TIGHAR
Amelia Earhart Search Forum => General discussion => Topic started by: Ric Gillespie on June 04, 2013, 11:49:49 AM
-
Given the recent interest in the Cook Photo I have written to the owner of the photo and asked him to agree to rescind the Confidentiality Agreement TIGHAR entered into with the photo’s owner and grant us permission to share the photo and freely discuss the photo publicly. While we're waiting to hear back, it might be useful to clarify that - other than Dr. Tom King seeing the photo for a few seconds as part of an Explorers Club slide show on September 17, 2011- no one at TIGHAR saw the photo, much less had a chance to evaluate it, until nearly a week AFTER Tim Mellon made his financial contribution to the project.
On April 5, 2012, after signing a Confidentiality Agreement, we finally got a copy of the photo. Our forensic imaging expert (Jeff Glickman) began examining it. For those who don’t know, Jeff provides expert witness testimony and expert reports for the enhancement, reconstruction and recovery of photographic and video imagery including photographic interpretation, objective data extraction, analytical and mathematical image modeling and image reconstruction. Jeff is a Board Certified Forensic Examiner, a Fellow of the American College of Forensic Examiners, a Senior Member of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, and Vice-President of the American Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, Puget Sound Region. He is also a past Member of the Washington State Forensic Investigations Council. See: http://www.jurispro.com/JeffGlickman. In any event, based on Jeff’s examination, on May 2, 2012 we notified Dr. Cook that in our opinion there was only a "slight chance" that the object in the photo was associated with the airplane.
Just like our investigation of the “wreck photo” (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/10_Wreckphoto/10_Wreckphoto.html) posted on the website, TIGHAR members are free to comment, debate, examine and discuss the Cook Photo as soon as we have clearance to share it.
-
Just like our investigation of the “wreck photo” (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/10_Wreckphoto/10_Wreckphoto.html) posted on the website...
Gee Ric, let's not go down that road... again!
Here's a link to the Wreck Photo Resolved (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/55_WreckPhotoResolved/55_WreckPhotoResolved.htm).
-
Just like our investigation of the “wreck photo” (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/10_Wreckphoto/10_Wreckphoto.html) posted on the website...
Gee Ric, let's not go down that road... again!
Here's a link to the Wreck Photo Resolved (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/55_WreckPhotoResolved/55_WreckPhotoResolved.htm).
James, are you suggesting that the Cook photo is of a Japanese Ki-54? Does this move us closer to the Saipan scenario? Interesting....
-
Gee Ric, let's not go down that road... again!
No, no, no .. I was just citing the Wreck Photo as an example of a photo we've puzzled about and discussed openly. That horse well-flogged and long dead. Thanks for posting the "resolved" link.
-
Still haven't head back from the owner of the photo. I'll ping him again.
-
Well said Jeff.
-
Yes Jeff. Well said. Lets hope the permission is granted.
-
I'm pleased to report that TIGHAR has, at long last, received confirmation from Dr. Craig Cook that:
"The previous confidentiality agreement is no longer in effect and you can use the photo as you deem necessary. I retain ownership and the photo cannot be used for sale or given to third parties for usage unless I am informed and agree to that use."
I have posted the entire photo here for your examination and comment. The yellow arrow was put there by Dr. Cook to point out the object of interest in the photo. I trust that everyone will respect Dr. Cook's stipulation. Please do not download the photo or re-post it.
Craig took the photo September 13, 2009 during a New England Aquarium expedition to the Phoenix Group. On that day they were diving off the west end of Nikumaroro. He did not take the photo because he noticed anything unusual at the time - it's just one of many underwater shots he took during that dive. The depth appears to be around 60 feet. Craig does not know, and we do not know, exactly where the photo was taken but he now thinks he may have been just west of the Bevington Object location.
During the June 2012 New England Aquarium expedition (just prior to TIGHAR's Niku VII expedition) Dr. Cook and other divers tried, but were unable, to re-locate the scene depicted in the photo. The marine growth that appears to cover the object of interest is a macro-algae called halmeda (http://www.liveaquaria.com/product/prod_display.cfm?c=490+656&pcatid=656). Craig reports that during the 2012 expedition they found halmeda growth at Nikumaroro to be greatly reduced since the 2009 trip, probably due to an increase in water temperature - so it's possible that the object of interest is just an oddly-shaped clump of veggies that was gone in 2012.
Jeff Glickman's opinion, however, is that the object of interest is probably a man-made object but the lack of anything in the photo from which to derive scale makes it impossible to tell exactly how big it is. There's a fish lurking behind the object which the New England Aquarium has tentatively identified as a "Squirrel fish" (Holocentridae). If the fish ID is correct, the object isn't very big. Still, Craig's recently-expressed opinion that it was just west of the Bevington Object location, if correct, puts it in an interesting place. It was certainly not worth altering the make-up and mission of TIGHAR's 2012 Niku VII expedition to look for this elusive object, but we plan to include scuba divers as part of the Niku VIII team any way to scour the shallow areas west of the Bevington Object location - again - for any possible debris. Craig Cook has agreed to come along as TIGHAR's dive team physician. You can bet that we'll be on the look-out for anything that might explain this intriguing photo.
-
I'm sorry, I don't see a darn thing! What do some people think it might be, or think it looks like...
-
It looks very similar to a wheel, lying on its side, with marine growth covering it.
Yeah, but not much like an Electra wheel.
-
Ummmm ... I see a yellow arrow. And the Creature from the Black Lagoon swimming away from the camera operator, on the righthand side of the frame.
And I do remember seeing a film once where the phrase, "I see dead people" was repeated fairly often.
LTM, who knows when to call in the experts,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 CER
-
What about the possibility of it being a tailwheel? I have not yet been able to find a decent pic of the rear wheel.... :-\
-
What about the possibility of it being a tailwheel? I have not yet been able to find a decent pic of the rear wheel.... :-\
Here is an image of the tail wheel from Purdue U.'s on-line digital collection (http://earchives.lib.purdue.edu/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/earhart&CISOPTR=335&DMSCALE=25&DMWIDTH=600&DMHEIGHT=600&DMX=171&DMY=0&DMMODE=viewer&DMTEXT=%20b11f1i25&REC=1&DMTHUMB=1&DMROTATE=0).
Don't know if AE's L10E had a steerable tail wheel. However, to my eye to the left of the yellow arrow is a configuration that looks manmade, and very much resembles a tail wheel steering mechanism (symmetrical plate with holes on either side and rigging attached).
-
I'm not usually one for 'camel cloud' spotting but attached is (difficult to do without reference to original photo but bearing in mind Ric's wishes) three fairly linier objects that I can see.
-
I am inclined to believe it may be an engine with cowling circling the central propeller shaft. Looks like three cylinders (at 8, 12 and 2 o'clock) have been forced forward.
-
If it is a Squirellfish then the following from [urlhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocentridae]Wikipedia[/url] should help with scale
Most have a maximum length of 15–35 cm (6–14 in), but Sargocentron iota barely reaches 8 cm (3 in), and S. spiniferum and Holocentrus adscensionis can reach more than 50 cm (20 in)
I did think cowling on first looking at it but am no expert on aircraft.
-
When Jeff Glickman showed me the picture he told me the fish was a red snapper, which are common to the area. He also claimed that a snapper of average age could be assumed, and that that gave some scale to the photo.
-
Lots of pretty pictures of Fish (http://www.ryanphotographic.com/holocentridae.htm) for people to look at! :)
So you may be able to ID the fish in the Cook Photo.
For me it dosn't look like the one in Tims photo.
-
The similarity of the object in the Cook Photo to an airplane engine cowling is what got Tom King's attention when he saw the photo during an Explorers Club slideshow in September 2011. I, too, noted the similarity when I first saw the photo in April 2012 but within days one of the marine biologists at the New England Aquarium had estimated the size of the "squirrel-fish looking thing" as "probably 8-10 inches total length." If the estimate is even close to correct, the object is way too small to be an Electra engine cowling.
This is the first Ive heard that Jeff Glickman thought that the fish might be a red snapper. Jeff didn't talk to the New England Aquarium folks. To my knowledge there are no red snapper in the South Central Pacific.
The other thing that bothers me about the hypothesis that the object in the photo is an engine and cowling is that Craig couldn't re-locate it in 2012. It seems like an engine and aluminum cowling sitting there without the obscuring halmeda growth we see in the 2009 photo would be easy to spot.
My opinion about the object now is about the same as it was a year ago. It might be man-made but I can't connect it to anything on the Electra.
-
Ric is correct, the Red Snapper (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_snapper_(fish)) is native of the Gulf of Mexico and Eastern Seaboard.
The object appears round and has some 'depth to it' something nags the back of my mind about the colony having wheeled objects to do with the fishing canoes.
-
I can't get the image of a 'train wheel' out of my head, the kind you see on those hand cranked carts from black and white Western's if you know what I mean?
-
I don't even see the fish for crying out loud! Is that a tubular/rod type thing on the left hand sud about a third of the way up from the bottom.
Any chance of getting a grid or x & Y axis references applied to the photo for discussion's sake?
-
Any chance of getting a grid or x & Y axis references applied to the photo for discussion's sake?
How about this?
-
To my eyes it strongly resembles a tire carcass. The proportions look odd though - with a relatively large wheel diameter, what most people call the "rim", compared to the tire. That is the opposite of the Lockheed tires, which had small diameter wheels relative to the tires.
Old tires are quite commonly used for boat bumpers, making it unsurprising to find one in a marine environment. They also come in a wide range of sizes.
Tire markings are molded in, and may be readible after long submersion.
I recall a discussion of a circular "wire" object in a different thread a couple years ago. One (of many) hypotheses at that time was that it might be the remnant of a tire bead.
-
Any chance of getting a grid or x & Y axis references applied to the photo for discussion's sake?
How about this?
That'll help I'm sure.
Oh my, all of a sudden the alleged item in the image just became clear to me! Why didn't I see it the first time I saw the picture? You may be on to something. Can't wait for Jeff's analysis to come back.
-
Can't wait for Jeff's analysis to come back.
Jeff's analysis is that there is probably a man-made object there. He sees a strong implication of a circular object with what appears to be a central shaft sticking out and he can see some hard, straight edges in the interior (D4). Scale is the problem. All we have to go on is the fish. If that was a five-foot Blacktip shark lurking in the shadows or a nice fat Grouper we could get pretty excited about the object's apparent similarity to an Electra engine and cowling, but I can't find any kind of fish that lives out there and looks anything like that guy that could possibly be big enough to let this object be what we wish it was.
-
Scale is the problem.
What about a steering wheel (http://www.google.com/search?q=earhart+in+cockpit&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&client=safari#biv=i%7C2%3Bd%7CqfVPgf8H6jXyRM%3A) for better scale comparison? I have a harder time imagining a cockpit steering wheel detaching from the airplane than I do a tire. Is there any precedent for cockpit debris separating from the fuselage in cases of submerged aircraft that escaped major damage prior to sinking?
Joe Cerniglia
TIGHAR #3078ECR
-
I just removed a posting by a forum member who disregarded my request not to re-post the photo. He asked, "Ric, do you know if Jeff can check out if there is what appears to be a human skull and bones in a crevice located below that circular object?"
I'll say this one more time. There is no way that human remains would survive exposed in an underwater environment such as we see at Nikumaroro. Let's keep our discussions of this photo rational and please respect the owner's wishes and do not download or re-post the photo.
-
What about a steering wheel (http://www.google.com/search?q=earhart+in+cockpit&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&client=safari#biv=i%7C2%3Bd%7CqfVPgf8H6jXyRM%3A) for better scale comparison? I have a harder time imagining a cockpit steering wheel detaching from the airplane than I do a tire. Is there any precedent for cockpit debris separating from the fuselage in cases of submerged aircraft that escaped major damage prior to sinking?
Interesting thought Joe. A photo taken in Darwin suggests that there was a "steering wheel" (we aviators tend to call then "yokes" for some reason) loaded aboard the Electra along with the parachutes she picked up in Darwin, a spare tailwheel, and a nitrogen bottle for servicing the oleo struts. My guess is that they had removed the yoke from the copilot's side to give Fred more room. In any event, a yoke rattling around in the back could easily fall out of the airplane during its presumed breakup in the surf. The question is, does this object look like it could be the yoke in the Darwin photo?
-
Whadya think?
-
It seems to me that there would be clear indications of three spokes in the unkown object; if the perimeter of the yoke is heavily encrusted, then it should be reasonable to expect that the spokes would look about the same. It looks like there might be one overgrown spoke running from the center of the circular object towards the 6-7-o'clock position (C4 on Ric's grid), but I don't see the other 2 spokes. This may of course mean nothing.
Now, the yoke is probaby made from welded tubular steel or aluminum, right? Would tubular metals like these last long enough to allow the kind of marine growth we're seeing in the image?
-
Ric is correct, the Red Snapper (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_snapper_(fish)) is native of the Gulf of Mexico and Eastern Seaboard.
Chris, here is another interesting article about the red snapper from the National Geographic (http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/enlarge/red-snapper-kingman-reef.html).
-
Now, the yoke is probaby made from welded tubular steel or aluminum, right? Would tubular metals like these last long enough to allow the kind of marine growth we're seeing in the image?
Now that you mention it, I think the yokes were made of wood covered with leather. If so, fagetaboutit.
-
Ric is correct, the Red Snapper (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_snapper_(fish)) is native of the Gulf of Mexico and Eastern Seaboard.
Chris, here is another interesting article about the red snapper from the National Geographic (http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/enlarge/red-snapper-kingman-reef.html).
So much for Wikipedia then!!!!
Thanks :)
-
I should think that someone familiar with the type of vegetation in the image may be able to give a more accurate idea as to the size and scale in the image, than using the fish.
-
Chris, here is another interesting article about the red snapper from the National Geographic (http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/enlarge/red-snapper-kingman-reef.html).
I stand corrected. Next question, how big do those Pacific red snapper get?
-
Now, the yoke is probaby made from welded tubular steel or aluminum, right? Would tubular metals like these last long enough to allow the kind of marine growth we're seeing in the image?
Now that you mention it, I think the yokes were made of wood covered with leather. If so, fagetaboutit.
Would AE's plane have carried the factory-installed yokes? What kind of yokes do the Electra survivors have?
I saw video of a replica of the AE plane (studied by the Waitt Inst., do we know which number plane that is?), and it had round yokes (compared to the flattened-bottom ones in AE's plane) with a wooden rim and metal spokes (black with silvery scratches indicating paint). The joint where the wood meets the metal spoke is clearly visible. Those could be either recent additions done with the restoration or some kind of factory option, my uneducated guess would be the former.
-
I am inclined to believe it may be an engine with cowling circling the central propeller shaft. Looks like three cylinders (at 8, 12 and 2 o'clock) have been forced forward.
Here's a photo of the engine from the Purdue Archives (http://earchives.lib.purdue.edu/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/epurdue&CISOPTR=366&CISOBOX=1&REC=7). I thought this might be the object when I first saw it. But, the entire body of the engine would have would have to be deeply embedded in coral, or the front section somehow became separated. I don't know how the engine is assembled but I don't think it's possible for just the front end to have been sheared off of the main body. The cowling maybe, but not with the prop shaft geometry intact.
A yoke is an interesting possibility, if it could last that long underwater.
If the object is circular, there appears to be too much buildup of crud between the left side (B3-B4) and right side of the object (E3-E4). See Rick's Grid here (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1202.msg25763.html#msg25763) . I'd expect a similar amount of crud buildup on both sides.
I was fooled by the image of a tire before (click here for explanation) (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,933.msg19105.html#msg19105). The object in a video correlated almost perfectly with the Electra tire. But, when the object was viewed from a different angle it was clearly composed of three unrelated objects.
For the type of fish I'd trust the New England Aquarium.
My vote is it's interesting, probably nothing, but worth a look if you can find the object without wasting too much time.
-
Now, the yoke is probaby made from welded tubular steel or aluminum, right? Would tubular metals like these last long enough to allow the kind of marine growth we're seeing in the image?
Now that you mention it, I think the yokes were made of wood covered with leather. If so, fagetaboutit.
The hub and at least the portion of spoke (http://earchives.lib.purdue.edu/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=%2Fearhart&CISOPTR=808&DMSCALE=100&DMWIDTH=600&DMHEIGHT=600&DMMODE=viewer&DMFULL=0&DMX=440&DMY=1972&DMTEXT=%2520Cockpit&DMTHUMB=1&REC=15&DMROTATE=0&x=28&y=267)radiating from the hub appears to have been some sort of metal. There is also some sort of outer casing or sheath on the spoke visible in this photo, and a rope-like twiny thing (Lockheed technical term) threaded into a hole in the casing. The casing looks rugged and could be a dry shell-like leather. If the spokes are wood, then they would need to be attached to the metal hub. Without better documentation of the specifications of this part, I suppose anything is possible.
Joe Cerniglia
TIGHAR #3078 ECR
-
I stand corrected. Next question, how big do those Pacific red snapper get?
Ric, it appears that the most common type snapper found on Niku might be of Genus/species Lutjanus bohar. (http://fishbase.sinica.edu.tw/summary/SpeciesSummary.php?ID=1417)
Detailed information can be found in the reference above. It is estimated that they may live to be as much as 55 years old.
Max length= 90cm ~36"
Common length= 76cm ~ 30"
Max weight= 12.5kg ~ 27lbs
-
Max length= 90cm ~36"
Common length= 76cm ~ 30"
Max weight= 12.5kg ~ 27lbs
Well, 36 inches is better than 8 -10 inches for a squirrel fish. I'm no ichthyologist, heaven knows, but this guy doesn't look much like Lujanus bohar to me. Proportions look wrong and his eyes are too big.
-
Here's a Squirrelfish Description (ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/009/y4161e/y4161e40.pdf) (slow link). Note it has "Very large eyes". It is reported as typically being 36 cm (14.2") long worldwide, but there seems to be a lot of sub-species.
Go with the experts! Photo: Jeff. Fish: an Aquarium.
[Edited to correct ftp link].
-
Ric is correct, the Red Snapper (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_snapper_(fish)) is native of the Gulf of Mexico and Eastern Seaboard.
The object appears round and has some 'depth to it' something nags the back of my mind about the colony having wheeled objects to do with the fishing canoes.
Found it (what I was looking for) WOF (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/41_WheelofFortune/41_Wheel.html)
See picture, deepish spooked wheel.
-
See picture, deepish spooked wheel.
We're all in deep and a little bit spooked. As I recall that wheel was near the old carpenter's shop just inland on the south side of the main passage.
-
Something like it could be a contender, it was just nagging at my neurones ;D
-
Well, 36 inches is better than 8 -10 inches for a squirrel fish. I'm no ichthyologist, heaven knows, but this guy doesn't look much like Lujanus bohar to me. Proportions look wrong and his eyes are too big.
Ric, I guess I misunderstood what everyone was looking for in the way of fish on Niku. This fish, Myripristis berndti (http://www.fishbase.org/Country/CountrySpeciesSummary.php?c_code=296&id=4910), or another of the same Genus, looks like it could be the one in the Cook photo.
Max length- 30cm ~ 12in
Common length- 22cm ~ 8.8in
Hope this helps.
-
The similarity of the object in the Cook Photo to an airplane engine cowling is what got Tom King's attention when he saw the photo during an Explorers Club slideshow in September 2011. I, too, noted the similarity when I first saw the photo in April 2012 but within days one of the marine biologists at the New England Aquarium had estimated the size of the "squirrel-fish looking thing" as "probably 8-10 inches total length." If the estimate is even close to correct, the object is way too small to be an Electra engine cowling.
This is the first Ive heard that Jeff Glickman thought that the fish might be a red snapper. Jeff didn't talk to the New England Aquarium folks. To my knowledge there are no red snapper in the South Central Pacific.
The other thing that bothers me about the hypothesis that the object in the photo is an engine and cowling is that Craig couldn't re-locate it in 2012. It seems like an engine and aluminum cowling sitting there without the obscuring halmeda growth we see in the 2009 photo would be easy to spot.
My opinion about the object now is about the same as it was a year ago. It might be man-made but I can't connect it to anything on the Electra.
Ric, why do you assume there would be less halmeda obscuring the object in 2012 than in 2009?
-
Ric, why do you assume there would be less halmeda obscuring the object in 2012 than in 2009?
I'm not assuming anything. As I clearly said in a posting earlier in this thread, "Craig reports that during the 2012 expedition they found halmeda growth at Nikumaroro to be greatly reduced since the 2009 trip, probably due to an increase in water temperature."
-
Ric,
I would like to know the rules re the Cook Photo.
Can we mark up the picture and re post it on this site?
I think what we have here is a clutch mechanism.
Ted Campbell
-
Ric,
I would like to know the rules re the Cook Photo.
Can we mark up the picture and re post it on this site?
No. You can not download the photo.
-
At first I was convinced it was coral. But the more I look at it, the more it looks like it could be part of an airplane! heh. What a maddening thing it must be to comb through miles of coral footage...
I'm glad there are thousands of eyes online to look at this. Strength in numbers. Imagine trying to do this in the 40s-70s.
-
Ric,
Thanks for the info.
Ted Campbell
-
Rotate the upper left corner of D4 toward the lower right coner of C3 and you might see a male/female cog coming together if they are engaged.
Ted Campbell
-
Ric, why do you assume there would be less halmeda obscuring the object in 2012 than in 2009?
I'm not assuming anything. As I clearly said in a posting earlier in this thread, "Craig reports that during the 2012 expedition they found halmeda growth at Nikumaroro to be greatly reduced since the 2009 trip, probably due to an increase in water temperature."
Yes, Ric, I assumed that to be a generalized statement.
But we don't know specifically if it holds true for the location of this object, or whether the object could have itself still been covered with halmeda, or covered with something else by 2012, or whether the object might have been pushed elsewhere by 2012.
-
Ric any chance of breaking down the entire Cook photo into grid squares, thanks Rob. Tim Collins excellent idea by the way.
-
But we don't know specifically if it holds true for the location of this object, or whether the object could have itself still been covered with halmeda, or covered with something else by 2012, or whether the object might have been pushed elsewhere by 2012.
..or salvaged by space aliens. What's your point?
-
Ric any chance of breaking down the entire Cook photo into grid squares, thanks Rob. Tim Collins excellent idea by the way.
Why? Do you think you see something in a different part of the photo?
-
Ric,
I would like to know the rules re the Cook Photo.
Can we mark up the picture and re post it on this site?
No. You can not download the photo.
But you can? (read inquisitive tone NOT accusatory!) Perhaps you would bring together for comparason photos of the most promising possibilities like you did with the yoke?
-
In the original photo, Ric's reply #8, directly to the left of the object, near the left edge of the frame, appears (to me) to be another circular object. It brings to my mind the vertically upright end of an open barrel, other than the unknown scale.
What do others make of it?
-
But you can? (read inquisitive tone NOT accusatory!)
Yes. As I explained in my posting of June 30, Dr. Cook stipulated that:
"The previous confidentiality agreement is no longer in effect and you can use the photo as you deem necessary. I retain ownership and the photo cannot be used for sale or given to third parties for usage unless I am informed and agree to that use."
I am the "you" he references. You guys are "third parties." Not my idea but I understand his concern.
Perhaps you would bring together for comparason photos of the most promising possibilities like you did with the yoke?
I'd be happy to do that if I knew of any promising possibilities but right now I don't know of any.
-
Ric,
is this a still photo or part of a video shot? I ask as if it was a still shot what drew them to take this photo or did the expedition have a plan in place for the taking of photo's. Guess I'm trying to figure out if there was something that prompted the picture such as unusual shape or just the fish.
-
is this a still photo or part of a video shot? I ask as if it was a still shot what drew them to take this photo or did the expedition have a plan in place for the taking of photo's. Guess I'm trying to figure out if there was something that prompted the picture such as unusual shape or just the fish.
It's a still photo - one of many that he took just to document the underwater environment. He wasn't taking a picture of anything in particular. He didn't notice the odd shaped object until he was putting together a slide show a couple years later.
-
But we don't know specifically if it holds true for the location of this object, or whether the object could have itself still been covered with halmeda, or covered with something else by 2012, or whether the object might have been pushed elsewhere by 2012.
..or salvaged by space aliens. What's your point?
My point is that this object should have been a key focus of the 2012 expedition, whether or not it was found again by Craig Cook, whose interests lie elsewhere. You (TIGHAR) were aware of it as of September 17, 2011, Jeff Glickman thought it was man-made and scaled properly by the fish, yet as far as I can tell, Phoenix whom you hired to search the area were not even aware of the existence of this potentially important object.
How you could have squandered so much on the "Bevington Object" (time, effort, PR and financial resources) and ignored this other promising find is, honestly, beyond my comprehension.
-
What got found ?
-
But we don't know specifically if it holds true for the location of this object, or whether the object could have itself still been covered with halmeda, or covered with something else by 2012, or whether the object might have been pushed elsewhere by 2012.
..or salvaged by space aliens. What's your point?
My point is that this object should have been a key focus of the 2012 expedition, whether or not it was found again by Craig Cook, whose interests lie elsewhere. You (TIGHAR) were aware of it as of September 17, 2011, Jeff Glickman thought it was man-made and scaled properly by the fish, yet as far as I can tell, Phoenix whom you hired to search the area were not even aware of the existence of this potentially important object.
How you could have squandered so much on the "Bevington Object" (time, effort, PR and financial resources) and ignored this other promising find is, honestly, beyond my comprehension.
Thank you.
-
I don’t think the already planned NIKU VII trip should have been drastically altered at such a late date based on what I see in the Cook picture. (edit: even if you could show the picture to base changing plans on).
I don’t see anything that looks like an airplane part or manmade. Maybe something manmade under it. It’s my understanding that it is not even known where the picture was taken.
In the 2012 images, Jeff Glickman identified what I think looks like a tire in a location where one would expect based on the Bevington Object, which I think does look like parts of the main landing gear. I attached it for comparison.
The Debris field at 200 feet and the Sonar target Richie pointed out seem like very good targets to investigate on the next trip.
Hopefully the newly discovered NZ photographs can provide more verification, clues or targets.
-
In the original photo, Ric's reply #8, directly to the left of the object, near the left edge of the frame, appears (to me) to be another circular object. It brings to my mind the vertically upright end of an open barrel, other than the unknown scale.
What do others make of it?
I was thinking the Cook object could be the steel bands that hold the barrels together. Like a water barrel or cask from the NC.
-
G.
I'm trying to orient myself. Is this image you posted taken underneath the Bevington object location?
-
Wow, that does look like a high profile, landing gear tire.
-
G.
I'm trying to orient myself. Is this image you posted taken underneath the Bevington object location?
See post 15 by Ric (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1140.15.html) in the Sonar anomaly thread for where this "tire" and the "fender" near it line up with the Bevington object and sonar anomaly.
Also attached is a pdf, but it is just a continuing study of my own in trying to understand the area myself.
Again, this picture is from the 2012 Niku VII trip and is just for comparison. It's a black and white still from the 2012 Black and White Video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SvHSWxmqIwk)
-
See post 15 by Ric (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1140.15.html) in the Sonar anomaly thread for where this "tire" and the "fender" near it line up with the Bevington object and sonar anomaly.
Also attached is a pdf, but it is just a continuing study of my own in trying to understand the area myself.
Again, this picture is from the 2012 Niku VII trip and is just for comparisson. It's a black and white still from the 2012 Black and White Video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SvHSWxmqIwk)
Wow, thanks. Now, in relation to this, where is that debris field containing the "wire and rope"? The trouble here is that without all of these put together and shown in the context of elevation lines and currents, and given all the encrusted material, its really hard to make a decision about it. But taken together I think we are seeing the remains of what could only be the AE plane. If the Bevington photo is likewise correlated, wouldn't this suggest a pretty hard landing/crash? Just looking for any opinions on that.
-
Wow, thanks. Now, in relation to this, where is that debris field containing the "wire and rope"? The trouble here is that without all of these put together and shown in the context of elevation lines and currents, and given all the encrusted material, its really hard to make a decision about it. But taken together I think we are seeing the remains of what could only be the AE plane. If the Bevington photo is likewise correlated, wouldn't this suggest a pretty hard landing/crash? Just looking for any opinions on that.
I believe the Wire Rope video was taken in 2010 but the GPS unit on the ROV was lost so it's location is not known.
I don't see a "debris field" in that 2010 video. I do see one in the 2012 video at 200'.
IMHO the plane may have broken up some due to surf action and not the landing and I am interested to see the targets investigated in the next trip. If the many radio signals heard were from Earhart, then the plane may not have been in bad shape after the landing due to the starboard engine needing to run to charge the battery. Again, that 2012 picture was just for comparison. Many of these topics are discussed in other threads.
-
... but the GPS unit on the ROV was lost.
Okay, since you insist ;-) How could they lose that? Anyway, for all we know, this video could be from the sonar anomaly at the lower level, correct? Or, it could be from off the coast of Florida? Can we narrow it down? Surely we know the range in which the GPS was lost? How long does it take to realize you've lost your GPS? I'm not interested in examining that video right now, only its spatial relation to the others. Thanks
-
... but the GPS unit on the ROV was lost.
Okay, since you insist ;-) How could they lose that? Anyway, for all we know, this video could be from the sonar anomaly at the lower level, correct? Or, it could be from off the coast of Florida? Can we narrow it down? Surely we know the range in which the GPS was lost? How long does it take to realize you've lost your GPS? I'm not interested in examining that video right now, only its spatial relation to the others. Thanks
I saw a YouTube video a while back where the gps was lost in 2010. I think the ROV collided with the ship during an earlier dive. It was noticed by the crew right after from what I remember. I think the Wire Rope video's depth is known to be deeper than the sonar anomaly. Not sure. I'm sure others can verify, clarify or correct.
-
Hope this helps
http://tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/2010Vol_26/NikuVIreport.pdf
http://tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/2010Vol_26/NikuVIdailies.pdf
http://tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/2010Vol_26/NikuVIresearch.pdf
-
Wow, thanks. Now, in relation to this, where is that debris field containing the "wire and rope"?
I'm aware of no debris field containing the wire and rope. There is only a piece of rope that is almost certainly of modern origin (hemp would almost certainly be gone after a few decades) and something that might be a piece of wire but might also be merely whip coral. The rope and maybe-wire do not a debris field make and I see nothing else there but lumps of coral. You can judge for yourself in the video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9NXJnwJmRY&feature=c4-overview&list=UUBmR8Pp9vdb_1YvOIrLAWog).
We don't know where the wire and rope were. That video was shot on June 7, 2010 at a depth of ballpark 900 feet somewhere north of the Norwich City but, during operations the day before, the GPS positioning system for the ROV was destroyed when the cable ran afoul of the ship's propeller so we don't know where the ROV was when it took the video. I was ashore all that day but we reviewed the video that night and decided that the maybe-wire was something we should go back and grab to see what it was. The next day the ROV team tried to return to that spot but they couldn't find it. The whole episode was filmed by the Discovery Channel cameraman and included in the documentary special that aired on December 10, 2012. I've put that 2 minute 13 second clip from the show on the TIGHAR Youtube channel as "Finding Amelia excerpt (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9s_rDB8vYZs&feature=c4-overview&list=UUBmR8Pp9vdb_1YvOIrLAWog)." During the 2012 trip we kept an eye out for the rope and wire but didn't see them. We found a tangle of rope - probably a fishing net - just north of the Norwich city wreckage but it wasn't the same rope we saw in 2010.
But taken together I think we are seeing the remains of what could only be the AE plane. If the Bevington photo is likewise correlated, wouldn't this suggest a pretty hard landing/crash? Just looking for any opinions on that.
My opinion is that we have some interesting possibilities but we haven't found anything yet underwater that we can say is airplane wreckage. The Bevington Object is the strongest imagery we have but it's not conclusive. I don't think anything points to a hard landing or crash. I think the post-loss radio signals argue strongly for a successful landing and the Bevington Object argues for a subsequent scenario that involved the airplane getting knocked off its gear and being pushed over the reef surface resulting in separation of a main gear assembly as occurred in the Luke Field accident.
-
All
I have to say that in my first several viewings of the Cook Photo, I could not see the similarity to a wheel or engine cowling at all, rather just a bunch of coral.
At some point, my brain flipped the components around like one of those optical illusion graphics that can be seen two ways and all of a sudden I got it. Just like many of those optical illusions, once you see it one way or the other, it becomes really hard to see it the way one originally saw the objects, and now when I look at the photo my brain only shows me the version that has a circular object. I have to really work to get back to my original inverse view, but I can and it still shows me a bunch of coral.
I think we need to be a bit cautious about assuming that what we think and want to see in this photo is actually there. I think our collective brains are playing tricks on us. In any case, this photo is certainly not definitive proof of Amelia's aircraft.
As one of the few who has actually been diving on this reef, my best guess is that we're looking at coral that due to the composition of the photo is providing an optical illusion of circularity and man made-ness. The scale is off for the object to be an engine.
I'm also not surprised that they were unable to find it again when they went back, particularly if it is only coral. I would think that an engine would be far harder, but not impossible to miss.
Just my 2¢
Andrew
-
Possibly Ric, to throw it out there for other folks opinion,thanks
-
I think the Wire Rope video's depth is known to be deeper than the sonar anomaly. Not sure. I'm sure others can verify, clarify or correct.
Thanks G., I think Ric says 900 feet, so its pretty deep.
-
Hope this helps
Yep, thanks
-
I'm aware of no debris field containing the wire and rope. There is only a piece of rope that is almost certainly of modern origin (hemp would almost certainly be gone after a few decades) and something that might be a piece of wire but might also be merely whip coral. The rope and maybe-wire do not a debris field make and I see nothing else there but lumps of coral. You can judge for yourself in the video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9NXJnwJmRY&feature=c4-overview&list=UUBmR8Pp9vdb_1YvOIrLAWog).
We don't know where the wire and rope were. That video was shot on June 7, 2010 at a depth of ballpark 900 feet somewhere north of the Norwich City but, during operations the day before, the GPS positioning system for the ROV was destroyed when the cable ran afoul of the ship's propeller so we don't know where the ROV was when it took the video. I was ashore all that day but we reviewed the video that night and decided that the maybe-wire was something we should go back and grab to see what it was. The next day the ROV team tried to return to that spot but they couldn't find it. The whole episode was filmed by the Discovery Channel cameraman and included in the documentary special that aired on December 10, 2012. I've put that 2 minute 13 second clip from the show on the TIGHAR Youtube channel as "Finding Amelia excerpt (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9s_rDB8vYZs&feature=c4-overview&list=UUBmR8Pp9vdb_1YvOIrLAWog)." During the 2012 trip we kept an eye out for the rope and wire but didn't see them. We found a tangle of rope - probably a fishing net - just north of the Norwich city wreckage but it wasn't the same rope we saw in 2010.
My opinion is that we have some interesting possibilities but we haven't found anything yet underwater that we can say is airplane wreckage. The Bevington Object is the strongest imagery we have but it's not conclusive. I don't think anything points to a hard landing or crash. I think the post-loss radio signals argue strongly for a successful landing and the Bevington Object argues for a subsequent scenario that involved the airplane getting knocked off its gear and being pushed over the reef surface resulting in separation of a main gear assembly as occurred in the Luke Field accident.
Hey Ric,
Thanks again for clearing some things up. Yea, that's close enough, I just wanted to see if we were even talking about the same general vicinity. As for imagery, I'm not an "evidentiary image" fan, so I tend to discount things like this unless we're talking about a high res image of a Cadillac photographed from 10 feet. I forget the term for it, but the tales of the eyes being tricked are legion. What I was trying to assess however, was if there was a larger, significant pattern in the overall area that points to the presence of an Electra. Not there yet. But I do believe; my opinion, that something artificial is tracking downhill and along the undertow.
On the post-loss propagations, what of the scenario of a partially incapacitated crew? Do you think there could have been a rough landing with only battery power and a non-ambulatory crew? Most of the power consumption should come from the transmitter (50 watts?) so the batteries should give a little. If there was no chance of a restart they wouldn't need them later. Any estimates on the total amount of time transmitted as derived from the credible post-loss intercepts? Just curious on your thoughts on that.
-
I can't get the image of a 'train wheel' out of my head, the kind you see on those hand cranked carts from black and white Western's if you know what I mean?
A train wheel may not be the craziest idea. Recalling TIGHAR's examination of other local islands (e.g. McKean) there was metal detected leftover from guano mining efforts. TIGHAR's own report on McKean suggested ore carts buried on that island. Is there any record of equipment of this sort finding its way to Niku?
(http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSWIarV-jjDE1YWvQ7ETuMtUgqOg6xIUPI5RDUkx7nUBOnB9eSa)
-
I can't get the image of a 'train wheel' out of my head, the kind you see on those hand cranked carts from black and white Western's if you know what I mean?
A train wheel may not be the craziest idea. Recalling TIGHAR's examination of other local islands (e.g. McKean) there was metal detected leftover from guano mining efforts. TIGHAR's own report on McKean suggested ore carts buried on that island. Is there any record of equipment of this sort finding its way to Niku?
There are no records of guano deposits ever being exploited (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikumaroro) on Gardner/ Nikumaroro.
-
There are no records of guano deposits ever being exploited (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikumaroro) on Gardner/ Nikumaroro.
Agreed. Even on McKean mining was finished after 1870 or so. I was thinking more about the equipment itself and if any useful pieces (such as wheeled carts) were brought to the colony.
-
is this a still photo or part of a video shot? I ask as if it was a still shot what drew them to take this photo or did the expedition have a plan in place for the taking of photo's. Guess I'm trying to figure out if there was something that prompted the picture such as unusual shape or just the fish.
It's a still photo - one of many that he took just to document the underwater environment. He wasn't taking a picture of anything in particular. He didn't notice the odd shaped object until he was putting together a slide show a couple years later.
Thanks
-
I can't get the image of a 'train wheel' out of my head, the kind you see on those hand cranked carts from black and white Western's if you know what I mean?
A train wheel may not be the craziest idea. Recalling TIGHAR's examination of other local islands (e.g. McKean) there was metal detected leftover from guano mining efforts. TIGHAR's own report on McKean suggested ore carts buried on that island. Is there any record of equipment of this sort finding its way to Niku?
There are no records of guano deposits ever being exploited (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikumaroro) on Gardner/ Nikumaroro.
But there was at least one cart for launching the whale boat, and that is what made me think of 'train' style wheels. I think Andrew makes a valid point about our Brains latching onto something and making us see it. FWIW I saw a 'round' shape with depth (like a tyre of wheel) the first time I looked at the photo but ot could just be any old coral with weed moving in the currents.
-
I'm aware of no debris field containing the wire and rope. There is only a piece of rope that is almost certainly of modern origin (hemp would almost certainly be gone after a few decades) and something that might be a piece of wire but might also be merely whip coral. The rope and maybe-wire do not a debris field make and I see nothing else there but lumps of coral. You can judge for yourself in the video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9NXJnwJmRY&feature=c4-overview&list=UUBmR8Pp9vdb_1YvOIrLAWog).
My judgment is that you have given folks less than full definition video, and that therefore things seem more difficult to see.
The two attachments show the Ignition Switches in the 3-inch round from the cockpit of NR16020 (at time 13:44:36, frame 01). The first is from the 960x540 definition video that you have posted, the second from the 1920x1080 definition video that only I (and Jeff Glickman) have had the opportunity to analyze.
Why not let everyone have the opportunity to discover?
-
Why not let everyone have the opportunity to discover?
Hi Tim,
I agree that the cleanest, highest resolution versions of this should be made available if we are serious about studying this. And "youtube" would not be my first choice as host; but that's just me. I realize the files might be large but I think certain critical video could be hosted on any number of servers and downloaded from there.
I'm still catching up on all the data TIGHAR has collected and find myself vacillating for now, but it is clear to me that something artificial is there. It is high density and it is correlated with the run of material all the way back up to the surface of the reef. It makes for much controversy because of the condition of the site; which in my opinion is best resolved by paying special attention to the quantity of matches confined to a small space and how it correlates to the overall "accident" scene. I haven't had much time to study this, so, for my part, I'm still working on that.
If some percentage of your identifications are false positives, then I think we can resolve that by following the "hits" we see going uphill. There could be one of the wings, an engine, propeller and one of the landing gear sets above. And as far as orientation, I am to understand that this area is generally below the "Bevington line" at about 300 m depth?
Thanks for helping obtain these images and all the time you put into analyzing them.
Lloyd
-
The two attachments show the Ignition Switches in the 3-inch round from the cockpit of NR16020 (at time 13:44:36, frame 01).
Could you please post a reference image with which we could compare these images?
-
The first is from the 960x540 definition video that you have posted, the second from the 1920x1080 definition video that only I (and Jeff Glickman) have had the opportunity to analyze.
As clearly documented in the excerpt from the Discovery show (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9s_rDB8vYZs&feature=c4-overview&list=UUBmR8Pp9vdb_1YvOIrLAWog), you are mistaken. The full resolution video was examined in real time by the ROV operator and, later that night analyzed by, I count, nine people including myself. Although the Discover clip shows only our examination of the possible wire, I can assure you that we were looking for anything else that might be remotely interesting. We saw nothing, Jeff Glickman later saw nothing, and I still see nothing but lumps of coral in the still from the full resolution video you posted.
-
I agree that the cleanest, highest resolution versions of this should be made available if we are serious about studying this.
Lloyd, this is not amateur night. TIGHAR is indeed serious about studying all of the available imagery that might provide clues to solving the mystery of the Earhart disappearance. That's why we seek the advice of experts and openly discuss their findings. That's why jeff Glickman and I are going to New Zealand next week.
After exhaustive review and discussion, I remain satisfied that there is nothing of importance in the 2010 ROV video. That's why I'm not going to go to great lengths to make available the huge full-resolution files. If you want to review previously expressed imaginings about objects in the video I suggest you visit Summary of Debris from 2010 Video (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1038.0.html). The thread is locked so you won't be able to add your imaginings there, or here. I locked the topic on January 13, 2013 because I felt the bizarre nature of the imaginings were hurting TIGHAR's credibility. Subsequent events have reinforced that opinion.
We're not going to entertain further discussion of the 2010 ROV video. The topic of this thread is the Cook Photo. I'll remove off-topic postings.
-
If some percentage of your identifications are false positives, then I think we can resolve that by following the "hits" we see going uphill. There could be one of the wings, an engine, propeller and one of the landing gear sets above. And as far as orientation, I am to understand that this area is generally below the "Bevington line" at about 300 m depth?
Thanks for helping obtain these images and all the time you put into analyzing them.
Lloyd
LLoyd, IMHO it only takes one positive identification to secure certainty as to the demise of NR16020. The Ignition Switch, in my estimation, is one of many. Experts agree that there is a debris field here where the ROV cruised in 2010. And the location can be ascertained as that of Site #1 from the 2012 expedition because many objects are common to both HD videos, even though the terrain had shifted slightly between the two years. The depth of this field goes from 980 to about 1005 feet. The cockpit of the airplane is at the lower depth and can be seen not only in the 2010 HD video posted by TIGHAR, but also in the 2012 Standard Definition and 2012 High Definition videos.
-
Experts agree that there is a debris field here where the ROV cruised in 2010.
Cite your experts.
-
Experts agree that there is a debris field here where the ROV cruised in 2010.
Cite your experts.
You'll meet them in Casper.
-
The first is from the 960x540 definition video that you have posted, the second from the 1920x1080 definition video that only I (and Jeff Glickman) have had the opportunity to analyze.
As clearly documented in the excerpt from the Discovery show (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9s_rDB8vYZs&feature=c4-overview&list=UUBmR8Pp9vdb_1YvOIrLAWog), you are mistaken.
I see no evidence in this clip that you were looking at 1920x1080 video. I inferred from Mark Smith that considerable computer processing was necessary (on land) before this level of definition could be viewed.
The full resolution video was examined in real time by the ROV operator and, later that night analyzed by, I count, nine people including myself. Although the Discover clip shows only our examination of the possible wire, I can assure you that we were looking for anything else that might be remotely interesting. We saw nothing,
In one night, I'm not surprised.
Jeff Glickman later saw nothing,
Again, not surprised.
and I still see nothing but lumps of coral in the still from the full resolution video you posted.
My coral expert disagrees.
By the way, perhaps the reason you couldn't find the piece of wire again the next day is that it was dislodged (purposely, IMO) from its perch in the 8.55 minute video you posted (at 13:44:13, frame 15). It flew downhill and landed on the edge of the cockpit (at 13:44:27, frame 24).
-
I've asked Mark Smith to send me the entire full-resolution 2010 Wire & Rope video. I'll make it available to anyone who wants to see it. I'm not sure yet what mechanism we'll use. It depends on the size of the file. If possible, I'll put it in our DropBox account and just open it up to free access. I'll let everybody know as soon as we have it figured out.
I have no intention of opening another round of camel spotting but I want to make the full-res version available to those who want to see it.
-
Count me in Ric plz
-
I've asked Mark Smith to send me the entire full-resolution 2010 Wire & Rope video. I'll make it available to anyone who wants to see it. I'm not sure yet what mechanism we'll use. It depends on the size of the file. If possible, I'll put it in our DropBox account and just open it up to free access. I'll let everybody know as soon as we have it figured out.
I have no intention of opening another round of camel spotting but I want to make the full-res version available to those who want to see it.
Thank you, Ric.
May I respectfully recommend VLC media player as a platform by which to view these videos. Speed can be controlled by clicking:
Playback>Speed>Slower
This allows one of six speeds, the slowest of which requires selecting as above sequentially five times (about 2 frames per second). Slower computers will not be able to keep up in real time. My hp ENVY dv7 is sufficiently fast.
Each minute of video requires a gigabyte of storage, so you may have to offload parts to a stick when not in use.
-
Experts agree that there is a debris field here where the ROV cruised in 2010.
Cite your experts.
You'll meet them in Casper.
Mr. Mellon,
I, personally, think that TIGHAR is showing extreme generosity and forebearance in allowing you to continue to post on this forum, considering that you are suing the entity an amount of money that it cannot afford and does not have. Comments with a tone like, "You'll meet them in Casper" does nothing to advance your case, in my opinion. Others may disagree.
LTM, who feels an urge to visit relatives in Casper,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 CER
-
Well said Monty, I agree.
-
Monty:
I was thinking the same thing. Thanks for expressing my thoughts exactly!
-
Here's a classic example of how coral can fool you. A Forum member sent me a private message pointing out another "man-made" object in the Cook Photo (He did not copy the photo. He told me what he saw and where to look.) In the full photo (white arrow) it looks like a round or semicircular object with a hole in the middle. When you get up close you can see that it's just a rock with a clump of marine growth on it.
-
Ric, you asked: Why? Do you think you see something in a different part of the photo?
Since I can not download and repost the picture, yes I do, at about 100 degrees near the edge of the photo (in the 'brighter' area') I find those circular objects most interesting. And what "appears" to be a cable, or something with connectors on the end, just above them. Especially those connector looking objects.
-
Ric, you asked: Why? Do you think you see something in a different part of the photo?
Since I can not download and repost the picture, yes I do, at about 100 degrees near the edge of the photo (in the 'brighter' area') I find those circular objects most interesting. And what "appears" to be a cable, or something with connectors on the end, just above them. Especially those connector looking objects.
I think I see what you're looking at. There are two circular objects and what might be something linear in the lower right corner of this detail from the photo but I don't see anything that looks definitely man-made. As I've often said, the coral presents an incredible variety of shapes for the human mind to turn into whatever we want them to be.
-
Yes, now that you've given me a closer and clearer look, I don't see it either.
-
One you look at this photo there is in fact a mass of wreckage - the T shaped object for a start and part of the spar - the photo was probably just taken off the beach at the site south of the Norwich Star - you can see divers near the surface. I always get suspicious when "confidentiality clauses" are used and locations of photos "hidden".
-
Well Chris if this photo was taken anywhere near the "Norwich Star" your razor sharp legal mind should solve the mystery forthwith,
-
Perhaps you should be less subtle Matt. :)
Not everyone might get your point.
Chris. Please review ship name. It's not the Norwich Star.
-
One you look at this photo there is in fact a mass of wreckage - the T shaped object for a start and part of the spar - the photo was probably just taken off the beach at the site south of the Norwich Star - you can see divers near the surface. I always get suspicious when "confidentiality clauses" are used and locations of photos "hidden".
I have been informed that a witness visited Gardner in 2000 and claimed that he saw landing gear on the reef, and that Ric said that it was probably not landing gear. I've asked for the name of that person but haven't yet received a response. Does anyone here know who this person is talking about? Is there a TIGHAR track on this subject? I couldn't find it on the site but with no name to key on it was difficult to search.
Thanks in advance
Lloyd
-
Who "informed" you of this, and give some details please.
You realize that if the Electra broke up on the reef in 1937 as Tighar theory indicates that colonists, multiple expeditions,etc have been all over that island in the intervening years, anything as significant as the landing gear would have spotted and salvaged decades ago if they were lying out on the reef. It does not sound credible to me.
-
Lloyd and Matt
The reference may be found in Ameliapedia under the heading "Niku VP (WOF--2003)"
The WOF stands for Wheel of Fortune. Please read the information there for your answers.
-
I guess this could be a garbled reteling of the WOF, but just for accuracy, I believe the wheel was observed in the passage into the lagoon not the reef and it wasn't simply dismissed , on a subsequent expedition a very thorough unsuccessful search was made for it
-
I have been informed that a witness visited Gardner in 2000 and claimed that he saw landing gear on the reef, and that Ric said that it was probably not landing gear. I've asked for the name of that person but haven't yet received a response. Does anyone here know who this person is talking about? Is there a TIGHAR track on this subject? I couldn't find it on the site but with no name to key on it was difficult to search.
Somebody is feeding you bad information. I have no recollection of such a report. We were there in 1999 searching the beach and the vegetation behind it from Tatiman Passage all the way up past Norwich City (but not all the way to the NW tip). We didn't find anything.
A group of Kiribati government people visited the Phoenix Group in 2000. They told me of seeing airplane wreckage on Sydney (now Manra) and actually took a propeller blade back to Tarawa. I saw it there in 2001 and confirmed that it is from the C-47 that crashed during WWII. They didn't say anything about seeing airplane wreckage at Niku. If they had we would have certainly looked for it when we were on Niku later that year.
The New England Aquarium was there in 2002. That's when Greg Stone saw what we now call the "Wheel of Fortune" on the shore of the passage. We sent a special small expedition to check it out in 2003 but there was nothing there except evidence of heavy storm activity.
-
Who "informed" you of this, and give some details please.
You realize that if the Electra broke up on the reef in 1937 as Tighar theory indicates that colonists, multiple expeditions,etc have been all over that island in the intervening years, anything as significant as the landing gear would have spotted and salvaged decades ago if they were lying out on the reef. It does not sound credible to me.
I don't know the person but it was a private communication so I won't divulge the name. I share your concern about credibility.
Irvine: thanks
Lloyd
-
Somebody is feeding you bad information ...
It didn't seem to square up so thanks for clarifying.
If they had we would have certainly looked for it when we were on Niku later that year.
Thanks Ric, I'll read up on the "wheel of fortune".
Lloyd
-
Thanks again for the links and info. The pieces of this story are coming together. I think the person I spoke to was referring to this story with something less than full fidelity.
I read the "wheel of fortune" bulletin and recall reading somewhere on the TIGHAR site that debris has a tendency to flow from the high seas into the lagoon along this path?
I also noted the quote from the bulletin:
We now, however, note that two of our most interesting artifacts were found on the borders of the overwash and we suspect that a detailed search of that area may turn up more aircraft wreckage that was driven ashore and buried in the sand.
I understand that cost is a consideration, especially below water, but if it were not, would this be an area TIGHAR would be interested in investigating? Assume whatever technological means necessary would be employed.
Related to that, I would ask the same question regarding the larger, general area of the Bevington photo, to a depth of 500 m, or more if circumstances suggest it?
I realize these are somewhat hypothetical questions, and I'll take the answers in that light, but I'm just trying to get a sense of what you think is feasible and advisable in the context of your larger project plan, which also includes excavation ashore.
Lloyd
-
I also noted the quote from the bulletin:
We now, however, note that two of our most interesting artifacts were found on the borders of the overwash and we suspect that a detailed search of that area may turn up more aircraft wreckage that was driven ashore and buried in the sand.
I understand that cost is a consideration, especially below water, but if it were not, would this be an area TIGHAR would be interested in investigating? Assume whatever technological means necessary would be employed.
That possibility was fully investigated when we next returned to the island in 2007. The technology employed was sweat and metal detectors. A large portion of the "old village" area was manually cleared of all surface vegetation and then thoroughly swept with pulse-induction metal detectors. That took the better part of three weeks and there's no way I can communicate the sheer amount of physical labor involved - and all we accomplished was to confirm our worst fear that whatever might have been there in 2003 had been swept away when the area was over-washed before we returned in 2007.
-
Related to that, I would ask the same question regarding the larger, general area of the Bevington photo, to a depth of 500 m, or more if circumstances suggest it?
As always, we'll do as much as we can afford to do as soon as we can afford to do it.
-
Jeff that's brave of you ;) How about eating your hat to raise defence funds instead? I'd pay to watch.
-
If Ric and TIGHAR identified debris it could only be as "debris". The photos and video provide no ability to touch, feel, clean up or identify anything we might suggest is debris. Only the actual recovery and identification of said artifacts can "prove" anything.
Mr. Mellon is suggesting, I believe, that Ric and TIGHAR had identified a debris field with identified debris of the Electra. His legal argument is that Ric and TIGHAR knew this but did not release this information and, instead, solicited funds to mount another expedition.
Putting aside all the arguments about debris and what can be seen or not, I would be stunned if Ric and TIGHAR sat on the news that Amelia had been found. After all the years of looking Ric would have chosen to NOT announce the find.
If it is found that Ric and TIGHAR sat on that astounding news then I will fly to Georgia, meet with Jeff, and agree to help him eat that hat.
-
I believe your hat is quite safe.
Mellon has nothing.
And he is not in the least bit interested in finding the truth about things.
-
The name of the topic here is The Cook Photo so we should be careful on creating too much thread drift.
The object in the photo may or may not be man made. It does have a tantalizing shape. Every time I look at it I see an engine cowling with prop shaft. But, as someone else posted, it would mean the bulk of the engine is "beneath" the cowling buried in coral. Possible but the problem is that this is a photo only. No way to analyze except as a flat view. Its not made of data points that can be rotated, pulled in different directions, examined in 3D or anything else. But it is a "marker" of a point of interest to be noted for examination next time TIGHAR is there. So much of TIGHAR's efforts are recorded in photos or videos. Historical photos, such as those Ric and Jeff are reviewing and capturing right now, are even photos of photos. Ric must have thousands of photos of just the Earhart search alone. Each shot capturing a slice of history or geography but marking an event or scene. Since photography was invented Man has been able to capture fragments of our existence for review. I say this because TIGHAR uses photo analysis and interpretation freely amongst its members as its way of sharing in the search.
Whats my point? Simple. We are all sitting in our various homes, literally all over the world. We are all encouraged to be amateur photo analysts and yet we have no formal training. We share our thoughts on what we see. We discuss our views on a forum that is free to use, easy to access and, I think, most importantly, brings together total strangers who share a common interest.
Each opinion on what one sees in a photo like the Cook Photo is valuable as it teaches each of us more than we knew before about the photo. I would encourage ALL Forum readers to register and post what they see without fear of having their opinions being criticized. We all see different things and, until someone physically figures it out, we are all right.
In My Humble Opinion
-
Hi,
That looks like a Big Eye Bream (or hump nose).
Grows up to 60cm.
Has correct distribution. Also colours vary depending on age (See two different images.)
He likes a nice coral shelf.
Wide angle on underwater housing is going to make him look small. But that would be a decent sized fish. 8-10 inches.
http://australianmuseum.net.au/image/Bigeye-Seabream-at-Tijou-Reef/
http://www.whatsthatfish.com/image/view/1342
Cheers.
-
I was bored and got into reading the posts about the "Cook Photo". I can see what the yellow line is pointing at. Getting curious, I changed the format to black and white and then reversed it to look like a photo negative. I'm sure Jeff Glickman and others may have done it, but it sure looks like something round with a hub in the center. Certainly not a entire wheel, but maybe a hub and rim of something? Who knows, but I included the photo so us "armchair photo analysts" can have some fun.
-
... it sure looks like something round with a hub in the center. Certainly not a entire wheel, but maybe a hub and rim of something?
I do see the resemblance.
The problem, as hinted at earlier in this thread, is that the rest of the structure must be buried deeply in the coral to have just that much showing.
I suppose it is true that "strange things do happen," but I'm not inclined to bet on that longshot here. Natural forces in the growth, injury, and decay of coral also fall into the category of "strange things that do happen."
I'm pretty sure TIGHAR wants to go take a good look at the reef. I became convinced years ago that this was necessary. I did not anticipate how hard it would be. As I understand it, this is part of the great TIGHAR tradition--learning from experience how hard it is to "go look around" for remnants of AE, FN, and the plane on and around Niku. My hopes were based on pictures of Titanic wreckage sticking up from a pretty plain ocean bottom. I don't think we as yet have photographs showing the complexity of the sides of the atoll. My takeaway from the expedition reports is: "This is not like that!"
-
The Cook Photo does give the impression of being a round, cowling-like object with a hub in the center but it's a single photo. If it was a screen capture from a video "fly-by" we'd have other perspectives on the shapes. There have been repeated and intense, but unsuccessful, attempts to re-find the object (if, indeed, there is an object to find), including by the guy who took the picture. Either the photo was taken in a completely different place than he remembered or (more likely, I think) what we see in the photo is merely coral and marine growth that created the illusion of an object from that particular angle. Changes in the marine growth since then have erased the illusion.