TIGHAR

Amelia Earhart Search Forum => Alternate Lines of Inquiry => Topic started by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on December 08, 2012, 09:21:56 PM

Title: Possible Rope video (2012)
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on December 08, 2012, 09:21:56 PM
New YouTube upload (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8zb1GOC2G4&feature=plcp) on the TIGHAR channel.
Title: Re: Possible Rope video (2012)
Post by: Chris Johnson on December 09, 2012, 02:34:22 AM
Thanks Marty,

Only had a quick view but interesting to note that the ‘rope’ doesn’t look or act like the whip (rope) coral in the video.  It remains static like it’s either heavier than the coral or lodged/snagged.

In the last 30 secs or so when there is the blizzard you  can see some whip (rope) coral floating free and earlier you can see it move.

Look very similar to the ‘rope’ from 2010?
Title: Re: Possible Rope video (2012)
Post by: richie conroy on December 09, 2012, 03:02:25 AM
Hi All

In my opinion the wire is man made, What it's from is the question ?

Just thought i would add this link as some of these pictures i have never seen  :)


http://www.etsy.com/listing/48315250/rare-photos-of-amelia-earhart-and-the
Title: Re: Possible Rope video (2012)
Post by: Tim Mellon on December 09, 2012, 08:22:26 AM
Since I was the one who asked Ric to post this footage, I had better explain:

Yesterday I was reviewing Bulletin #63 regarding the Niku VII expedition. I noticed in the table of "Found Objects"  (no longer there) that the first item was called "Cable/Wire". Since its position was more or less directly West from Nessie, and near the 250 meter contour (i.e. about 800 feet deep), I thought there might be some likelihood that it lay close to what appears in the 2010 "entire" video. So I asked Ric if he could post some 2012 footage that showed this particular item.

When I looked at the two frames he sent, the terrain immediately looked familiar. I was able to produce a similar frame from 2010 showing similar details. Once the 5 minute "Possible Rope" was posted just before midnight EST, I was able to recognize that the Site labeled #1 in the Found Objects was, in reality, the same area corresponding to the uphill portion of the 2010 "entire" debris site.

I have attached a "panoramic" view of the area, looking "downhill", as well as frames showing particular components.

CORRECTION:  I have removed the picture of what I thought might be a propeller. When I viewed this brief portion of the video on Jeff Glickman's High Definition screen, it became immediately apparent to me that the "propeller" was not actually attached to the "engine", and that the "engine" itself was likely something else, and perhaps a rock.
Title: Re: Possible Rope video (2012)
Post by: Chris Johnson on December 09, 2012, 10:00:29 AM
Cheers Tim,

thought it looked familier.  Have you got a better image of the prop?
Title: Re: Possible Rope video (2012)
Post by: Tim Mellon on December 09, 2012, 10:39:49 AM
  Have you got a better image of the prop?

No, Chris, unfortunately it was up in the far left hand corner, and only for about 2 seconds. Maybe if Ric has more footage, before and after, a better glance might be had.
Title: Re: Possible Rope video (2012)
Post by: Ric Gillespie on December 10, 2012, 08:21:18 AM
I noticed in the table of "Found Objects"  (no longer there) that the first item was called "Cable/Wire".

To be clear - the table of Objects Found provided by Phoenix International is still there in Research Bulletin #63 titled Debris Field Analysis (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/65_DebrisFieldAnalysis/65_DebrisFieldAnalysis.html). The first item is labeled "Rope/Cable.
The object was seen during Dive 3 on 7/14/12.  The Phoenix Dive Log for that day is included below.  Note that at 2315 the log records "possible cable/wire sighted at 980' (identified as whip coral)". I don't know who identified it as whip coral. We did not have a marine biologist aboard KOK.

Is this the same place seen in the 2010 video?  In 2010 the ROV had a maximum tether length of 300 meters (984 feet) but you can't really go that deep because you have to have some slack in the tether.  The rope-like object seen in the 2010 video was at about 800 feet.  That depth was possible with the 984 foot tether.  The rope-like object in the 2012 video is at 980 feet - only four feet shorter than the 2010 tether length. I don't think the ROV could get to that place in 2010.
Title: Re: Possible Rope video (2012)
Post by: Tim Mellon on December 10, 2012, 11:42:10 AM
Thanks for restoring the tables. Maybe I was looking at a different version of Bulletin #63.

I don't see any depth indication on the HD video like there was on the SD. So maybe Phoenix was refering to a different piece of wire at another point on the dive #3, which went all the way down to about 360 meters. My trust in Pheonix is on a very short tether.

Update: the depth of #1 in Objects Found is 284.9 meters, about 935 feet, which is within the scope of the 2010 tether by 50 feet.

Since both the landing gear assembly and the WC vent pieces are common to both 2010 and 2012 videos, I'm pretty sure this is the same place.
Title: Re: Possible Rope video (2012)
Post by: Tim Mellon on December 17, 2012, 03:50:19 AM
A close comparison of the Phoenix table and chart of Objects Found with the track of ROV dive #3 shows that Object #1 lies at the intersection of the 300 meter contour with the dive track. Since we have seen in "Summary of Debris" that this Object may also have been seen at the top of the 2010 debris field, it may be reasonable to assume that other items of interest might be found at greater depths along the track of the ROV dive #3.

Ric, I therefore respectfully request that additional HD footage be made available showing, say, the next deeper 20 meters along this track, both descending and ascending.                               
Title: Re: Possible Rope video (2012)
Post by: Jeff Victor Hayden on December 17, 2012, 10:08:23 AM
Sounds logical Tim. Any wreckage is likely to take the route of least resistance when sliding down the side of a seamount i.e. a fairly direct route from the top to the bottom, grooves and ledges permitting.
There are a couple of similarities with this footage and the 2010, not the same but, a similar formation and pattern of 'coral/objects' as in 2010. Plus something really strange amidst the blizzard apart from the snowfall that is, well, it's nearly Christmas.
Title: Re: Possible Rope video (2012)
Post by: Ric Gillespie on December 17, 2012, 10:24:44 AM
I'd like to propose an experiment.  How about if I put up on the TIGHAR Youtube channel, several video clips of 2012 HD footage, each at least one minute long?  Some of the clips will be from the area where some see airplane wreckage and human remains.  Other clips will be from nowhere near there - but only I will know which is which.  It should be interesting to see who sees what and where.
Title: Re: Possible Rope video (2012)
Post by: Tom Swearengen on December 17, 2012, 10:43:35 AM
that sounds fair
Title: Re: Possible Rope video (2012)
Post by: Lauren Palmer on December 17, 2012, 11:04:39 AM
All this talk about whether objects are coral or coral-covered plane parts is very interesting, but I keep thinking we're forgetting what we discovered Way Back When -- When the settlers arrived, they found enough plane parts ABOVE WATER/ON-SHORE to state that there was an airplane wreck on Gardner, NOT that there was a lot of flotsam that could have floated in from somewhere else.  They claim to have made many items from the wreckage, so there may not be a big-enough segment in the ocean ever to identify which plane crashed.  I think it's important to keep trying to view the underwater slopes, though, and I wish I had a lot of money to contribute.
On a side note, my ex-husband was a pilot and took me on several plane trips, and was very upset that I could not recognize items on the ground.  I find it very understandable that the rescue plane could fly over the island and see no-one signaling him, and assume that all the mess he saw was from the ship.  (He got upset at everything, which is why we are divorced!) ;D
Title: Re: Possible Rope video (2012)
Post by: Ric Gillespie on December 17, 2012, 12:01:35 PM
I keep thinking we're forgetting what we discovered Way Back When -- When the settlers arrived, they found enough plane parts ABOVE WATER/ON-SHORE to state that there was an airplane wreck on Gardner, NOT that there was a lot of flotsam that could have floated in from somewhere else.  They claim to have made many items from the wreckage, so there may not be a big-enough segment in the ocean ever to identify which plane crashed.

People forget a lot of things, but if the many accounts of there being an aircraft wreck already present when the first settlers arrived are true, there is only one aircraft it could possibly be.
Title: Re: Possible Rope video (2012)
Post by: Ric Gillespie on December 17, 2012, 12:14:40 PM
Does kinda narrow it down, doesn't it?

You pays your money and you takes your choice.  Either the multiple independent anecdotal accounts of a "downed plane" that was already there are all bogus - or - the Earhart Electra is the "downed plane" of
Title: Re: Possible Rope video (2012)
Post by: Jeff Victor Hayden on December 17, 2012, 01:44:47 PM
I'd like to propose an experiment.  How about if I put up on the TIGHAR Youtube channel, several video clips of 2012 HD footage, each at least one minute long?  Some of the clips will be from the area where some see airplane wreckage and human remains.  Other clips will be from nowhere near there - but only I will know which is which.  It should be interesting to see who sees what and where.

I think the clue to the problem is in this 5 minute clip. The amount of coral residue kicked up by the thrusters and the subsequent White out gives us some idea of what the conditions are like down there.
Title: Re: Possible Rope video (2012)
Post by: Tim Mellon on December 17, 2012, 01:50:03 PM
I'd like to propose an experiment.

I like the idea of this experiment.

But I'd also like to see the 20 meters of territory below where the ROV was in the 5.5 minute 2012 clip, because I feel very strongly that there is a high liklihood of duplicating findings from the 2010 "entire" HD video.

Hope we can do both.

Title: Re: Possible Rope video (2012)
Post by: Tim Mellon on December 17, 2012, 01:54:05 PM
the many accounts of there being an aircraft wreck already present when the first settlers arrived are true, there is only one aircraft it could possibly be.

Ric, have you by any chance catalogued these various accounts? I only remember Emily, the girl who later moved to Fiji (not Tarawa, sorry). Are there any others that are not just hearsay?
Title: Re: Possible Rope video (2012)
Post by: Tom Swearengen on December 17, 2012, 02:17:42 PM
"Only one plane makes sense to me.

I can see 'junk' being dragged in after those folks were there and trading with others here and there, if that was happening - but to find it when they arrived... hmmm.  Does kinda narrow it down, doesn't it?"

Only one we 'know ' about.  ;D I hate being the stick in the mud here, but until we raise an identifyible part of this wreckage that is 'seen', we cant say its NR16020. Sorry. We can hope and believe it is.Tom
Title: Re: Possible Rope video (2012)
Post by: Tom Swearengen on December 17, 2012, 04:46:33 PM
Hey Jeff----i'm all for hoping the the wreckage is the electra. But, this is a scientific investigation, and so I'm trying to be scientific. Gee----I wonder if Malcolm would approve of that?!
Tom
Title: Re: Possible Rope video (2012)
Post by: Ric Gillespie on December 17, 2012, 09:44:11 PM
I like the idea of this experiment.

But I'd also like to see the 20 meters of territory below where the ROV was in the 5.5 minute 2012 clip, because I feel very strongly that there is a high liklihood of duplicating findings from the 2010 "entire" HD video.

Hope we can do both.

I would make the 20 meters of territory below where the ROV was in the 5.5 minute 2012 clip one of the several clips.  If the findings from the 2010 video really can be duplicated you should have no trouble identifying the proper clip.  If you duplicate the 2010 findings in a clip that was taken hundreds of meters away you may need to re-evaluate your findings.
Title: Re: Possible Rope video (2012)
Post by: Michael Elliot on December 17, 2012, 10:36:57 PM
FYI, in an L-10,
Cable size info:
Elevator is 5/32 or 3/16
Aileron is 1/8
Trim is 1/16 or 3/32.
Cables are galvanized steel. End fittings are stainless steel with brass turnbuckles.
Cables have 7 bundles of 19 strands twisted together to make 1 cable. This is called a 7x19 cable.

Source: Crew chief on a Survivor, date 16 Dec 2012.

In a related pic from another Survivor, I see that the cables are right laid (meaning that when you look along a cable, assume the direction is North, then the bundles of fibers appear to run from SW to NE)

Chains are also used in flap controls. Seeking more info on materials used for chains, and coatings if any. More later.


Title: Re: Possible Rope video (2012)
Post by: Michael Elliot on December 17, 2012, 11:32:18 PM
Pictures of L-10 control cables.
These are from CF-TCA,  c/n 1112,  in NAM, Ottawa ONT, CAN.
Pics taken by an Air Canada pilot with 500+ hrs in L-10s who wishes to remain anon. for now. Posted to TIGHAR Forum with permission.
Compare these with ropes/cables in the videos.


Title: Re: Possible Rope video (2012)
Post by: John Joseph Barrett on December 18, 2012, 05:09:35 AM
Michael,   Thanks for the info and photos. Do you know/can you find out if there are any fittings on bulkheads, etc where the cables to pass through? Something to keep the cables from chafing and wearing either the cable or the structure as the cables move?  Thanks.  LTM- John
Title: Re: Possible Rope video (2012)
Post by: Ric Gillespie on December 18, 2012, 10:55:06 AM
the many accounts of there being an aircraft wreck already present when the first settlers arrived are true, there is only one aircraft it could possibly be.

Ric, have you by any chance catalogued these various accounts? I only remember Emily, the girl who later moved to Tarawa. Are there any others that are not just hearsay?

There are at least five.
- Emily Sikuli, who moved to Fiji in November 1941,  twice saw what her father told her was aircraft wreckage on the reef north of Norwich City in 1940/41.
- PBY pilot John Mims saw the locals using heavy duty fishing tackle made from aircraft aluminum and an aircraft control cable in late 1944/ early '45.  Mims knew there were no aircraft missing in the area. When he asked one of the guys where they got the stuff he was told by his informant there was an airplane wreck there when he arrived in 1941.  Mims asked where the wreck was now.  The guy just shrugged. Mims later traded for small carved wooded boxes and model canoes that had little diamond and heart shaped metal inlays.  He was told that the metal came from "the downed plane."  We had one of the inlays tested by the NTSB Lab.  It's aircraft grade 24ST ALCLAD.
- A year later, Coast Guardsman Glen Geisinger also traded with the locals for carved boxes with inlays he was told were from "the downed plane" that was once somewhere on the island.
- In the late 1950s, Tapania Taeke saw "part of a wing" on the reef near the main lagoon passage and "airplane parts" washed up on the beach.
- Her father, island school teacher Pulekai Songivalu, saw airplane wreckage washed up on the lagoon shore opposite the main passage.

When Gary Quigg's team interviewed former Nikumaroro residents in the Solomon Island's in the summer of 2011 he also ran into people who knew the legend of the downed plane.  I don't have the specific at hand.  We're still pulling together the many hours of interviews done on that trip.
Title: Re: Possible Rope video (2012)
Post by: Michael Elliot on December 18, 2012, 11:36:52 AM
John,
Cannot say for sure.
Appended shows elevator cable inside CF-TCA. It appears to pass through holes and is supported by sheaves. Fittings are possible where direction is straight through. I expect that the aileron cable may pass through a fitting where the outer wing joins the inner, but it could be just a couple of holes. Anywhere there is a change in direction, sheaves are likely.
My experience in other aircraft from the 1940s indicates most are holes and sheaves.
Am working to get copies of a large batch of photos from a rebuild. They may shed some light on the topic. Will let you know when I see them.
Ric also mentioned TIGHAR has many photos of rebuilding. I don't know if they're accessible to the Forum.
Anyway, cables, and their fittings are of interest because they're mostly made of, or coated with materials that will resist marine growth.
Title: Re: Possible Rope video (2012)
Post by: Ric Gillespie on December 18, 2012, 12:06:49 PM
This is a control cable from New England Air Museum's c/n 1052 we photographed when it was being rebuilt.  Unfortunately there's no scale in the photo.
Title: Re: Possible Rope video (2012)
Post by: JNev on December 18, 2012, 01:29:53 PM
John,
Cannot say for sure.
Appended shows elevator cable inside CF-TCA. It appears to pass through holes and is supported by sheaves. Fittings are possible where direction is straight through. I expect that the aileron cable may pass through a fitting where the outer wing joins the inner, but it could be just a couple of holes. Anywhere there is a change in direction, sheaves are likely.
My experience in other aircraft from the 1940s indicates most are holes and sheaves.
Am working to get copies of a large batch of photos from a rebuild. They may shed some light on the topic. Will let you know when I see them.
Ric also mentioned TIGHAR has many photos of rebuilding. I don't know if they're accessible to the Forum.
Anyway, cables, and their fittings are of interest because they're mostly made of, or coated with materials that will resist marine growth.

Michael, thanks much for these pictures - great stuff.

Related to this effort but of a different component of the airframe -

Can you possibly provide a picture of the lavatory area RH fuselage skin (where Earhart briefly had a large, improvised window cut and later covered over again)?  I've attached a couple of pictures with the area of interest outlined. 

The original fastener spacing / frame arrangements are of particular interest - from the frame/bulkhead station 293 5/8 (about where lavatory forward bulkhead is I think) aft to station 320 or so (rear bulkhead of lavatory, I think).  My interest is in getting a close-up of the 'original' details in this area where Earhart had an improvised window cut, and later recovered.  External shot would be terrific - interior also would be tremendous, if able.

Thanks for sharing all this with us - it is great to have someone able to lay eyes on a 'survivor' out there and help with this kind of information.
Title: Re: Possible Rope video (2012)
Post by: Tom Swearengen on December 18, 2012, 02:29:41 PM
Ric--Pics of the rebuild? I would think that would be useful----to some of us anyway!
Tom
Title: Re: Possible Rope video (2012)
Post by: Tim Mellon on December 18, 2012, 03:16:20 PM
There are at least five.
- Emily Sikuli, who moved to Fiji in November 1941,  twice saw what her father told her was aircraft wreckage on the reef north of Norwich City in 1940/41.

Ric, wouldn't you agree that Emily is the only real witness here? The others saw "parts" reworked for particular purposes, or "heard tell" of an airplane wreck. Or is my interpretation too strict?

And come to think of it, wasn't  Emily relying on her father's interpretation of what was on the reef?
Title: Re: Possible Rope video (2012)
Post by: Bob Lanz on December 18, 2012, 03:40:24 PM
This is a control cable from New England Air Museum's c/n 1052 we photographed when it was being rebuilt.  Unfortunately there's no scale in the photo.

Ric, I am going to bet that is not a "new old stock" cable for a model Electra L10-E of which there were only 14 built.  That would appear to be a retrofit cable for functionality with the fittings being much more modern than were produced in 1937.  Scale makes no difference in this case.
Title: Re: Possible Rope video (2012)
Post by: richie conroy on December 18, 2012, 03:47:10 PM
Hi Tim

Well No

Why is only Emily's story real ?

If all the story's told the same story then fair enough.

However interviews with different people on different islands over the years, Have told of the same aircraft wreckage, Except what the piece's were used for, Have been used in different ways every time

Thanks Richie
Title: Re: Possible Rope video (2012)
Post by: Ric Gillespie on December 18, 2012, 05:43:21 PM
Ric--Pics of the rebuild? I would think that would be useful----to some of us anyway!

We have dozens if not hundreds of photos of various Model 10s in various states of disassembly.  Scanning and publishing them would be a huge job.
Title: Re: Possible Rope video (2012)
Post by: Ric Gillespie on December 18, 2012, 05:59:20 PM
Ric, wouldn't you agree that Emily is the only real witness here? The others saw "parts" reworked for particular purposes, or "heard tell" of an airplane wreck. Or is my interpretation too strict?

Emily, Tapania, and Pulekai all remember seeing parts in situ, although at different places at different times. Each person's recollection is consistent in time and location with the known forces that act on debris on the reef.  We know from tracking the break-up of Norwich City that debris on the reef surface moves southeastward over time.  Emily sees what she sees on the reef edge north of the shipwreck in 1940 or '41. Tapania sees debris on the reef and shore southeast of there in the late 1950s.  Pulekai sees debris around the same time that has apparently floated through the main passage and fetched up on the lagoon shore.  We know of examples of buoyant Norwich City wreckage that has done the same thing.

 Mims and Geisinger saw material that had been salvaged, brought to the village and worked, but the stories they were told about the origin of the material are identical. 

And come to think of it, wasn't  Emily relying on her father's interpretation of what was on the reef?

That's right.  What Emily saw did not look like airplane wreckage to her, but she saw it only from shore -a distance of about 600 feet.  The question is what made her father think it was airplane wreckage? 
Title: Re: Possible Rope video (2012)
Post by: Bob Lanz on December 18, 2012, 06:14:00 PM
This is a control cable from New England Air Museum's c/n 1052 we photographed when it was being rebuilt.  Unfortunately there's no scale in the photo.

Ric, I am going to bet that is not a "new old stock" cable for a model Electra L10-E of which there were only 14 built.  That would appear to be a retrofit cable for functionality with the fittings being much more modern than were produced in 1937.  Scale makes no difference in this case.

I don't know, Bob - you are likely correct that the particular cable is newer - death comes to cables over time, but I'm not sure the 'AN style' cable swages were not around then, I think they were.

Jeff, I suppose my point is, what are the chances that they found a brand spankin' new cable in a warehouse or wherever of the right length and fittings 70+ years later?  Slim to none??
Title: Re: Possible Rope video (2012)
Post by: Tim Mellon on December 18, 2012, 06:15:02 PM
Ric, wouldn't you agree that Emily is the only real witness here? The others saw "parts" reworked for particular purposes, or "heard tell" of an airplane wreck. Or is my interpretation too strict?

Emily, Tapania, and Pulekai all remember seeing parts in situ, although at different places at different times. Each person's recollection is consistent in time and location with the known forces that act on debris on the reef.  We know from tracking the break-up of Norwich City that debris on the reef surface moves southeastward over time.  Emily sees what she sees on the reef edge north of the shipwreck in 1940 or '41. Tapania sees debris on the reef and shore southeast of there in the late 1950s.  Pulekai sees debris around the same time that has apparently floated through the main passage and fetched up on the lagoon shore.  We know of examples of buoyant Norwich City wreckage that has done the same thing.

 Mims and Geisinger saw material that had been salvaged, brought to the village and worked, but the stories they were told about the origin of the material are identical. 

And come to think of it, wasn't  Emily relying on her father's interpretation of what was on the reef?

That's right.  What Emily saw did not look like airplane wreckage to her, but she saw it only from shore -a distance of about 600 feet.  The question is what made her father think it was airplane wreckage?

So I conclude, from all of this, that several people see "debris" of one sort or another, but no-one actually sees a complete aircraft. In other words, most of the aircraft could have been swept off the reef before Lambrecht arrived, yet components could have been left behind (such as the Beviington Object) or later resurfaced and deposited in the lagoon or on the reef to be retrieved by the new habitants. Am I over-simplifying?
Title: Re: Possible Rope video (2012)
Post by: Ric Gillespie on December 18, 2012, 06:45:06 PM
So I conclude, from all of this, that several people see "debris" of one sort or another, but no-one actually sees a complete aircraft. In other words, most of the aircraft could have been swept off the reef before Lambrecht arrived, yet components could have been left behind (such as the Beviington Object) or later resurfaced and deposited in the lagoon or on the reef to be retrieved by the new habitants. Am I over-simplifying?

No, I think that's exactly right. 
Title: Re: Possible Rope video (2012)
Post by: JNev on December 19, 2012, 04:41:10 AM
This is a control cable from New England Air Museum's c/n 1052 we photographed when it was being rebuilt.  Unfortunately there's no scale in the photo.

Ric, I am going to bet that is not a "new old stock" cable for a model Electra L10-E of which there were only 14 built.  That would appear to be a retrofit cable for functionality with the fittings being much more modern than were produced in 1937.  Scale makes no difference in this case.

I don't know, Bob - you are likely correct that the particular cable is newer - death comes to cables over time, but I'm not sure the 'AN style' cable swages were not around then, I think they were.

Jeff, I suppose my point is, what are the chances that they found a brand spankin' new cable in a warehouse or wherever of the right length and fittings 70+ years later?  Slim to none??

I see now - and agree, not likely - probably "slim to none".

But we don't know if we're looking at a cable that was removed and rolled up for later installation or a newer one fabricated for the restoration, etc.  It's merely a matter of the right length, terminal hardware and swaging tools.  Most common / small shops don't have the nicer 'AN' tooling (expensive set-up and calibration) and resort to occasional cable making with nico-presses.  Cables can of course be ordered from a number of suppliers who do that sort of thing.

My point was that it may well be faithful to the original in terms of hardware type, that's all.  I pretty sure the 'modern' AN type terminals have been with us for 75 years.  As Ric mentions, there is a wealth of photos out there - it's a matter of chasin down this kind of detail among them.  I can understand that he likely doesn't have time to rifle through all that to answer this...  :P 

Nor would I, but out of curiosity I think it's a detail I'll watch for as I might peruse some of those pictures - just something else to learn about this great old machine and her time in the industry, and enjoy knowing.
Title: Re: Possible Rope video (2012)
Post by: Tom Swearengen on December 19, 2012, 05:17:31 AM
Ric---I was referring the the rebuild of NR16020 after the Hawaii accident. That way we are talking about the same plane, and not someone else's, that for no particular reason, might have been different.
Tom
Title: Re: Possible Rope video (2012)
Post by: Ric Gillespie on December 19, 2012, 07:57:27 AM
Ric---I was referring the the rebuild of NR16020 after the Hawaii accident. That way we are talking about the same plane, and not someone else's, that for no particular reason, might have been different.

I agree, but I'm aware of no photos taken during the rebuild except a few general-view shots of the fuselage on sawhorses and Amelia watching the work.  There's newsreel footage of the engine mounts being x-rayed by someone waving around what looks like one of the old x-ray machines once used by dentists. 

There are a few photo-op pictures of AE in the Electra's unfinished cabin taken during original construction.
Title: Re: Possible Rope video (2012)
Post by: Tom Swearengen on December 19, 2012, 09:43:48 AM
Ok. Got it. Was just thinking that pics during the rebuild 'could ' reveal what was actually done.
Title: Re: Possible Rope video (2012)
Post by: Tim Mellon on December 20, 2012, 04:47:05 AM
Again, a detail found in both High Definition videos, 2010 and 2012, is the WC and the toilet, here seen from "uphill". Compared to 2010, the bulkhead to the rear of the WC seems to have tipped to the left. I think the location of the vent on top of the fuselage can be seen clearly.

The photo shows the toilet looking through the window that was skinned over prior to the flight.
Title: Re: Possible Rope video (2012)
Post by: Tim Mellon on December 20, 2012, 08:09:30 AM
While I was looking at the landing gear, I think I may have found the right rudder, outside surface up. The telltale feature is the space for the trim tab, which was on the left rudder only (the Harney drawing is attached for reference). The trim tab itself is now missing.

In the 2010 view, the rudder surface is seen from above, with the trim tab opening away from the viewer. CORRECTION: The HF antenna is draped over the top of the rudder.

In the 2012 view, the rudder is seen from up-hill, with the trim tab opening closer to the viewer. The HF antenna has shifted more away from the rudder, and no longer seems to be taught.
Title: Re: Possible Rope video (2012)
Post by: Jeff Palshook on December 21, 2012, 05:48:07 AM
Tim -- Doesn't it seem odd to you that what you are calling the antenna wire/cable is so prominent in the 2010 image (an obvious thin, black line) and it's so very vague in the 2012 image?  Frankly, I don't see the cable/wire at all in the 2012 image.

Another discrepancy ... In the 2012 image, there is a relatively flat, featureless area in the background (at the top of the image) beyond the object you have labeled as the landing gear tire.  In the 2010 image, the area around this "tire" is filled with lumpy, bumpy rocks and coral debris.  There's no sign of the flat, featureless area in the 2010 image.

I don't see any obvious matches in the bottom features between the two imgaes.  The wire/cable is clearly visible in the 2012 image; I don't see it at all in the 2010 image. It's not at all convincing to me these two images show the same piece of ocean floor.

Jeff P.
Title: Re: Possible Rope video (2012)
Post by: Tom Swearengen on December 21, 2012, 06:10:00 AM
Jeff-----I believe these were taken around the 800 foot depth, on the reef slope. The ocean bottom is around 3200 feet+-. Dont know what it looks like because we dont have pictures of that. But we do know the reef slope has some very rough features, so I'm not surprised that features of the 2 videos dont necessarily match up.
(Sure would have been nice to have been able to go to the bottom, and work back towards the slope. Bet there is some interesting things there.)
Tom
Title: Re: Possible Rope video (2012)
Post by: Tim Mellon on December 21, 2012, 06:12:47 AM
Tim -- Doesn't it seem odd to you that what you are calling the antenna wire/cable is so prominent in the 2010 image (an obvious thin, black line) and it's so very vague in the 2012 image?  Frankly, I don't see the cable/wire at all in the 2012 image.

Another discrepancy ... In the 2012 image, there is a relatively flat, featureless area in the background (at the top of the image) beyond the object you have labeled as the landing gear tire.  In the 2010 image, the area around this "tire" is filled with lumpy, bumpy rocks and coral debris.  There's no sign of the flat, featureless area in the 2010 image.

I don't see any obvious matches in the bottom features between the two imgaes.  The wire/cable is clearly visible in the 2012 image; I don't see it at all in the 2010 image. It's not at all convincing to me these two images show the same piece of ocean floor.

Jeff P.

Jeff P., as to your last point, you are absolutely correct. The attached shot about one second later removes the ambiguity for me. Thank you for pointing this out. The HF antenna can be seen, of course, higher in the photo before it disappears under the rubble.

This covers your first point as well, because I think you have mixed up which is 2010 and which is 2012. They are reversed.

On the flat featureless area: alot of plankton can fall in two years time interval, and I think the angle makes it difficult to tell. This is why I have asked Ric to provide us additional material from the 2012 video that covers the 20 meters of slope below where the "alleged" landing gear sits.
Title: Re: Possible Rope video (2012)
Post by: Tim Mellon on December 21, 2012, 07:47:49 AM
  As Ric mentions, there is a wealth of photos out there - it's a matter of chasin down this kind of detail among them. 

Jeff N., is this the normal way a control cable is attached?
Title: Re: Possible Rope video (2012)
Post by: Jeff Palshook on December 21, 2012, 09:37:39 AM
Tim -- Yes, in my comment about the visibility of the cable/wire, I obviously goofed and had my references to the two images reversed.  I meant to say, "The cable/wire in the 2012 image is very distinct; the cable/wire in the 2010 image is not very distinct at all."  Thank you for pointing out this mistake in my post.

Your additional comments, after pointing out my mistake above, still don't provide convincing answers to my points.  Your hypothesis regarding the plankton "snow" is very creative, but you are grossly over-stating the deposition rate of the bottom layer created by this "snow".  It is nowhere near large enough to cover up rocks in just two years.  If you extrapolate your suggested deposition rate over the 70+ years the Electra pieces would have been sitting there, how could you be seeing anything of the Electra?  The parts would have been completely buried by this plankton "snow" layer.

Regarding the "antenna cable" in the 2010 image, you have now simply changed your label of the "antenna cable" to another thin black line visible in the image.  You say this new "cable" disappears under the coral rubble near the top of the image; that's why the thin black line abruptly ends near the top of the image.  Apparently all the cable running  toward the bottom of the image was also buried in the 2010 image, as we only see a short length of the thin black line in this image.

Then in the 2012 image we see the cable/wire running completey across the image from left to right.  Almost this entire length is completely visible in 2012.  Explain to me how this could have happened.  Some event (or events) happened between 2010 and 2012 to jerk this long section of the cable out from under the rock and coral debris, making the cable completely visible in the 2012 image.  Yet you say there was the gentle "snow" of plankton falling between 2010 and 2012 which covered up rocks which projected at least several inches upward from the ocean bottom.  How are both of these situations possible?  Seems to me something which would have rearranged the bottom enough to take the cable from almost completely covered in 2010 to completely uncovered in 2012 would have also disturbed this layer of plankton "snow."

In previous posts you have tried to use relative sizes of objects to support your opinions that these are pieces of Electra wreckage.  Let's see how that works in comparing your 2010 and 2012 images which you claim show the same Electra wreckage in the same place.

In the 2010 image, you have labeled a straight line which you propose is the opening in the rudder for the trim tab.  On my computer screen, the length of this line (roughly between your "top" and "bottom" labels for the trim tab opening) measures about 3.5 cm.  Also in the 2010 image, the width (diameter) of the "antenna" cable/wire measures about 0.1 cm on my computer screen.  Therefore, the ratio of length of trim tab opening to diameter of the cable is 3.5/0.1 = 35.0.

Make the same measurements in the 2012 image.  The length of the trim tab opening is about 2.0 cm.  The diameter of the cable, measured closest to the trim tab opening, is about 0.15 cm.  (The cable diameter measures even larger than this in other parts of the 2012 image.)  Therefore, the ratio of trim tab opening length to cable diameter is 2.0/0.15 = 13.3.

Therefore, relative sizes of trim tab opening and "antenna" cable diameter simply don't match between the two images you say show the same exact area of ocean bottom.

I can see other mismatches between the 2010 and 2012 images:

(1) In the 2012 image, there is a good sized rock right next to the "top" end of the trim tab opening.  The rock extends upward from the ocean bottom, out of the plane of the image, toward the camera.  Where is this largish rock in the 2010 image?  I cerainly don't see it.

(2)  In the 2010 image, the distance between the straight line defining the trim tab opening and the nearest edge of the tire feature is about equal to the length of the trim tab opening.  In the 2012 image, the distance between trim tab opening and tire is larger than the length of the trim tab opening.

So, I still say the 2010 and 2012 images are not of the same piece of ocean bottom.
Title: Re: Possible Rope video (2012)
Post by: Tim Mellon on December 21, 2012, 11:07:51 AM
So, I still say the 2010 and 2012 images are not of the same piece of ocean bottom.

Jeff, I cannot believe you don't understand that angle and distance from camera to objects don't affect the percieved and measurable lengths! Especially when one object, like the antenna in the 2012 shot is much nearer the camera than the trim tab slot. You simply cannot judge 3D relationships with 2D rulers.

As to the rocks moving, etc.: This is a dynamic area; things keep falling down the cliff face. Who knows what trembles an ancient valcano can produce? In another post I already mentioned that the fuselage section near the WC had tipped to the left in the interim.

And I already said the snow effect may be largely due to angle of camera shot. If we had pictures in 2012 from below the gear, it might look entirely different. We will probably never have exactly comparable pictures. That's life.
Title: Re: Possible Rope video (2012)
Post by: richie conroy on December 21, 2012, 02:03:11 PM
Hi Ric

When will video's be available to view

 :)
Title: Re: Possible Rope video (2012)
Post by: richie conroy on December 21, 2012, 02:17:25 PM
Hi All

Anyone else see the coral shaped 05 i have arrow pointing too ?

Or just me  ;)

Thank's Richie

Title: Re: Possible Rope video (2012)
Post by: Tim Mellon on December 21, 2012, 02:24:10 PM
Anyone else see the coral shaped 05 i have arrow pointing too ?


Yes. What video and frame #?

Title: Re: Possible Rope video (2012)
Post by: richie conroy on December 21, 2012, 02:30:00 PM
HI Tim

Here is image with time on.

Also another image with rope/wire attached to possible wing tie down. You can just make out the U shaped object it is attached too

Thank's Richie
Title: Re: Possible Rope video (2012)
Post by: richie conroy on December 21, 2012, 02:55:10 PM
Hi Tim

What do you make of the object in attachment

A, Strap lock lever

B, Wire from lock lever

When lever is lifted it loosen's wire, When pushed back into lock position the cable is tight 
Title: Re: Possible Rope video (2012)
Post by: Tim Mellon on December 21, 2012, 03:01:36 PM
What do you make of the object in attachment


Richie, this item is just outside the pilot's side window: I think it is the guide for the movable pane which deflected the airstream when the pilot's window was open. It has been bent down against the fuselage.

Title: Re: Possible Rope video (2012)
Post by: Tim Mellon on December 21, 2012, 03:03:38 PM
Anyone else see the coral shaped 05 i have arrow pointing too ?


I don't see this in frame 13:39:42;09. That frame doesn't have any "snow". Sure you've got the right place?
Title: Re: Possible Rope video (2012)
Post by: Tim Mellon on December 21, 2012, 03:06:05 PM
Also another image with rope/wire attached to possible wing tie down. You can just make out the U shaped object it is attached too


One end of the HF antenna, the hooked part being where it attached to the top of the rudder.

Title: Re: Possible Rope video (2012)
Post by: richie conroy on December 21, 2012, 03:47:09 PM
Sorry it's on the full length rope video

My apologies 
Title: Re: Possible Rope video (2012)
Post by: JNev on December 22, 2012, 10:48:47 AM
  As Ric mentions, there is a wealth of photos out there - it's a matter of chasin down this kind of detail among them. 

Jeff N., is this the normal way a control cable is attached?

Tim,

What I can see fits within the possibility in terms of apparent cable and fitting 'bulk'. 

What I cannot make out for certain, so far, is exactly what kind of fittings we may be seeing here, and there are a number of possibilities.  I'll try to dig deeper into this picture - and will try to find out more about the kind of cable hardware Lockheed was using on the L10 when NR16020 was built.  Bob Lanz has been researching that because we realize if aircraft cable is found then we at least need to know that the type of hardware found is eligible or not. 

My belief has been that "AN" terminals were around then, but Bob raised some legitimate doubts - which could still leave similar sized "tuck and splice" or soldered terminal splices also in use at the time, or possibly "nico-press" - which are noticeably more bulky.

I'd like to look into the prospect more deeply and will.  If there is a broken-up airplane there then for sure there is the possibility of cable being laid out as we see here, well agreed, if the galvanized steel can last that long - another thing to consider, IMO.  It may well, just not certain.
Title: Re: Possible Rope video (2012)
Post by: Tim Mellon on December 22, 2012, 01:35:57 PM
My research has concluded that in 1937 antennas were generally copper clad steel. 

Which is not to say necessarily in this case.

Although maybe Ric secretly filmed the 2010 High Definition video in 1950. That would explain everything.
Title: Re: Possible Rope video (2012)
Post by: richie conroy on December 22, 2012, 04:06:32 PM
Obviously due to lack of any electrical wire i think it safe to say the wire/rope is possible off ov norwich city, Attached to tie downs on wings

Well to be more precise the right wing as i believe the rope meant for left wing was attached to gear assembly. I.E Bevington object
Title: Re: Possible Rope video (2012)
Post by: Ric Gillespie on December 22, 2012, 05:09:10 PM
As I understand this, the topic is Possible Rope Video which has now evolved to an antenna or control cable.

Yes, the topic is Possible Rope Video.  Other possibilities are being discussed. Nothing wrong with that.

  My research has concluded that in 1937 antennas were generally copper clad steel.  Two dissimilar metals.  Were it this type of antenna, galvanic corrosion would have reduced it to nothing in the past 75 years.  If it is a control cable, the same would apply due to being in an electrolytic (salt water) environment for that long.  Given that, there would be no need to look further for any hardware that connected either as none would be found in the debris field.

Invalid.  Unsupported speculation stated as fact.

As witnessed by the little that is left of the Norwich City after 83 years a mostly steel ship, rust and corrosion has reduced it to a mere skeleton.  A mostly aluminum airplane with many dissimilar parts would likely be reduced to almost nothing due to galvanic/electrolytic corrosion.

Nonsense. There are dozens of examples of aluminum aircraft submerged in salt water for similar periods that survive in good condition.

  And to my knowledge there were no zinc anodes attached to the Electra that would have protected it for very long if there were any.  Those would have been eaten up in a very short period of time anyway.  There are eight different types of corrosion in a salt water environment, (too much to define here) most if not all would fatally destroy any fasteners on control cables or antennas.  It is however possible that chromium plated stainless steel fasteners could have survived but those came along after 1937 as far as I know and could show some deleterious effects.

This kind of opinion stated as fact is not helpful and I'm letting this posting stand only as an example of what not to do.  If you have research that supports your opinion, cite your sources.

For example, if you want to argue against the survival of antenna wire you could point out that the TBD-1 Devastator - a design contemporary with the Electra - had a wire antenna that went from a mast in front of the cockpit to the top of the vertical fin.  The TBD-1s in Jaluit lagoon - one at 50 feet, the other at 125 feet - have been there for 70 years. No antenna appears to be present on either aircraft.
Title: Re: Possible Rope video (2012)
Post by: william patterson on December 22, 2012, 05:36:27 PM
It looks like Polyester boating rope to me. One that has been in the water a few years, at least long enough to coat it in silt and algae growth.
Title: Re: Possible Rope video (2012)
Post by: Tim Mellon on December 22, 2012, 05:39:53 PM
For example, if you want to argue against the survival of antenna wire you could point out that the TBD-1 Devastator - a design contemporary with the Electra - had a wire antenna that went from a mast in front of the cockpit to the top of the vertical fin.  The TBD-1s in Jaluit lagoon - one at 50 feet, the other at 125 feet - have been there for 70 years. No antenna appears to be present on either aircraft.

Of course, many things are missing, including the rear canopy and cowling. Also, depth means that environment is somewhate different.

Title: Re: Possible Rope video (2012)
Post by: Tim Mellon on December 22, 2012, 05:43:37 PM
It looks like Polyester boating rope to me. One that has been in the water a few years, at least long enough to coat it in silt and algae growth.

IMHO, the threads are too flat and too few for it to be boating rope. And the rings towards each termination mitigate against boating, and for antenna.
Title: Re: Possible Rope video (2012)
Post by: Ric Gillespie on December 22, 2012, 06:33:45 PM
Of course, many things are missing, including the rear canopy and cowling. Also, depth means that environment is somewhate different.

Hardly anything is missing.  That's what's so remarkable about this aircraft.  The cowling pieces have fallen off and/or corroded away.  We don't know why.  The canopy sections are all in place in the open position.
Title: Re: Possible Rope video (2012)
Post by: Ric Gillespie on December 22, 2012, 06:36:50 PM
A closer view of the TBD radio mast confirms that there is no wire present.
Title: Re: Possible Rope video (2012)
Post by: Tim Mellon on December 22, 2012, 06:50:26 PM
  The canopy sections are all in place in the open position.

Agreed. Good picture.
Title: Re: Possible Rope video (2012)
Post by: Bob Lanz on December 22, 2012, 07:03:01 PM
Quote
For example, if you want to argue against the survival of antenna wire you could point out that the TBD-1 Devastator - a design contemporary with the Electra - had a wire antenna that went from a mast in front of the cockpit to the top of the vertical fin.  The TBD-1s in Jaluit lagoon - one at 50 feet, the other at 125 feet - have been there for 70 years. No antenna appears to be present on either aircraft.

Thanks Ric, I'll rest my case on the issue.  The antennas corroded away.  8)

Quote
IMHO, the threads are too flat and too few for it to be boating rope. And the rings towards each termination mitigate against boating, and for antenna.

Tim, "The threads are too flat"?  They don't look very flat here.  My guess is a rope or line deposited long after the Electra slid down that slope.
Title: Re: Possible Rope video (2012)
Post by: Bob Lanz on December 22, 2012, 10:13:41 PM
Tim, what do you make of the object circled in the attached pic?
Title: Re: Possible Rope video (2012)
Post by: Tim Mellon on December 22, 2012, 11:24:32 PM
Tim, what do you make of the object circled in the attached pic?
.         

Looks like the outside case of the HF transmitter. (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1038.msg22648.html#msg22648)
Title: Re: Possible Rope video (2012)
Post by: Bob Lanz on December 23, 2012, 12:49:12 AM
Tim, what do you make of the object circled in the attached pic?
.         

Looks like the outside case of HF transmitter. See "Summary of Debris" thread.                                   

Can you show a picture of the type of HF transmitter that was on the Electra with the same image I circled on it?  This might lend some credibility to your identification of the HF transmitter.
Title: Re: Possible Rope video (2012)
Post by: Tim Mellon on December 23, 2012, 06:32:06 AM
Tim, what do you make of the object circled in the attached pic?

Bob, the attached photograph is of a typical airline HF radio, not necessarily the Western Electric 13C transmitter.CORRECTION: I imagine the bottom portion would have bee removed to the cockpit as it appears to have the control functions associated. The fourth picture shows, faintly, a control dial similar to the one on the knee panel in the cockpit. The Amplifier in the far top corner might be the tube that is showing in the Debris field snapshot. I think that Bob Brandenburg ought to be consulted on the specifics, as I know next to nothing about radios, new or old. The components I noted can be seen through a hole in the side of the transmitter that is above and to the right of the circle you drew (second picture attached).

Don't you find it somewhat ironic that this transmitter, if that is what it is, is on top of the"rope" you say was thrown down long after the Electra arrived at this place?
Title: Re: Possible Rope video (2012)
Post by: Tim Mellon on December 23, 2012, 07:26:25 AM
Quote
IMHO, the threads are too flat and too few for it to be boating rope. And the rings towards each termination mitigate against boating, and for antenna.

Tim, "The threads are too flat"?  They don't look very flat here.  My guess is a rope or line deposited long after the Electra slid down that slope.

Pictures comparing braided hemp (3 strands), typical for the time, and a section of the "alleged" HF antenna cable (only 2 strands). The little valleys between the strands look deeper on the hemp sample, IMHO.
Title: Re: Possible Rope video (2012)
Post by: Ric Gillespie on December 23, 2012, 07:41:35 AM
Can anything be noted about the condition of control cables within the TBDs from any of TIGHARs data or photos of them?

I'll look but I don't think we have photos of anywhere within the aircraft where control cables would be visible.
Title: Re: Possible Rope video (2012)
Post by: richie conroy on December 23, 2012, 08:33:41 AM
Tim, what do you make of the object circled in the attached pic?

Hi Bob

I have tried to get people to take note on this object for ages.

Here is a picture of your object i managed to get as rover goes to move

I see the jack end of headphones, Weather it was connected an the holder has eroded i don't know ?

Also the apparent squareness of the object your circle is on is worth more investigation

Thanks Richie 
Title: Re: Possible Rope video (2012)
Post by: richie conroy on December 23, 2012, 08:43:56 AM
Here is image of above poss radio transmitter debris

I believe the bar could be the strap to hold radio in place

just a possibility

Thanks Richie
Title: Re: Possible Rope video (2012)
Post by: Tim Mellon on December 23, 2012, 09:02:21 AM
  So now you agree that is a rope and not your "alleged antenna cable" or control cable for that matter.

No, Bob, it's a cable.

Yes, Bob, it's a transmitter.
Title: Re: Possible Rope video (2012)
Post by: Tim Mellon on December 23, 2012, 11:10:48 AM
Here is image of above poss radio transmitter debris

I believe the bar could be the strap to hold radio in place

just a possibility

Thanks Richie

Hold down strap and/or grounding strap. Thanks, Richie.
Title: Re: Possible Rope video (2012)
Post by: william patterson on December 23, 2012, 11:37:06 AM
Quote
IMHO, the threads are too flat and too few for it to be boating rope. And the rings towards each termination mitigate against boating, and for antenna.

Tim, "The threads are too flat"?  They don't look very flat here.  My guess is a rope or line deposited long after the Electra slid down that slope.

Pictures comparing braided hemp (3 strands), typical for the time, and a section of the "alleged" HF antenna cable (only 2 strands). The little valleys between the strands look deeper on the hemp sample, IMHO.

Tim I do not understand your comment "hemp, typical for the time..."
Typical of what time?
Nobody has dated this object.

If you look at common polyester rope,  it looks very similar to this object. It appears silt/ mud or algae has filled in most of the valleys between twists, but on the still pictures the thread angle and spacing appears very similar to common rope, not cable.

Title: Re: Possible Rope video (2012)
Post by: Tim Mellon on December 23, 2012, 12:29:34 PM
Tim I do not understand your comment "hemp, typical for the time..."
Typical of what time?
Nobody has dated this object.

If you look at common polyester rope,  it looks very similar to this object. It appears silt/ mud or algae has filled in most of the valleys between twists, but on the still pictures the thread angle and spacing appears very similar to common rope, not cable.

The time - 1937.

I don't think polyester rope was available then.

I've never actually seen two-strand rope: please show an example if you can find one.

The line in question does not lie in silt. It lies on top of coral or coral-covered materials. Coral is abraisive, and judging by the channels adjacent to this line, this piece has been subject to much movement against the coral. So, therefore, I don't think there is any mud/silt/algae in any of the cracks.

These are my own opinions. YMMV.
Title: Re: Possible Rope video (2012)
Post by: Bob Lanz on December 23, 2012, 12:43:00 PM
Tim I do not understand your comment "hemp, typical for the time..."
Typical of what time?
Nobody has dated this object.

If you look at common polyester rope,  it looks very similar to this object. It appears silt/ mud or algae has filled in most of the valleys between twists, but on the still pictures the thread angle and spacing appears very similar to common rope, not cable.

The time - 1937.

I don't think polyester rope was available then.

I've never actually seen two-strand rope: please show an example if you can find one.

The line in question does not lie in silt. It lies on top of coral or coral-covered materials. Coral is abraisive, and judging by the channels adjacent to this line, this piece has been subject to much movement against the coral. So, therefore, I don't think there is any mud/silt/algae in any of the cracks.

These are my own opinions. YMMV.

Now you have.  I report, YOU decide!
Title: Re: Possible Rope video (2012)
Post by: Tim Mellon on December 23, 2012, 12:57:38 PM
Now you have.  I report, YOU decide!

Totally inapt, Bob: that's double braided polyester.

Now it's your turn to prove that 2-strand single braided hemp existed in 1937.
Title: Re: Possible Rope video (2012)
Post by: william patterson on December 23, 2012, 01:02:37 PM
Tim,  you use the logic that Polyester was not created yet
in 1937 to eliminate polyester rope?
What kind of logic is that?

It could be polyester rope from an anchor lost in 1977 for all anyone knows.
The object rope/cable is NOT dated, therefore, whether polyester was made in 1937 is irrelevant.
Your abuse of logic is impressive.
Title: Re: Possible Rope video (2012)
Post by: Tim Mellon on December 23, 2012, 01:13:55 PM
Tim,  you use the logic that Polyester was not created yet
in 1937 to eliminate polyester rope?
What kind of logic is that?

It could be polyester rope from an anchor lost in 1977 for all anyone knows.
The object rope/cable is NOT dated, therefore, whether polyester was made in 1937 is irrelevant.
Your abuse of logic is impressive.

William, please let me repeat in case you didn't read it the first time: the subject "line" runs under the HF transmitter as well as under other debris, therefore it is not possible that it fell into place after the airplane arrived at this location in 1937, IMHO.
Title: Re: Possible Rope video (2012)
Post by: Tim Mellon on December 23, 2012, 01:59:48 PM
Which is it now, "line" or "cable" as you referred to in your response to me? 

Cable, Bob (just trying to be politically correct). I know of no HF transmitters that are made of coral, though.
Title: Re: Possible Rope video (2012)
Post by: Tim Mellon on December 23, 2012, 03:21:07 PM
Consistent with the relative locations of other Electra parts, two cylindrical objects (like radio tubes) appear in the 2012 view from up the hill, suggesting again the identification of the Western Electric 13C transmitter from under the Navigator's desk area.
Title: Re: Possible Rope video (2012)
Post by: Tim Mellon on December 23, 2012, 03:40:30 PM
Shown in the 2012 HD video is the upper end of the HF antenna cable, which left of the insulator ring splits into two separate lines. This detail is identical to that shown in the 2010 HD video at the bottom of the cable run (picture also attached).
Title: Re: Possible Rope video (2012)
Post by: Bob Lanz on December 23, 2012, 05:25:55 PM
I report, YOU decide!
Title: Re: Possible Rope video (2012)
Post by: Tim Mellon on December 23, 2012, 05:31:32 PM
I report, YOU decide!
I've decided you picked the fuzziest picture on purpose. What IS your agenda, Bob?  ::)

(Even Jeff Glickman has left you behind on this one).  ::)

(Have you decided not to prove the hemp, Bob?)  ::)
 
Title: Re: Possible Rope video (2012)
Post by: Tim Mellon on December 23, 2012, 05:49:32 PM
And now for a modest tutorial in cable behavior....
Title: Re: Possible Rope video (2012)
Post by: Tim Mellon on December 23, 2012, 06:39:16 PM
Why, you might ask, are all these aircraft components assumed to be in the same small area? (The following is NOT necessarily the opinion of TIGHAR.)

It is time to take the opportunity to discuss the general underwater topography. The Earhart Electra came to rest in this concentrated are, in my opinion, because it found its way into an "arroyo" between two underwater ridges, one to the South and one to the North. The attachments show views to each side, 2012 to the South, and 2010 to the North. Like a giant funnel, all the aircraft parts have been directed into one small area, tethered together in large part by antenna cables, control cables, conduits, fuel lines, electrical wires and the like.

Discovered photographically in 2010, though not recognized immediately, the same area has been photographed again in the summer of 2012. We are fortunate to have two opposing views of the same debris field. It shows us many common components (landing gear, battery, HF transmitter, fuselage fuel tank, WC compartment and toilet) adding assurance that this is, indeed, the resting place of NR16020, the Earhart Electra.

Many will argue with these assertions, and that is fine, because skepticism is the nursemaid to truth. But when all is said, and done, I believe that we will have to conclude that the final resting place of Amelia Earhart and Fred Noonan is that place identified on the Phoenix chart as Location #1, also known as the Balderston Debris Field.
Title: Re: Possible Rope video (2012)
Post by: Tom Swearengen on December 24, 2012, 07:45:05 AM
Gentlemen---
I've sat back a watched and listen to this for a while. We can take all the pictures we want, debate the material of the rope, cable, or whatever it is the we want. Makes fun reading. BUT------its all speculation. Hindsight is 20/20, but would it not have been more prudent to have brought back a piece of this cable for examination? The manipulator on the ROV "could have" done that, and pulled on it. Maybe it would have come loose. Maybe not. Maybe it was ATTACHED to something larger. Maybe not. By having it, we could know FOR SURE whether is steel, stainless, nylon, or polyester, or whatever. This debate is going to be never-ending, until we actually have a piece of it.

Just like other 'things' we see in the videos. Landing gear, instruments, bones (?) ETC. Its all a matter of debate until you have it in your hands, and can examine it. Which leads me back to the expedition that was, and the one that could have been. Sorry Ric, but I sure wish that Wolfgang had been able to see some of this stuff and tried to recover something. Granted, alot of great info was brought home, but its just opened up another series of debates, that isnt getting Tighar any closer to the end result.
So another $2.2 to 2.8 million is needed for a recovery expedition. Hum I dont know.
Tom
Title: Re: Possible Rope video (2012)
Post by: Ric Gillespie on December 24, 2012, 07:54:52 AM
If we had seen anything at the time that we thought was worth further investigation we would have done so.
Title: Re: Possible Rope video (2012)
Post by: Tom Swearengen on December 24, 2012, 08:06:58 AM
I saw that Ric. You reported that during the expedition.
Thanks
Title: Re: Possible Rope video (2012)
Post by: Ric Gillespie on December 24, 2012, 08:18:00 AM
So that would seem to present three possibilities:
1. There is stuff there that we didn't notice at the time. (That's why we're reviewing the HD video.)
2. There is stuff there but we weren't looking in the right place.
3. There is nothing there.
Title: Re: Possible Rope video (2012)
Post by: Tom Swearengen on December 24, 2012, 12:46:30 PM
Ric---I think its a combination of all of the about. its a big task, larger than I realize. You know, because you have been there.
I was a little puzzled though, on the ROV. I thought that Tighar was using the Remora 6000 Rov.
tom
Title: Re: Possible Rope video (2012)
Post by: richie conroy on December 24, 2012, 09:33:18 PM
Hi All

Ric or Tim

May i ask why the object in image an surrounding area has not been subject to discussion ?

Although poor picture quality the shape of the object is clearly visible to me anyway

Anyway's Merry Christmas All
Title: Re: Possible Rope video (2012)
Post by: Tim Mellon on December 24, 2012, 09:53:51 PM



May i ask why the object in image an surrounding area has not been subject to discussion ?

.       

By the date and time stamp this would appear to be a picture near the Norwich City. It is not clear enough to see what the arm is trying to grab.

Merry Christmas to you, Richie
Title: Re: Possible Rope video (2012)
Post by: Ric Gillespie on December 25, 2012, 11:42:26 AM
I thought that Tighar was using the Remora 6000 Rov.
The search contractor, Phoenix International, decided not to use it's own Remora 6000 ROV because the only place it could be deployed from KOK was over the stern which would put the tether too close to ship's propellers.  Instead, they subcontracted with Submersible Systems Inc. (SSI) who brought their TRV-M ROV which could be deployed from KOK's starboard side just aft of amidship.
Title: Re: Possible Rope video (2012)
Post by: Tom Swearengen on December 25, 2012, 02:36:22 PM
Hum----
Title: Re: Possible Rope video (2012)
Post by: Tim Mellon on December 28, 2012, 06:47:09 PM
Two more items seen in the 2012 HD video that were originally identified in the 2010 HD video:

   (1) the second landing gear (possibly the Bevington Object), and
   (2) the right wingtip, sporting the squiggle on the trailing edge
Title: Re: Possible Rope video (2012)
Post by: Tim Mellon on December 29, 2012, 05:00:20 PM
A spare tail wheel and tire was mentioned as part of the Luke Field inventory (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Luke_Field.html) (Item #45). This has not been found in the 2010 HD video.
Title: Re: Possible Rope video (2012)
Post by: Ric Gillespie on December 30, 2012, 04:19:03 PM
I've put the Standard Definition footage of the Possible Rope (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1f6FcIjeFSs) video up on YouTube.
The Standard Definition (SD) camera was being used to "fly" the ROV and investigate objects. The High Definition (HD) camera was pointed in a slightly different direction and so did not always see everything the Standard Def camera was seeing. Consequently, the SD video of the Possible Rope provides a better view, although with poorer resolution. It also reveals more objects that don't appear in the HD version.
Enjoy.
Title: Re: Possible Rope video (2012)
Post by: richie conroy on January 01, 2013, 04:01:44 PM
Hi All

I believe were looking at possible Norwich City debris in these video's, May not even be ship wreckage to that matter

What i have found, is most of it is man made debris  ???

But from what ? Am not even sure i Believe what am seeing  :o

Thank's Richie

Will attach a couple images when am sure am not imaging things   :)
Title: Re: Possible Rope video (2012)
Post by: richie conroy on January 01, 2013, 05:03:34 PM
Hi All

What are the chances of a glass bottle in a cup holder type shelf, with what appears to be wire Attached surviving the tumble down the reef face ?

Thanks Richie 
Title: Re: Possible Rope video (2012)
Post by: richie conroy on January 04, 2013, 02:53:57 PM
Hi All

Here is more Debris you can see clearly the cable arches round to an L shaped connection

Thanks Richie
Title: Re: Possible Rope video (2012)
Post by: Tim Mellon on January 05, 2013, 05:46:45 AM
Hi All

Here is more Debris you can see clearly the cable arches round to an L shaped connection

Thanks Richie

Richie, do you think this may be one of those missing fuel fill pipes, like the other one you found? There appear to be two layers: a thin outer layer that is cracked open near the bottom, and a smaller, thicker inner pipe. The wire close by I don't think is directly related.
Title: Re: Possible Rope video (2012)
Post by: Tim Mellon on January 05, 2013, 06:00:21 AM
Just four seconds earlier in the 2012 Standard Definition video appears the landing gear assembly with fork and fender. The fender appears to be in its proper (as opposed to upside-down) configuration. The piece of broken metal protruding outward to the right is probably the broken-off section of the column and is, I think, what led me to believe that the fender was inverted in previous posts.
Title: Re: Possible Rope video (2012)
Post by: Tim Mellon on January 05, 2013, 06:39:20 AM
In the same 2012 Standard Definition video appears this superimposed question (by Phoenix?).

I think the answer is that we are looking at another connection between a control cable and a lever that might operate a control surface.
Title: Re: Possible Rope video (2012)
Post by: Ric Gillespie on January 05, 2013, 08:15:03 AM
In the same 2012 Standard Definition video appears this superimposed question (by Phoenix?).

I superimposed the question.
Title: Re: Possible Rope video (2012)
Post by: Tim Mellon on January 05, 2013, 08:21:55 AM
In the same 2012 Standard Definition video appears this superimposed question (by Phoenix?).

I superimposed the question.

Ric, do you now have an opinion as to the nature of this object?
Title: Re: Possible Rope video (2012)
Post by: Ric Gillespie on January 05, 2013, 08:38:51 AM
Ric, do you now have an opinion as to the nature of this object?

It caught my attention because it is anomalous. I haven't seen anything else like it in the video. It appears to be lying on the surface and is of a different color than the background material but it's not rusty looking so it's not ferrous.  It's shape is irregular so I suspect it is natural rather than man-made.  It has no coating of "snow" like the background coral so it seems to arrived fairly recently. My best guess: a piece of coral growth that fell down the slope.
Title: Re: Possible Rope video (2012)
Post by: Tim Mellon on January 05, 2013, 08:49:07 AM
Would coral have these features?
Title: Re: Possible Rope video (2012)
Post by: Ric Gillespie on January 05, 2013, 08:53:31 AM
Would coral have these features?

No, but I don't see any of those features on the object.
Title: Re: Possible Rope video (2012)
Post by: Tim Mellon on January 05, 2013, 08:55:45 AM
No, but I don't see any of those features on the object.

Fair enough.
Title: Re: Possible Rope video (2012)
Post by: richie conroy on January 05, 2013, 10:03:01 AM
Hi All

One thing to take note of aswell during the rov video dive 14 the rover lands on sea bed but produces no snow even when hovering again, were as were we are seeing all these possible plane parts the snow is terrible I.e snow being corroded aluminium flakes dust etc.

I am going to be posting some more images of possible debris.

To get peoples opinions
Title: Re: Possible Rope video (2012)
Post by: richie conroy on January 05, 2013, 01:24:45 PM
Hi All

Here is one of many images am going to be posting.

I believe in this image we see remains of cockpit.

Red arrow left, Is pointing to what i believe to be the skeleton of the centre console were fuel selectors were, Also if u look closely bottom left you will see yellow arrow which points to the lever that sits in front of console.

Red arrow right points to control box of direction finder top left of cockpit next to eyebrow panel,

White circle in top middle, to me looks like Amelia watching over the Debris  :) Joking of course

The main thing to do is study the image specially the area bottom left, Man made for sure

Thanks Richie
Title: Re: Possible Rope video (2012)
Post by: richie conroy on January 05, 2013, 01:32:17 PM
Just to add

this image is off area directly above centre console image i posted above

In circle you will see what appears to be a steering wheel ?

Thanks Richie
Title: Re: Possible Rope video (2012)
Post by: richie conroy on January 05, 2013, 01:40:40 PM
Hi Again

Here is Ric's supposed coral object "arrow left

Arrow right points to what looks like a chrome colored tube/pipe
Title: Re: Possible Rope video (2012)
Post by: Tim Mellon on January 05, 2013, 02:24:21 PM
In circle you will see what appears to be a steering wheel ?


You're 7 hours late, Richie: I already claimed this was the landing gear assembly! See Reply #119. (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1048.msg22883.html#msg22883)
Title: Re: Possible Rope video (2012)
Post by: Tim Mellon on January 05, 2013, 02:29:01 PM
Here is Ric's supposed coral object "arrow left

Do salamanders live at this depth?    ;D
Title: Re: Possible Rope video (2012)
Post by: richie conroy on January 05, 2013, 04:24:31 PM
Tim

There is no way that's an Electra landing gear  :o

Or do u mean a scaled down size one  :D
Title: Re: Possible Rope video (2012)
Post by: Tim Mellon on January 05, 2013, 05:38:00 PM
There is no way that's an Electra landing gear  :o

Richie, since when do aircraft steering wheels have fenders? Or forks? Or axels? Even BAE knows better! Maybe the fact that the tire is flat has your scaling confused.

Here's a view of the same landing gear (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1038.msg22477.html#msg22477)  from the 2010 HD video.
Title: Re: Possible Rope video (2012)
Post by: richie conroy on January 05, 2013, 06:56:04 PM
Hi Tim

I will use the following image's to explain apparent

first image is of what LOOKS like shell of cockpit viewed from left side the right side as you can see has a big rock bashed on top

A, edge of roof hatch

B, right hand side of cockpit window

C, big rock on top of left side of cockpit window

Now second picture from about same distance, showing little tree's in odd straight lines, So now if you use the small tree's for scale, unless they are palm tree's, Your wheel is no bigger than a steering wheel

Thanks Richie
Title: Re: Possible Rope video (2012)
Post by: Tim Mellon on January 05, 2013, 07:09:50 PM
Richie, sorry, you've lost me. Here is the cockpit (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1006.msg21322.html#msg21322) as I have seen it for months now, including the pilot's steering wheel, many instruments and the pilot's seat cushion, all as seen through the open hatch from above, to the left and to the rear of the cockpit. The attached picture compares the size of the landing gear tire (36" diameter inflated) to the height of the rudder (60 inches) and to the length of the fuel filler pipe (about 18 inches). Dimensions are taken from Harney.


Title: Re: Possible Rope video (2012)
Post by: JNev on January 05, 2013, 07:34:12 PM
Hi Again

Here is Ric's supposed coral object "arrow left

Arrow right points to what looks like a chrome colored tube/pipe

There IS a lot of interesting and anomalous geometry in this picture that is suggestive of something man-made among the shapes.  As to the "chrome colored tube/pipe", to me it is also suggestive of the edge of a 'cake pan' type of structure such as is sometimes found in seat pans, drip trays or similar nacelle-mounted objects and the like, and the 'bend' suggests the 'corner' of something like that. 

I wonder if more can be discerned about the color / reflective qualities of whatever it is - are we seeing a true 'color' and representative surface, or simply light momentarily reflected by an irregular surface anomaly that creates an illusion of what appears to be there?

Title: Re: Possible Rope video (2012)
Post by: richie conroy on January 06, 2013, 06:06:39 AM
Hi All

I believe this image shows possible parts of the engine, And underbelly antenna

Orange line, Engine Nacelle "partially buried so vent holes appear round instead of tear shaped"

Yellow line, Engine

White line, Under belly antenna post

 :)
Title: Re: Possible Rope video (2012)
Post by: Ric Gillespie on January 12, 2013, 09:10:21 AM
This horse is dead and will not benefit from further flogging.  This and other topics discussing whether various shapes in the underwater video are or are not encrusted objects of interest have run their course.  Both sides have had more than adequate opportunity to state their case and flogging the subject further will not change anyone's mind.  We'll give the horse a decent burial by locking "Summary of Debris from 2010," "2010 Black and White Video of the Debris Field," and "Possible Rope video."  I'll leave "Underwater Airplane Parts" open but only as a discussion of what known underwater airplane parts look like in contexts other than Nikumaroro.  I'll remove new topics that attempt to revive discussions of objects seen in 2010 and 2012 underwater video unless and until Jeff Glickman advises me that he has found something worth discussing.
Title: Re: Possible Rope video (2012)
Post by: JNev on July 28, 2014, 11:53:17 AM
This topic has been re-opened.  Enjoy.