photo was snapped and the photographer looked away. The same scenario could work with a parachute. Also, if the planes were flying away from the island when AE shot off her flare, maybe that's why no one else on the planes saw it. Also if the photographer was looking elsewhere, focusing on another aspect of the island, snapped the shot then turned around and the plane left, he could have missed the whole thing. So many people think AE would have done something when the planes were overhead (though again we don't know what her situation was at the time)...well, maybe this was her 'something'.
Unfortunately we'll never know for sure.
(Is Jeff Glickman too busy to take a look at this?)
-
Ummm ... it's still going to show up as a light/white dot in a black and white photo.
LTM, who spent way too much time in the darkroom,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 CER
-
OK, Monty, you have me convinced about the light on the flare. I'm not quite ready to give up on this yet...what about a parachute on the flare? Is the dot too big for that?
-
I think it is, yes, but that is really a Jeff Glickman question.
LTM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 CER
-
A member has messaged me asking about the size of the emergency signalling kite that Earhart & Noonan may have carried with them on the Electra. This is an image below from The Wichita Eagle website photo archive (the man on the left of the picture is Eugene Vidal):
(http://media.kansas.com/smedia/2009/10/22/12/AP370306035.slideshow_main.prod_affiliate.80.jpg)
Having viewed the Lambrecht photo in different lighting contrasts and angles, I've come to the conclusion it is an artefact of the imaging process rather than a flare or kite. You're welcome to disagree. :)
The man in your photo looks more like George P. Putnam, AE's husband. See photos below.
Number 1, Eugene Vidal and AE.
Number 2, George P. Putnam and AE.
-
You're welcome and welcome to the Forum. :)
-
I've come to the conclusion it is an artefact of the imaging process rather than a flare or kite. You're welcome to disagree. :)
I agree. I looked at this dot (possible kite) in the Lambrecht photo in post 24 of the Possible SOS on NC thread (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,689.15.html) and came to the same conclusion. I think the dot is too big and the wind direction questionable.
-
Paul Parsons wrote:
the earlier orthochromatic films were sensitive to blue and maybe green light only. Thus features reflecting light at the blue/green end of the spectrum will appear "light", while features reflecting light at the yellow/red end of the spectrum will appear "dark". The later panchromatic films were sensitive to all light, and thus more closely matched the spectral sensitivity of the human eye. The switch from orthochromatic film to panchromatic film seemingly occurred between the 1920s and 1940s.
Monty, does this change anything??
-
Monty, does this change anything??
I mean if AE sent up a "red" flare?
-
Paul Parsons wrote in "1938 Aerial Photos" posting:
If the black and white film was orthochromatic then yes: red light will not affect the photographic emulsion and will thus appear dark on the resulting print.
This is so interesting! I wonder, though, if the dot is still too big to be a flare or a kite...We need Jeff Glickman to look at it and see whether it is an "artifact of the image process" or a real picture of something. And he is so busy...
-
I'm sorry, Gloria, but for me it doesn't. Maybe it IS a flare, but if it is, it's an awfully, awfully big one. Think Fourth of July "mortar" style fireworks, not something coming out of a Very pistol (which used shells not much bigger than a 12-gauge shotgun shell).
I am not a photo expert. Jeff Glickman is, and right now he has other things to devote his considerable attentions to. My suspicion is that the "dot" is nothing more than either a) A glitch in the developing process, b) Crud on the negative (ask me how I know after years in a newsroom darkroom) or c) A fault on the photographic paper (much less common but known to happen).
LTM, who lets things develop naturally,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 CER
-
Thanks, Monty. I'm starting to think your suspicions may be right (notice I do just say 'may').
By the way, love your "sign-offs"!