TIGHAR
Amelia Earhart Search Forum => General discussion => Topic started by: Ric Gillespie on June 20, 2013, 06:20:54 PM
-
The Keeper of Photographs at the Royal New Zealand Air Force Museum in Christchurch, NZ has made a potentially important discovery.
Last month, at Jeff Glickman's request I ordered a hi-res scan of the "dash dot" photo taken by the New Zealand Survey, looking north along the reef from a hole in the side of Norwich City. Jeff wanted to be sure the photo didn't happen to catch Nessie or other airplane wreckage. We received a 1200 dpi scan of the original print. Nothing of interest is visible. Another dead end.
But a few weeks letter I received this:
"Today, when I was looking for some aerial photos of Auckland, I again came across a tin that is described as simply "Unknown island". ... Inside the tin is a slip of paper which states "Gardner island". I have looked at the associated contact prints and compared them to Google Earth and I believe this description is correct. I don't have a date but it will be early WW2 at the latest."
He has since sent me lo-res scans of the contact sheets in the tin. There are 30 frames in all. I know exactly what they are. He has found the complete set of aerial obliques taken on December 1, 1938 by a Supermarine Walrus launched from HMS Leander in support of the New Zealand Survey. We've had two of the frames for a long time (see attached) via the New Zealand National Archives but it always seems like there should be more. There are. Lots more. Some of them provide additional views of the Seven Site and the third image attached below is one that we'd especially like to get a really close look at. The pay-off is that he also has the original 5 inch negative for each frame. This could be a gold mine.
Jeff and I need to go to Christchurch and make best-possible-resolution copies of the negatives just as we did with the Bevington Photo at Oxford last year. All we need to do is figure out where the heck the money is going to come from. There are (ahem) other demands on TIGHAR's resources at the moment.
-
Congratulations! This is exciting as heck and couldn't come (ahem) at a better time! You deserve a little good news...
-
Ric,
Give us cost estimate!
Ted Campbell
-
Ric,
Give us cost estimate!
Two adult fares on Air New Zealand roundtrip LAX to Christchurch in early July - call it $3,000. We should only need one day there. Hotel, rental car and meals - another $500.
-
Ric,
Ask Pat how I can send the $3500. It's in the mail.
Ted Campbell
-
Ric,
Ask Pat how I can send the $3500. It's in the mail.
Ted Campbell
WOW! Gosh, uh,
• you can use the "donate (http://tighar.org/store/index.php?route=product/category&path=43)" feature in the TIGHAR store
• you can phone us with your credit card information 302-994-4410
• you can send a check to
TIGHAR
2812 Fawkes Drive
Wilmington, DE 19808
• or I can jump in the car and come get it.
How about it Forum?? Give it up for Ted Campbell!!
-
Ric,
Ask Pat how I can send the $3500. It's in the mail.
Ted Campbell
THANK YOU, MR. CAMPBELL!
-
Mr. Campbell.
You are a good man. And a rockstar!
Many thanks to you from the SF Bay Area,
Mark Appel
-
Ted Campbell, you are doing what I wish I could do.
Many thanks from West Chester PA!!!
-
Ric
Very Exciting!
Seems to me that you might be able to pay for someone in NZ to take the photos you'd like to have, and save yourself a whole lot of time and travel, probably for less than what's been offered up by Ted (thanks Ted!!).
I know the temptation is to get out there and do it yourself, but I suspect that Jeff can dictate what needs to be done to someone who has the right equipment and the talent. The photos and NZ aren't going anywhere, so if the result isn't up to snuff, we can try with someone else, or send you and Jeff to finish the job.
With what is on your plate, you might consider the options.
Just a thought
Andrew
-
Ric,
Ask Pat how I can send the $3500. It's in the mail.
Ted Campbell
Many thanks Ted. It's easy to get distracted with what's going on in another particular thread but, there is still much work to do, leads to follow and, clues to investigate. Your contribution to the project will be remembered.
-
Many thanks Ted Campbell, its a great service you are performing.
-
What's to stop the tin and its contents being FedExed over to TIGHAR Central and then back?
-
Wow exciting news! And thank you to Ted Campbell for the extremely generous donation offer!
-
What's to stop the tin and its contents being FedExed over to TIGHAR Central and then back?
I'd say the possibility of eighty year old negatives being damaged would be the primary reason. Nothing against FedEx, but any shipping company can damage shipments, especially when they come from overseas.
-
What's to stop the tin and its contents being FedExed over to TIGHAR Central and then back?
I'd say the possibility of eighty year old negatives being damaged would be the primary reason. Nothing against FedEx, but any shipping company can damage shipments, especially when they come from overseas.
Archives, government or otherwise, never, ever (as in never, ever) relinquish possession of irreplaceable holdings.
-
Great news about the new photos!! 3 cheers for Ted!!!
With Ric and Jeff making the sojourn down to the land of the long white cloud, then the photographic work will be done properly.
I just donated to the Legal Fund and The Earhart Project .
-
Kind of thought that Dale but was worth a mention?
-
Ted Campbell....you ARE the man!!!! Many, many, many thanks!
-
Seems to me that you might be able to pay for someone in NZ to take the photos you'd like to have, and save yourself a whole lot of time and travel, probably for less than what's been offered up by Ted (thanks Ted!!).
I know the temptation is to get out there and do it yourself, but I suspect that Jeff can dictate what needs to be done to someone who has the right equipment and the talent. The photos and NZ aren't going anywhere, so if the result isn't up to snuff, we can try with someone else, or send you and Jeff to finish the job.
With what is on your plate, you might consider the options.
We've carefully considered the options. There might conceivably be someone in New Zealand who has the sophisticated equipment and skill to get best-posible resolution copies of the negatives but they wouldn't have Jeff's knowledge of the project or my knowledge of the island.
There is also the point that the archive's invitation was extended to me personally based on my long association with the Keeper of Photographs. It is the trust we've built over the years with organizations and individuals around the world that result in these breakthroughs. We have to respect that.
There is also the point that, by going to New Zealand, I am making a public statement that TIGHAR will not be deterred from moving forward in our efforts to solve the Earhart mystery.
-
Just heard - HOT DAMN!!!!! This calls for a donation to celebrate. (I wish it could be more)
Careful Ric, they drive on the other side down there.
t
-
What's to stop the tin and its contents being FedExed over to TIGHAR Central and then back?
I'd say the possibility of eighty year old negatives being damaged would be the primary reason. Nothing against FedEx, but any shipping company can damage shipments, especially when they come from overseas.
Archives, government or otherwise, never, ever (as in never, ever) relinquish possession of irreplaceable holdings.
Obviously an even better reason! I hadn't even thought of that. Looking forward to seeing if they show anything new. Having what might essentially be "crime scene photos" could be priceless.
-
Great news about the photographs and thanks to Ted Campbell! just goes to show that there's still a lot of stuff waiting to be "discovered" again.
Now if only an archivist can come across a certain wooden box. . . .!
-
Lets not forget the 7 site in all of this. Photo's may have something to show that has since been overgrown?
-
"Today, when I was looking for some aerial photos of Auckland, I again came across a tin that is described as simply "Unknown island". ... Inside the tin is a slip of paper which states "Gardner island"
Now when my better half complains about all the junk I hoard in the garage I can provide evidence of how important it may become in years to come ;)
-
I'm writing up a Breaking News piece for the TIGHAR website. Having now captured all of the individual frames from the lo-res contact sheets, there are 45 frames total. Some are near duplicates but every part of the island was photographed from several angles. Let's recognize what we have here. Fifteen months after the Earhart disappearance and before anybody has set foot on the island, we have original large-format negatives on fine-grain, high-quality film of aerial photos for every part of the atoll. Unbelievable.
-
Yes unbelievable opportunity to see what the island was like between AE/FN disappearing and the NZ/PISS teams arriving.
What can we hope for?
Evidence of the Bevington Object
Dash Dot
Other items North of the Norwich City
Evidence of Camp Zero, that’s a new one.
7 site trails
Other sign’s of ‘recent habitation’
It’s so nice not to be discussion the other subject :)
-
Question to Ric. In the photos of the NW corner of the island, about 3/4 of the way up (moving NW) the reef edge towards the 'point' there are a couple of 'breaks' or 'holes' in the wave action. In other words, the wave seem to be breaking around something in one or both of those spots. You haveing been there, what could that be? One of the crevises in the reef? Those could keep a wave from breaking I suppose.
-
Question to Ric. In the photos of the NW corner of the island, about 3/4 of the way up (moving NW) the reef edge towards the 'point' there are a couple of 'breaks' or 'holes' in the wave action. In other words, the wave seem to be breaking around something in one or both of those spots. You haveing been there, what could that be? One of the crevises in the reef? Those could keep a wave from breaking I suppose.
Yes, the waves tend to break on either side of the grooves because the water is deeper there.
-
I'm writing up a Breaking News piece for the TIGHAR website. Having now captured all of the individual frames from the lo-res contact sheets, there are 45 frames total. Some are near duplicates but every part of the island was photographed from several angles. Let's recognize what we have here. Fifteen months after the Earhart disappearance and before anybody has set foot on the island, we have original large-format negatives on fine-grain, high-quality film of aerial photos for every part of the atoll. Unbelievable.
Great potential in this new discovery as well as the sonar anomaly. Slowly but surely...
-
Fifteen months after the Earhart disappearance and before anybody has set foot on the island, we have original large-format negatives on fine-grain, high-quality film of aerial photos for every part of the atoll. Unbelievable.
Well, almost before anybody: let's not forget Harry Maude, Eric Bevington, and their crew who made the colonization survey visit in mid-October 1937. :)
As you and Jeff Glickman prepare to head off to the archives in New Zealand, I hope you'll encourage your friend down there to look for any additional photos taken during the July 9, 1937, flyover by Lambrecht's planes as well. The photographer is unknown, but this print of the photo (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Lambrecht_Photo.html), obtained from an archive in New Zealand, is inscribed “U.S. Navy (pilot) July 9, 1937” on the reverse.
It's always been a puzzle to me how a picture taken on a U.S. Navy flight got all the way down to an archive in New Zealand. If there's one, could there be more?
I'm also intrigued by there being an arrow inscribed on the Lambrecht photo and then arrows on some of the photos taken by the NZ Supermarine Walrus flight. Someone was more than just collecting pretty pictures! Did these aerial photos once share a common storage space?
-
Well, almost before anybody: let's not forget Harry Maude, Eric Bevington, and their crew who made the colonization survey visit in mid-October 1937. :)
True. The notice they put up and the holes they dug to find water will be there.
As you and Jeff Glickman prepare to head off to the archives in New Zealand, I hope you'll encourage your friend down there to look for any additional photos taken during the July 9, 1937, flyover by Lambrecht's planes as well. The photographer is unknown, but this print of the photo (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Lambrecht_Photo.html), obtained from an archive in New Zealand, is inscribed “U.S. Navy (pilot) July 9, 1937” on the reverse.
It's always been a puzzle to me how a picture taken on a U.S. Navy flight got all the way down to an archive in New Zealand. If there's one, could there be more?
The Lambrecht photo and a number of other U.S. Navy and Army Air Forces aerial photos of the island from later years came from the New Zealand National Archive in Auckland and seem to have been part of something called "Joint Intelligence Bureau - Prime Minister's Department - Wellington." We've seen everything they have. The archive at the USAF Historical Center at Maxwell AFB, AL also has some aerial photos of Gardner taken during the war. We have those.
I'm also intrigued by there being an arrow inscribed on the Lambrecht photo
The north arrow points due west. Whoever drew it was clueless.
and then arrows on some of the photos taken by the NZ Supermarine Walrus flight. Someone was more than just collecting pretty pictures! Did these aerial photos once share a common storage space?
The arrows on the 1938 photo looking west are obviously pointing out features of interest. They are not on the contact print in Christchurch so the photo in Auckland was probably part of some report.
-
To Ted Campbell - thumb's up, mate!
And THIS is why TIGHAR is credible: We find something, we tell everyone about it. And then try to find out more.
LTM, who tries to pick the winners,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 CER
-
We should only need one day there.
Careful not to sell yourself so short. It'd be a shame to make the effort only to go all the way to the other side of the world and have too little time on the ground. Especially at a resource that is proving to be important. Where there's one, there may be more.
-
Having now captured all of the individual frames from the lo-res contact sheets, there are 45 frames total. Some are near duplicates but every part of the island was photographed from several angles.
Just a thought; if there are shots from the same altitude/angle/track taken reasonably consecutively, it may be worth having a go with stereoscope similar to that used by the photographic interpreters during WWII. It would give a 3D depth perspective.
(http://i1194.photobucket.com/albums/aa374/spattacus/Pocket_stereoscope.jpg)
OOPS! Almost forgot - Good man, Ted!
-
Ric,
Could the arrow not pointing true north be, somewhat, due to magnetic declination or variance in addition to sloppy piloting? I am not sure what the variance is there.
-
Ric,
Could the arrow not pointing true north be, somewhat, due to magnetic declination or variance in addition to sloppy piloting? I am not sure what the variance is there.
The variation is 9 or 10 degrees. The arrow is off by like 90 degrees.
-
Hoping that arrow wasn't put on there by the pilot. Although AE and FN had a little trouble with navigation in the Pacific as well it seems. So I suppose it could have been.
-
Long time lurker, first time poster… I can’t resist a good mystery.
Great discovery! I don’t know a lot about aircraft but I do know quite a bit about photography. If the original negatives are sharp there’ll be a lot of information on that fine grained emulsion. A scan at around 2400 dpi would be equivalent to about a 90 mega pixel image from that size negative! Even a flatbed film scanner such as the Epson V700 is capable of that sort of resolution. If you really want to go to town, high resolution scanning options such as a drum scan are available, although that process might not be suitable for negatives of that age/historical value.
It’s such a shame that the original Bevington negatives were lost as who knows what sort of detail would have been possible from them compared to the contact prints.
-
Can't wait to see new images, Hope there is some good stuff to bring new and old faces on forum to debate an discuss
Ted G Campbell Respect to you fella :)
-
HMS Leander 1938 with possibly, the Supermarine Walrus on deck which took the photos...
http://www.flickr.com/photos/41311545@N05/4369572207/ (http://www.flickr.com/photos/41311545@N05/4369572207/)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/41311545@N05/7221511550/ (http://www.flickr.com/photos/41311545@N05/7221511550/)
-
HMS Leander 1938 with possibly, the Supermarine Walrus on deck which took the photos...
Too cool!
The Walrus was known to aircrews as the Shagbat. Doesn't sound like a terribly complimentary name for such a sleek and undoubtedly blisteringly fast amphib.
-
Ric, how close to Gardner Island did HMS Leander get? If they were snapping photos of their plane/ship and were in close proximity to the island who knows what might be lurking in the background?
-
Ric, how close to Gardner Island did HMS Leander get? If they were snapping photos of their plane/ship and were in close proximity to the island who knows what might be lurking in the background?
Leander doesn't appear in any of the aerial photos taken by her airplane so she may have stood well off. I know the captain of USS Colorado didn't want to get anywhere near those coral atolls. He didn't trust the charts. Leander was a cruiser, not a battle wagon, but she was still a lot of boat.
-
The new image of reef with Norwich city all mangled like it is, Makes me wonder what map chart the Norwich city captain was using and if AE/FN were using the same one,
When you think were the Norwich City lays, More or less dead center ov reef, how much were they off there assumed course to make such an error an did Gardner appear closer to Howland than it actually is on AE/FN map
-
I had thought the Leander may be on the south end of the island in the second picture posted. (38NW) The dark profile at the top of the picture very close to the shore,left side of photo. It's probably just a mark if it does not show up in the other pictures.
-
The possible Supermarine Walrus from which the 1938 photos were taken?
Z2-K5783 as seen aboard HMS Leander 1938
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b4/Supermarine_Walrus_SLV_AllanGreen.jpg (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b4/Supermarine_Walrus_SLV_AllanGreen.jpg)
-
Ric, how close to Gardner Island did HMS Leander get? If they were snapping photos of their plane/ship and were in close proximity to the island who knows what might be lurking in the background?
Leander doesn't appear in any of the aerial photos taken by her airplane so she may have stood well off. I know the captain of USS Colorado didn't want to get anywhere near those coral atolls. He didn't trust the charts. Leander was a cruiser, not a battle wagon, but she was still a lot of boat.
I couldn't help but notice there is a ship, aft and above the Norwich City, in the second photo of the original post. It doesn't look to be the Leander ( ie: not a Cruiser hull) so there must have been at least one other ship in this survey party.
Ted, well done!!
Ric, Jeff,
have a safe trip.
-
Yes Steve it's the New Zealand survey ship
-
I circled where I think the Leander may be. Possibly using the calmer waters of the lee side of the island to launch and recover the walrus. I think it's the port side profile with the taller superstructure forward
-
Good find Greg, you could be spot on with that observation. It certainly does look like a ships profile and if so it's a lot closer to Gardner than I thought it would be. Wrong side for our purposes though but, you never know.
-
Yes Steve it's the New Zealand survey ship
Yep. MV Yanawai.
-
Good find Greg, you could be spot on with that observation. It certainly does look like a ships profile and if so it's a lot closer to Gardner than I thought it would be. Wrong side for our purposes though but, you never know.
I think you found her (Leander that is, not Amelia). I don't know what else that would be. I saw a really big whale shark out there one time (you can actually see it at around 17:44 in the Aerial Tour video) but it wasn't THAT big.
-
I suppose this has been pointed out before, but just about 100 yrds or so below the Norwich there appears to be something in the surfline. Its very dark and is tall enough to cast a long, strait, narrow shadow that is nearly perpendicular to the surfline.
B
-
I noticed that too,circled in red.
Glenn
-
I noticed that too,circled in red.
Jeff and I have been back and forth about that many times but the resolution in the print we've been working from just isn't good enough to tell whether it's anything to get excited about. Now, with access to the original large-format negative, we should be able to see it much more clearly. Ditto for the "trails" at the Seven Site.
It's hard to overstate the possible importance of this discovery and the way it came about is straight out of an Indiana Jones movie - the forgotten unlabeled tin box lost in an archive. Life imitating art. Anybody know where I can get a bullwhip?
-
They sell ones that play the 'Indiana Jones Tune' when you use them ;)
Good Lord.
-
I noticed that too,circled in red.
Jeff and I have been back and forth about that many times but the resolution in the print we've been working from just isn't good enough to tell whether it's anything to get excited about.
The photo with the red circled object showed up in a 2010 TIGHAR Tracks (http://tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/2010Vol_26/whereelectra.pdf). Has there been any discussion of its relationship distance-wise to the Bevington photo object believed to be Lockheed Electra part number 40650?
Joe Cerniglia
TIGHAR #3078ECR
-
The photo with the red circled object showed up in a 2010 TIGHAR Tracks (http://tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/2010Vol_26/whereelectra.pdf). Has there been any discussion of its relationship distance-wise to the Bevington photo object believed to be Lockheed Electra part number 40650?
No precise measurement but it's a long way from Nessie.
-
I wonder if it has anything to do with the anomoly that Richie found.I think Richie's anomoly is closer to the Bevington object though.
Glenn
-
The photo with the red circled object showed up in a 2010 TIGHAR Tracks (http://tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/2010Vol_26/whereelectra.pdf). Has there been any discussion of its relationship distance-wise to the Bevington photo object believed to be Lockheed Electra part number 40650?
No precise measurement but it's a long way from Nessie.
At some point it would be great to see an annotated photo (this one) showing the Bevington Objects location :)
Placing the Bevington Object location precisely in the 1938 photo is really tough because of the perspective view, but the approximate location I indicated in the photo I posted should be pretty darned close.
-
Now all we need them to find is a small wooden box with some old dried up bones in it.......please!!!
Thank you Ted! Your generosity it greatly appreciated!
-
The most amazing thing, to me at least, is that more than 70 years after Amelia and Fred disappeared, original documentation is still turning up. These photos ... Betty's notebook .. the Chater report ... the list seems endless.
LTM, who tries to keep things original,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 CER
-
The most amazing thing, to me at least, is that more than 70 years after Amelia and Fred disappeared, original documentation is still turning up. These photos ... Betty's notebook .. the Chater report ... the list seems endless.
It's a function of honesty, integrity, and transparency - the enormous worldwide awareness of TIGHAR's work through media coverage and research contacts. We don't have to find all the secrets. Other people find them and bring them to us. As we say - "The people will find Amelia."
-
New Gardner images
On Earhart project page
http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/newzealandphotos/NewZealandPhotos.html
-
HMS Leander 1938 with possibly, the Supermarine Walrus on deck which took the photos...
Too cool!
The Walrus was known to aircrews as the Shagbat. Doesn't sound like a terribly complimentary name for such a sleek and undoubtedly blisteringly fast amphib.
According to Jeffrey Quill, Vickers-Supermarine test pilot from the mid 1930s to the late 1940s, the Walrus required a lot of muscle power to control, especially on the water, the cockpit became a real sweat box after a couple of take off attempts with lots of kicking the rudder to keep straight in the Solent swell off Eastleigh. In addition he said he could never seem to climb in or out of the Walrus without losing some skin in the process.
Anyone who flew the Walrus would probably say much the same, so maybe you now know how the unofficial name came about.
--
Brian
-
There is a Supermarine museum down at Southampton Brian, well worth a visit. Schneider Trophy planes, spitfires and lots more.
-
Thank you, Ted Campbell! After certain other distractions, you have restored my sense of optimism and hope in this project. We WILL press on, and we WILL find out what really happened to AE! You've. made my week!
-
Hi All
I Believe these following images may show an anomaly under the surf by nessie
Picture 1, I first posted this image around Christmas, As a possible pic of the year for me personally as i believed it shows a plane shaped object underwater.
Picture 2, Ric posted this image today showing were nessie is thought to have been.
Picture 3, Is from the 1938 Ric posted 3rd image down here https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1222.0.html
The image is a close up of same area as above 2 images, In the yellow square just to left, you can just see the anomaly either side of white surf that's above it.
-
Notice how the dark object seems to be "on top" of the breaking waves? I'd say that is the shadow of the plane the pictures was taken from.
The photo with the red circled object showed up in a 2010 TIGHAR Tracks (http://tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/2010Vol_26/whereelectra.pdf). Has there been any discussion of its relationship distance-wise to the Bevington photo object believed to be Lockheed Electra part number 40650?
No precise measurement but it's a long way from Nessie.
-
Notice how the dark object seems to be "on top" of the breaking waves? I'd say that is the shadow of the plane the pictures was taken from.
The picture was taken in December. The airplane is North of the dark object. The shadow of the airplane would have been behind the camera, farther to the North.
-
For those who may be interested, this is the plan Jeff Glickman has submitted to the museum for approval. It's similar to what we did at Oxford University in April 2012.
We're currently scheduled to do the work in Christchurch on July 10 and 11.
"I plan to shoot in a vertical orientation using a Nikon D800 DSLR with 36.3MP FX –format CMOS sensor and a AF-S Micro NIKKOR 60mm f/2.8G ED macro lens. The camera will be suspended under a Manfrotto 190CXPRO3 tripod attached by a Giottos MH1301 ball head. The lens will be pointing directly down toward a GTI GLX Graphiclite D-5000 GLX10 transparency viewer. The negatives will be placed in a Beseler 4x5 Negaflat carrier and placed on the GLX stage for shooting. I expect the focal length to be about 10 inches so this should be a table top operation. Each photograph will be stored simultaneously in two different digital formats: Uncompressed TIF images with be stored on a compact flash card and JPG images will be stored on a secure digital card. The uncompressed TIF images will be about 105 megabytes each. I’ll have black flocked paper and black duct tape available should we need to control any surface reflections on the negatives originating from ambient light sources. I’ll be using acid free archivist gloves for all handling of the negatives and I’ll have a camel hair brush available if needed. I’ll also have a couple of laptops with me to download and verify the imagery."
-
Ric a quick question, why JPEGs? I shoot with high end Nikons all the time. Store the images in Nikon RAW format which gives you the ability to color correct/aperture adjust and enhance the images. Then convert them into any format you want.
-
Ric a quick question, why JPEGs? I shoot with high end Nikons all the time. Store the images in Nikon RAW format which gives you the ability to color correct/aperture adjust and enhance the images. Then convert them into any format you want.
The JPEGs are just for convenience in sorting and managing the collection. It's the uncompressed TIFFs that will be used for analysis.
-
Understood. Thanks for the clarification.
-
Hi Ric and forum members,
I'm an avid forum reader (as of about six months ago) but this is my first post. The news about the rediscovered Walrus negatives was thrilling and I'm grateful to Ted for his financial support and to Ric and Jeff for making the trip to NZ. I eagerly await the results, with fingers crossed that new and useful data will be revealed.
Similar to Peter, I have a couple questions about Jeff's approach as posted by Ric above. I am not a professional photographer or an image analyst, so I am not speaking from the experience that Jeff has, but I am familiar with new model Nikon DSLRs and my understanding is that there really are benefits to capturing the photos in Nikon's RAW format (NEF) instead of as uncompressed TIFFs. Specifically, even though the TIFFs may be uncompressed in comparison to the JPGs, they still result in a loss of data when compared with the RAW (NEF) format, and this data can be critical for certain post-processing activities.
Rather than spell out these details in full, I'd point you to these two posts from photography forms that succinctly explain the key issues. There are many other confirmatory sources out there for those who'd like to read up on their own:
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/3381214 (http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/3381214)
http://photo.net/digital-darkroom-forum/00aZtn (http://photo.net/digital-darkroom-forum/00aZtn)
My other question is a broader one: could Jeff explain what the advantages are of photographing the negatives using the setup he describes compared with the approach of using a high-end 4x5 transparency scanner such as could be found at a professional photo lab (of which there are several examples in Christchurch)? I'd always been under the impression that a better overall result could be obtained via one of these new model scanners than by a copy-stand approach, even with the equipment Jeff describes. Is this not the case?
Thanks so much for the input!
Kind regards,
Victor
-
What is this??? ???
-
Yeah, first posting, big time lurker. Forgive me my ignoring the current legal issues, for now at least, while I offer a couple of thoughts about the newly found photos. I may have my head up my youknowwhat but here goes.
My original schooling was in photography and for many years I shot large format (4x5) images. And I put in many years in the darkroom as well.
I am absolutely blown away by this find of not only prints but the negatives as well. I suspect theses negs will not be as sharp as one would hope, they were, afterall, shot from a ungainly airplane in the tropical mid day. Vibration of the engine, air turbulence, the moisture in the air, and most likely a shutter speed of less than 1/125th of a second -all take a terrible toll on resolution. But, they should make the Bevington photo look like a finger painting.
The image I have attached is from the 3rd photo Ric posted. It is blown up about 600%. In Photoshop, I have monkeyed with the contrast and brightness levels, as well as using a gaussian blur filter to soften the edges of the pixels somewhat. My intent was to maintain the number of gray zones and limit the distraction caused by the pixelation.
The lines I have drawn on the image run parallel to and slightly below what I believe to be scarring in the coral. (For anyone not familiar, the living corals are "rooted" to the calcium skeletons of their predecessors and form a comparatively thin layer of "skin" on the eons of calcium "bones".)
If the Electra had been pulled into the ocean it only makes sense that, even in normal tidal action, the plane would be broken part. Separated, the heavier motors would scrape, kill and remove the coral as they were inexorably pulled across the shallow corals toward deeper water. This scraping action would leave behind an area much lighter in tone than the surrounding, undamaged coral. And,because it was a scraping action as opposed to a gouging, there is no shadow to be seen The fuselage may well have done the same.
The arrow points to an area which I interpret as being fairly rocky, as indicated by the darkest pixels. Shadows. But the distribution of lighter pixels around them does not seem to jive with the surrounding area. Further, as you move in tandem with the "scars" towards open water, there is a smattering of more light pixel groups fanning out from this rocky area. (The larger white area just below the shaft of the arrow is almost certainly a dust speck, likely on the neg.)
There also seems to be a similar area of rock and possible debris about 200 feet away at a two o'clock position. I believe someone mentioned seeing this also in a another of the photos, and there might have been some speculation that it resembled the the rudder and fuselage. In that photo and the original of this one, the area in question looks to be one solid tone of gray until you blow it up and reduce the contrast, after which 15 or more tonalities are visible. I would also have to disagree with this just based on scale. The Norwich was nearly 400 feet long and had a 53 foot beam. Using the ship as a measure of scale, this area is easily two to three times the size of the Electra.
In closing, a couple of quick notes for Ric. You describe the method you will use to copy the negs but there are a couple of things that don't make sense to me. First, you intend to use a Besseler 4x5 Negaflat to hold the negs, but these are 5x5 negs. ? I still have my Negaflat carrier. There is no way you can secure anything larger than a standard 4x5 film in this holder. Also, if you haven't used one of these carriers before, you should know they will scrape the emulsion off along the two long edges where the frame grabs hold and makes the neg taut.
Also, I would agree with another poster in his suggestion that you use the RAW format to save the images. I believe the Nikon 800 records RAW in 14 bits per channel whereas Tiff records at 8 bits per channel. When it comes to processing the images from RAW you have all the information that was recorded by the camera. TIFF on the other hand decides what to keep and what to lose in the way it processes the data. No, it doesn't compress data (unless you use Jpeg compression to record the file) but it does discard it. If you have a slight exposure error in TIFF, it's gone you can't get it back. RAW allows you retain that information.
Oh, and Good On Ya Mr. Campbell!
cheers,
d
We has met the enemy, and he is us.
Pogo
-
I am familiar with new model Nikon DSLRs and my understanding is that there really are benefits to capturing the photos in Nikon's RAW format (NEF) instead of as uncompressed TIFFs.
Jeff shot RAW in Oxford. I'm sure he's up on the pros and cons of RAW vs TIFF (I'm not). If he has decided to shoot TIFF in New Zealand I'm confident he has a reason. I don't second-guess him on forensic techniques. He doesn't second-guess me in my areas of expertise (which are few and far between).
My other question is a broader one: could Jeff explain what the advantages are of photographing the negatives using the setup he describes compared with the approach of using a high-end 4x5 transparency scanner such as could be found at a professional photo lab (of which there are several examples in Christchurch)? I'd always been under the impression that a better overall result could be obtained via one of these new model scanners than by a copy-stand approach, even with the equipment Jeff describes. Is this not the case?
Scanners are not the way to go for this kind of forensic analysis. Quoting myself quoting Jeff in The Object Formerly Known as Nessie (http://tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/2013Vol_29/February_2013/The_Object_Formerly_Known_As_Nessie.pdf):
"When images are taken at a lower resolution, curved edges have the appearance of being sharp and are straight due to aliasing by the image sensor,This illusion is further exacerbated by image processing software in the scanner which attempts to increase the local contrast at these aliased edges."
-
The lines I have drawn on the image run parallel to and slightly below what I believe to be scarring in the coral. ...
The arrow points to an area which I interpret as being fairly rocky, as indicated by the darkest pixels.
I'm afraid you've drawn your lines on the ocean. The reef is above the white line (surf line). There's quite bit of water on the reef. We'll be able to get the exact state of the tide once we have the full resolution imagery, but I don't think we're going to be able to see the reef surface well enough to look for scarring.
-
What is this??? ???
If you mean the little white mark on the ocean, I'd say it's either a speck of dust on the negative or, if it's a real thing, it could be a whale shark. They're not uncommon out there.
-
Sigh ... my two cents - Jeff Glickman is The Pro From Dover. I have met him, talked with him, studied his work product and his experience. An expert is someone who knows when to call in the experts. In this case TIGHAR, the Earhart Expert, is calling in Jeff, the Photo Expert. I leave the second-guessing and armchair quarterbacking to the experts. We leave the expert be to do his job.
Of course, if anyone wants a second opinion, they can always pony up their own funds for their own evaluation. My money, the form of a check, is on Jeff Glickman.
LTM, who trys to back the winners,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 CER
-
Huffington Post has the story...but what is the reference to "visible footprints"? Did I miss a discussion about this on here somewhere?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/24/amelia-earhart-island-photos-castaway_n_3492636.html
-
Skip - it's the Huffington Post, which is not a credible news source.
LTM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 CER
-
Huffington Post has the story...but what is the reference to "visible footprints"? Did I miss a discussion about this on here somewhere?
Ah ... the joys of dealing with journalists. I talk about possible trails seen in the 1938 aerial photo of the Seven Site and I'm quoted as saying we see possible footprints.
-
Sigh ... my two cents - Jeff Glickman is The Pro From Dover. I have met him, talked with him, studied his work product and his experience. An expert is someone who knows when to call in the experts. In this case TIGHAR, the Earhart Expert, is calling in Jeff, the Photo Expert. I leave the second-guessing and armchair quarterbacking to the experts. We leave the expert be to do his job.
Of course, if anyone wants a second opinion, they can always pony up their own funds for their own evaluation. My money, the form of a check, is on Jeff Glickman.
LTM, who trys to back the winners,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 CER
Sigh ... "We have always done it this way."
Maybe it is time to take advantage of advice offered and of online people who make a hobby of digital photography instead of turning your nose up to it. Like the experts and hobbyists alike who know how to work the RAW format. Ignoring this extra available data is like using fingerprints only and ignoring DNA evidence.
What will it cost to take one more shot in the RAW format on all the negatives? 45 min of Jeff Glickman time? Maybe we can add this amount as a further donation to the trip. No sense in going twice. No sense in handling this antique film twice! You should get as much data as possible when you do go.
I wouldn't count on just an expert as crowd sourcing appears to be getting TIGHAR some good results as well. I am sure the expert is good at what he does. A second pair of eyes on all the available data may see something the first person didn't. This second pair of eyes may be extremely comfortable in RAW format use...
Do you really want to leave the extra data there with the possibility of having to go back later?
This is like the 3rd suggestion to consider also shooting RAW.
-
This is like the 3rd suggestion to consider also shooting RAW.
Will everybody please just chill about the RAW format thing? I'll discuss it with Jeff. If it makes sense to shoot RAW we'll shoot RAW. Sheesh.
-
There is something light colored and looking man made near the shore? The other dark dot is dirt maybe?
-
There is something light colored and looking man made near the shore?
indeed it does......nude swimmer in a black stocking cap ?! :-* Just Kidding !!
-
Let's look for this Norwich City lifeboat (http://tighar.org/wiki/File:Norwich_City_Lifeboat_1938_(Wigram_AFB_Archives)).jpg), probably just off the beach. It was photographed by the NZ expedition and its location may give us a clue to the Norwich City shelter site.
Rick J
-
Ric
Great Find Keep up the great work. It IS down there.
Mr Campbell
Your generosity exceeds any words I could conjure up to THANK YOU.
-
Hi All
I have attached unedited image of reef, showing dark shadow were i mentioned earlier in thread i believe anomaly is.
-
Let's look for this Norwich City lifeboat (http://tighar.org/wiki/File:Norwich_City_Lifeboat_1938_(Wigram_AFB_Archives)).jpg), probably just off the beach. It was photographed by the NZ expedition and its location may give us a clue to the Norwich City shelter site.
Rick J
The lifeboat and NC shelter would be a great thing to look for. In addition to the obvious Camp Zero and the Seven site, and looking for wreckage on the reef, beaches and lagoon. Also the Norwich City structure itself. Its condition for possible habitation and if there are any markings on it. Other points to look for are the farthest north corner where a castaway may go to get a high and wide angle to lookout from.
If some of the NZ survey photographs are near duplicates, that may actually be helpful in separating some of the wave reflections and scratches from real objects. This is a great discovery and I am grateful for the quick response in investigating it.
Many thanks to Ted Campbell
-
Ric,
When you next talk to Jeff re the New Zealand prints would you ask him if it is possible to overlap photos so we can get a 3D (stereoscopic) view of some of the areas on the island. This would really be neat!
Ted Campbell
-
There is something light colored and looking man made near the shore? The other dark dot is dirt maybe?
In this same photo is an unusual "V" shape just offshore from surf line. Something underwater, or surf breaking over straight objects?
-
When you next talk to Jeff re the New Zealand prints would you ask him if it is possible to overlap photos so we can get a 3D (stereoscopic) view of some of the areas on the island. This would really be neat!
To get a stereoscopic effect you have to overlap two photos that were taken from the same angle but from slightly different positions. It almost always has to be done intentionally. We don't have that with these photos. Several show the same feature - for example, the southern lagoon passage - but from various angles (looking west, looking south, looking east).
-
I wrote to Jeff Glickman and raised the Forum's concern about shooting uncompressed TIFFs rather than NEF (aka RAW). Turns out he misspoke. He meant to say NEF.
I should have queried him as soon as the question was raised instead of trying to be a firewall. It would have saved everyone a lot of unnecessary angst. My bad.
We now return to our regularly scheduled speculations.
-
I posted this pic' a while back and, it's still my favourite mirage from this particular 1938 photograph. I like it because it resembles a beached whale, two big fins at the back of the body and, sadly just the left flipper is in place. The whale like shape is visible both in the white surf and the calmer wave break water land side of the surf.
-
Ric, Do you happen to know the specific time period, or even the time of day, on 1 December 1938 when the Supermarine Walrus made its overflight of Gardner Island? I've looked in the TIGHAR research documents and in Ameliapedia but could not find this specific information. The report of the New Zealand survey expedition mentions HMS LEANDER but does not seem to have any specifics about flight(s) by its floatplane(s). I guess the deck logs of the LEANDER would have this information, but apparently you do not have these logs.
Jeff P.
-
Sometime between 6 am 30 th Jan and 12 noon 5th Feb Jeff...
http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/New_Zealand_Survey_Report/generalreport.html (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/New_Zealand_Survey_Report/generalreport.html)
Might have been plenty of time for both ships complements to get off a few snap shots as well?
-
Hi, Ric,
Just curious (and if I missed this somewhere, forgive me), but I know that Jeff Glickman has a "day job", so has he been able to give any idea as to when he might be able to analyze these newly found photos?
Not to be too impatient, but this is really exciting along with the sonar anomaly...........
-
July 10th and 11th, Joy. See Ric's reply #76 in this thread.
-
Am I going 'crazy' too Jeff! Could be a whale......
-
July 10th and 11th, Joy. See Ric's reply #76 in this thread.
These are the dates that Jeff will take photos of the negatives, etc. I would like to know when he will be able to analyze the data he gets from this trip............
-
"Am I going 'crazy' too Jeff! Could be a whale......"
I only posted that image Dan because of the way the 'whatever it turns out to be' appears both in the surf and, the calmer water. It extends from one area to the next and, you're right, it could be a whale, shadow etc... But it's the uncanny resemblance that I like most, as you yourself have noticed too.
-
These are the dates that Jeff will take photos of the negatives, etc. I would like to know when he will be able to analyze the data he gets from this trip............
Jeff is as excited about this as we are. I'm sure he'll do all he can as soon as he can but he won't rush to judgement.
-
Ric, Do you happen to know the specific time period, or even the time of day, on 1 December 1938 when the Supermarine Walrus made its overflight of Gardner Island? I've looked in the TIGHAR research documents and in Ameliapedia but could not find this specific information. The report of the New Zealand survey expedition mentions HMS LEANDER but does not seem to have any specifics about flight(s) by its floatplane(s). I guess the deck logs of the LEANDER would have this information, but apparently you do not have these logs.
No, we don't have Leander's logs but Bob Brandenburg has analyzed the shadows.
"The Norwich City stack shadow angle in the NZ aerial photo is 76° relative to the ship's keel orientation, 081° T, giving the sun azimuth as 157° T.
The USNO sun altitude/azimuth table for the day has the sun at 157° at 1155 local time (GMT-11).
This is a ballpark estimate that can be refined if we get better shadow angles in the high-res images."
-
Thanks, Ric. Measuring shadows was going to my next approach to examine to estimate the time of day. Now I don't have to, as you and Bob Brandenburg have of course already done this.
Jeff P.
-
In the news today.
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/06/27/photos-could-prove-amelia-earhart-lived-as-castaway/?intcmp=features
-
In the news today.
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/06/27/photos-could-prove-amelia-earhart-lived-as-castaway/?intcmp=features
Yep, you can always count on Fox to get it wrong.
-
In the news today.
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/06/27/photos-could-prove-amelia-earhart-lived-as-castaway/?intcmp=features
Yep, you can always count on Fox to get it wrong.
Did you read the article? What exactly did they get wrong? Unless I read something incorrectly or glossed over a small detail, it pretty much accurately synopsizes the Earhart project. (NB, I didn't examine the photo links beyond determining they were to Discovery.com sites).
-
In the news today.
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/06/27/photos-could-prove-amelia-earhart-lived-as-castaway/?intcmp=features
Yep, you can always count on Fox to get it wrong.
Good press, bad press, inaccurate press... The only thing that matters is they spelled your name correctly. And in this case TIGHAR as well. Interested parties can come to this site for accurate information. You can also issue corrections to them that can result in another article for more free press... ;D
Fox News brought TIGHAR to my attention.
-
What exactly did they get wrong? Unless I read something incorrectly or glossed over a small detail, it pretty much accurately synopsizes the Earhart project.
The article is fine. They cribbed the DiscoveryNews article word for word - including the headline. It's the headline I have a problem with. In this case, DiscoveryNews got it wrong too.
Saying that these photos could prove that AE was a castaway is more than a stretch. What could we possibly see in aerial photos that would conclusively establish the identity of a castaway(a castaway who was almost certainly dead by then)?
The reporter who wrote the article for DiscoveryNews is an archaeologist herself and let's me review what she writes for accuracy before it's published, but unfortunately - as if often the case - the journalist who writes the copy doesn't get to write the headline. That's the prerogative of an editor and editors sometimes write the headlines in such a way as to attract the largest possible readership - and sometimes accuracy suffers. Last month a Fox story about the anomaly - again a straight copy of an accurate DiscoveryNews piece - carried a headline that said we "believe" the anomaly is Earhart's airplane.
It's not worth getting excited about. It's a fact of life when the media covers your work. "Don't believe everything you read in the papers." is an OLD expression.
-
What exactly did they get wrong? Unless I read something incorrectly or glossed over a small detail, it pretty much accurately synopsizes the Earhart project.
The article is fine. They cribbed the DiscoveryNews article word for word - including the headline. It's the headline I have a problem with. In this case, DiscoveryNews got it wrong too.
So the purpose of saying "you can always count on Fox to get it wrong" was?
It's not worth getting excited about. It's a fact of life when the media covers your work. "Don't believe everything you read in the papers." is an OLD expression.
Perhaps not, but words mean things and how you say them means even more. Some how this seemingly knee-jerk reaction gives me pause.
-
Some how this seemingly knee-jerk reaction gives me pause.
My admittedly knee-jerk reaction to Fox News is based on long experience and, BTW, has nothing to do with politics. Over the years I have been interviewed by every major news organization I can think of and I'm no stranger to being misquoted and having TIGHAR's work misrepresented. Fox, whether TV or on line, screws it up more consistently than any media outlet, bar none. I once did a live interview on Fox & Friends. Never again. They were so unprepared and their questions so profoundly stupid that the whole thing was an embarrassment. Last year, after the event at the State Department, Fox was the only media outlet among the dozens that covered the story who reported that the U.S. Government was giving TIGHAR financial support. I was deluged with emails from Fox viewers who were rightly outraged that taxpayer dollars would be spent in such a way. I had to explain to them that it simply was not true, even though they had heard it on Fox News.
So, yeah, when I see our work mis-reported again on Fox News my knee tends to jerk. In this case, the sin was one of omission rather than commission. Nobody read the article to see whether the Discovery News headline was an accurate representation of what was in the copy. Maybe that's expecting too much.
-
As a communications and PR professional, I can support Ric and his knees. The only way to realistically deal with the press is to accept the fact they will inevitably get stuff wrong. That's reality. Most of the time, the best and only course of action is to shrug it off. FOX News has the unfortunate reputation of getting it wrong perhaps more often than most and having a proclivity for the sensational. That's also not a political statement; it's a professional assessment and at the end of the day really not a big deal...
-
There's really only ONE place to go for AE accuracy. . . and that's right HERE!
LTM
-
Thanks Mr. Campbell, for you donation. I was sitting here trying to think of a way to come up with some spare cash for them. Not that much but still was trying to help out, with more than I can donate myself. You're awesome. This will be remembered. Maybe they will be able to see the airplane wing and some of the wreckage Emily Sikulu saw as a young girl on the island. Now wouldn't that be cool.
-
Dave Alan, in post #82, raised the issue of Jeff's planned use of the 4x5 Negflat carrier to hold the 5x5 negatives. It would scratch the emulsion off the "4" side" of the 5"x5" negative.
No doubt Jeff has figured out an alternative, and I wonder if he would mind sharing it with the group.
Thanks
-
Dave Alan, in post #82, raised the issue of Jeff's planned use of the 4x5 Negflat carrier to hold the 5x5 negatives. It would scratch the emulsion off the "4" side" of the 5"x5" negative.
No doubt Jeff has figured out an alternative, and I wonder if he would mind sharing it with the group.
Thanks
I believe Jeff would have similar equipment if not better than these standard accessory's http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/35mm-Glass-Negative-Carrier-LPL-Saunders-LPL-and-Omega-LPL-4x5-Enlargers-/380608972450?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_2&hash=item589e1006a2
-
Dave Alan, in post #82, raised the issue of Jeff's planned use of the 4x5 Negflat carrier to hold the 5x5 negatives. It would scratch the emulsion off the "4" side" of the 5"x5" negative.
No doubt Jeff has figured out an alternative, and I wonder if he would mind sharing it with the group.
In a recent email exchange with the Keeper of Photographs in NZ, Jeff wrote:
"I am very cognizant of the absolute requirement to do no harm to the original negatives. I am bringing the second Besler negative carrier because it is gravity based rather than tension based: While the Besler #8322 may not hold the negative as flat as the Besler Negaflat carrier, the Negaflat has a propensity to nick the off-image negative edges to create tension so we’re probably better off using the #8322."
This is all beyond my pay-grade but I pass it along in the hope that it answers your question.
-
Hi Ric. I am new to the forum but I am fairly well read with regards to the Earhart mystery.
I was looking at the 1938 image recently posted (38entire.jpg). I am curious as to what the light colored anomaly is just north of the seven site. If you eyeball the 'backside' of the seven for a rough length and go to the northwest along the shore approximately two of these lengths, starting from the top of the seven, you see something light colored, initially what I thought was an arrow pointing to the SE. I see on the photo that in numerous places there are white specs that are developing or optical imperfections, but they are blobs. When you look at what I have described, this anomaly has a shape. Could this be plane wreckage? There is also another anomaly out on the reef to the SE that looks interesting, smaller than the one previously mentioned. I know this goes against current thinking (that they landed on the other end of the atoll- which I agree with) but it looks odd to me.
Great find with the photos in New Zealand. Keep up the excellent work and best of luck!!!
-
In a recent email exchange with the Keeper of Photographs in NZ, Jeff wrote:
"I am very cognizant of the absolute requirement to do no harm to the original negatives. I am bringing the second Besler negative carrier because it is gravity based rather than tension based: While the Besler #8322 may not hold the negative as flat as the Besler Negaflat carrier, the Negaflat has a propensity to nick the off-image negative edges to create tension so we’re probably better off using the #8322."
This is all beyond my pay-grade but I pass it along in the hope that it answers your question.
I think this answers any lingering questions about Jeff Glickman's qualifications and methods. My check for the New Zealand trip went out today.
LTM, who knows all about tensions,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 CER
-
I was looking at the 1938 image recently posted (38entire.jpg). I am curious as to what the light colored anomaly is just north of the seven site. If you eyeball the 'backside' of the seven for a rough length and go to the northwest along the shore approximately two of these lengths, starting from the top of the seven, you see something light colored, initially what I thought was an arrow pointing to the SE. I see on the photo that in numerous places there are white specs that are developing or optical imperfections, but they are blobs. When you look at what I have described, this anomaly has a shape. Could this be plane wreckage?
Some of us think the arrow might be a signal built by AE & FN for aerial searchers.
It is definitely not an airplane wreck.
Rather than repeat everything, see this recent thread http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1201.0.html (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1201.0.html)
Sorry, it's a little long and contains other topics, but the basic case for the arrow-as-a-signal is there.
The arrow feature is a pet project of mine, and I am eagerly awaiting the hi-res photos.
-
Occasionally contributors will refer to a "light" or "dark" feature in a black and white photograph. But it should be remembered that the spectral sensitivity of black and white films has changed.
For example, the earlier orthochromatic films were sensitive to blue and maybe green light only. Thus features reflecting light at the blue/green end of the spectrum will appear "light", while features reflecting light at the yellow/red end of the spectrum will appear "dark". The later panchromatic films were sensitive to all light, and thus more closely matched the spectral sensitivity of the human eye. The switch from orthochromatic film to panchromatic film seemingly occurred between the 1920s and 1940s.
-
Paul Parsons wrote:
the earlier orthochromatic films were sensitive to blue and maybe green light only. Thus features reflecting light at the blue/green end of the spectrum will appear "light", while features reflecting light at the yellow/red end of the spectrum will appear "dark". The later panchromatic films were sensitive to all light, and thus more closely matched the spectral sensitivity of the human eye. The switch from orthochromatic film to panchromatic film seemingly occurred between the 1920s and 1940s.
Would that mean that if AE shot a flare in 1937 that was red, it might show up as a black or dark gray dot in a black and white photo? (see post "Small dot in Lambrecht Photo possible flare sent by AE?" under 'General Discussion')
-
If the black and white film was orthochromatic then yes: red light will not affect the photographic emulsion and will thus appear dark on the resulting print.
-
Paul Parson brings up a good point with regard to the color sensitivities of film and, indirectly, the question of which film stock was used in the newly found aerial photos. Such information is important for just the reason he stated.
I do not know Paul's background in photography but I would argue these films are panchromatic and it is not my intent to step on anyone's toes -I never learned to dance- but there are couple of things I think are worth noting and clarifying.
Even within orthochromatic films of one company there were different sensitivities manufactured, while, generally speaking, the difference in the spectral sensitivities of panchromatic films might only be seen when looking at the emulsions produced by different companies, e.g. Kodak vs. Agfa vs Ilford.
I am guessing here but I think the film used in these particular aerials photos was a panchromatic stock. Some of my reasoning for this is: 1) Ortho films have substantially more emulsion contrast than pan films - these images appear to be from a lower contrast film; 2) the many tonal values in the sky and clouds would be almost non-existent if reproduced by an ortho film unless a filter (K-2 or eqiv.) were used, but that would be counterproductive for aerial photography since a K-2 requires a full stop increase in exposure for a film that was likely no faster than 25 ASA, and, if you are photographing islands then there is little need to reproduce the sky correctly; 3) pan films were developed well before 1920 and in wide use by 1930; 4) after looking at color images of the island flora from several sources, the grey tones reproduced in the aerial films seem typical of pan films I have experience with.
With regard to Gloria's question: Yes, ortho films are insensitive to portions of the red spectrum but no, they will not reproduce a red light as a dark area. If a light is not bright enough or within the range of the film's spectral sensitivity it will not register at all but that is different than registering darker. I believe Paul was referencing light reflected by an object as opposed to an object being the source of light.
Also, while I know absolutely nothing of the flare that may have been on AE's last flight --its composition, it's manufacturing, or even its proper use -- I would be more than surprised to find that it would have emitted such a severely limted range of the spectral light that it would not register a density even on an ortho film. Perhaps someone here can detail the material used in the flare and the resultant spectral wavelength throughout its ignition.
And Ric, if you made it this far, will you be releasing any more of the low-res copies of these prints? And what thought has been given to the release of the digital copies of the films once you and Jeff have returned from NZ? I'm not trying to stir the pot here, I know this is all under TIGHAR's purview, I'm just hoping to know an answer to the disappearance of AE and FN before I slide underground. I think these photos and a return to Niku to further explore the anomaly are the best chance of this happening, distracting lawsuits aside.
cheers,
d
Now is the time for all good men.
Pogo
-
And Ric, if you made it this far, will you be releasing any more of the low-res copies of these prints?
I've been a bit hesitant to post many of the lo-res copies because I know that doing so is sure to release herds of camels, but here are a few more as examples of the kind of coverage the photos provide.
And what thought has been given to the release of the digital copies of the films once you and Jeff have returned from NZ?
Once we have them, I see no reason not to put hi-res copies of all the photos in a gallery on the TIGHAR website. Of course, as always, anything we see that looks really interesting will be the subject of a research bulletin.
-
Wow, western- shore picture is very interesting....
-
Wow, western- shore picture is very interesting....
Yeah. Can't wait to get my hands on that one.
-
What is so interesting about it (other than that it looks like it's from the area of interest)?
-
What is so interesting about it (other than that it looks like it's from the area of interest)?
That's enough for me.
-
Nancy, look at the middle area of the picture... On the edge of the reef....
-
Sorry, not sure what I'm supposed to see. I do see a few white dots out in the water. Not sure if those represent anything significant. I guess we'll just have to wait until Jeff Glickman gets a chance to do his analysis.
-
Posted by: David Alan
« on: June 30, 2013, 10:18:42 PM » With regard to Gloria's question: Yes, ortho films are insensitive to portions of the red spectrum but no, they will not reproduce a red light as a dark area. If a light is not bright enough or within the range of the film's spectral sensitivity it will not register at all but that is different than registering darker. I believe Paul was referencing light reflected by an object as opposed to an object being the source of light.
Interesting. Thanks David.
-
Ric, when are you and Jeff going to see and photograph these negatives?
-
Film color sensitivity is relative, by which I mean that the portion of the spectrum whihc the film is "insensitive" to isn't ignored completely by the chemistry, it just takes a lot more intensity for the "insensitive" color to register on the film. For example a "red-insensitive" film emulsion will show a red object as being dark, and a blue object as being light, if both have the same brightness or intensity. However, a very bright red object will still look light if it is bright enough. Signal flares are intensely bright, even though they are red.
The primary source of bright red color in a modern signal flare is usually Strontium Nitrate, although there are other. I don't know what was used back in the 1930's, but wouldn't be surprised if it were the same thing as today. The propellant industry (I work for one now, which used to be part of Olin) tends to use successfuly chemistry forever.
-
Ric, when are you and Jeff going to see and photograph these negatives?
We'll be in Christchurch on Wednesday and Thursday, July 10 & 11.
-
Ric, when are you and Jeff going to see and photograph these negatives?
We'll be in Christchurch on Wednesday and Thursday, July 10 & 11.
Great! I made a contribution to this effort. Anxious to see how this plays out.
-
Ric -
Don't forget to ask your pilot to buzz Niku on your way over. It would be a shame to go right by the place and not have a look.
As departure is nearing, please do let us know if everything is sufficiently covered. I'm sure there are many of us who would be willing to pony up more beer money if you need it.
-
I'm sure there are many of us who would be willing to pony up more beer money if you need it.
Aaaargh! Thank you! Beer money! I forgot to budget in the beer money! Whatever you can do would be (urp) appreciated.
-
Great photos.
Any idea of the altitude that these photos were taken at? Just trying to compare with the search planes from the Colorado which I think were at 400 feet..
Glenn
-
Any idea of the altitude that these photos were taken at? Just trying to compare with the search planes from the Colorado which I think were at 400 feet..
These photos seem to vary somewhat in altitude. Some are quite high - 2 or 3 thousand feet? Others are lower but not below about 500 feet would be my guess.
-
Thanks Ric,
I certainly see how difficult it would be to see people on the ground,even at 400 ft while flying over the island.
You would think the Colorado planes would have flown lower but maybe not due to safety concerns or perhaps they just expected just to see the Electra from that altitude.
When viewing the helicopter tour of the island it was just about impossible to see the expedition members on the ground.
Glenn
-
Glenn, the Colorado's search planes quickly decided against low-level circling around the islands after one of them almost ate a few birds over McKean Island, if I remember correctly.
LTM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 CER
-
Hey Rick, we were sitting around here on the deck and I took the picture 38nwjpg, I think that is what it is labeled. Anyway I see something that looks like airplane wing and and some other things on the beach in this photo. I set this photo as my desktop and that is how I found it.
Respectfully Yours,
Matt Barth
-
Anyway I see something that looks like airplane wing and and some other things on the beach in this photo.
That photo has been examined in great detail over and over again for many years. There's no airplane and other things on the beach. Something may turn up in the negative but I'll be surprised if there's anything on the beach. When that photo was taken the New Zealand survey party was just about to start their work. They camped on shore opposite Norwich City. If there was airplane wreckage on that beach it's hard to believe they wouldn't have seen it.
-
I'm seeing a big piece of white metal on the beech in pic 38nw.jpg. Does anyone else see it? Why not speculate? If I wasn't speculating at this time I'd be working and we all know that's not good.
-
Pretty sure that is a flaw in the photo.
I'd suggest that before we all get wrapped around the axle looking at the low resolution scans of old prints of these photos, that we simply wait until Ric and Jeff have obtained high resolutions digital versions, then spend the time to look at them. Will save a lot of time speculating over things such as flaws in the photos.
Andrew
-
There is definitely a wheel and landing gear just off the beach where it should be and a debris field underneath.
-
There is definitely a wheel and landing gear just off the beach where it should be and a debris field underneath.
See reply 101 and 102 of this thread (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,997.90.html). It may be what you are seeing that was already dicussed, but I am not sure since it is way too big to be a landing gear and may very well be "dust" or a flaw.
I agree with Andrew's post. It's not too long to wait and they are likely already on the way there to get a clean and hi res image. See the schedule on Facebook.
-
Thank you Ted for your generous contribution. As for the folks who feel it's not necessary for Ric and Jeff to go the NZ, I suggest; Would you trust someone describing how to do a circumcision over the phone on your new born son? I think NOT!
-
On the "NW" picture, does anyone know what the large dark object the appears to be floating up against the beach around the point on the north side? Rectangle in shape, is it a vessel of some type?
-
On the "NW" picture, does anyone know what the large dark object the appears to be floating up against the beach around the point on the north side? Rectangle in shape, is it a vessel of some type?
It's a big chunk of coral. It's still there.
-
A good example of how misleading some of these shapes in these photographs can be....and usually are.
Thanks!
-
Ric...Is this the object Dan is referring too? I was curious about this spot as well!!!!
-
Yes...that's the spot I was asking about.
-
Good news regarding the trip to NZ is on Facebook.
Looks like it's going well.
-
Good news regarding the trip to NZ is on Facebook.
Looks like it's going well.
How so? For those of us who don't do facebook.
-
Good news regarding the trip to NZ is on Facebook.
Looks like it's going well.
How so? For those of us who don't do facebook.
Around noon Wednesday (7/10) in Christchurch (they're 16 hours ahead of East Coast time), this short entry was put on Facebook: News from Ric and Jeff in Christchurch, New Zealand -- the detail available in these photos is incredible. Spent the morning setting up the technical side, about to start shooting the copy photos. Well worth the trip!
P.S. You should be able to view these TIGHAR Facebook items on the Forum's Home page display. Click on the "Home" button on the left and then scroll down to the bottom.
Home (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php) Help Search Profile My Messages Members Logout
-
P.S. You should be able to view these TIGHAR Facebook items on the Forum's Home page display. Click on the "Home" button on the left and then scroll down to the bottom.
Home (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php) Help Search Profile My Messages Members Logout
That widget hasn't worked for me for a long time.
When it stopped working, I put a link to the TIGHAR Facebook page (https://www.facebook.com/pages/TIGHAR/224536440657) on a tab at the top of every Forum page:
TIGHAR Home Search TIGHAR TIGHAR Store Ameliapedia Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/pages/TIGHAR/224536440657) Help!
-
That widget hasn't worked for me for a long time.
Marty, I guess I've got the right kind of ju-ju! The widget works fine for me. :D (provided I'm using Firefox)
-
Ditto on my Windows 8 IE11 machine though it can drag the loading of the site down when the wind is blowing from the wrong direction :P
-
Just thought i would post this link
http://tvnz.co.nz/world-news/us-group-in-christchurch-tries-solve-amelia-earhart-mystery-video-5504852
Thanks Richie
-
For those of us who don't do facebook.
To be clear, Tim -- which ever of the two ways you choose to use, you don't need to be a logged-in FB user to read the comments on TIGHAR's FB page.
-
Just thought i would post this link
http://tvnz.co.nz/world-news/us-group-in-christchurch-tries-solve-amelia-earhart-mystery-video-5504852
Thanks Richie
Richie, you da man! Thanks!
-
;) Your Welcome
Can't wait to see these images :)
-
Thanks for the link Richie,
Looks like they were copying negatives of the N.C. taken from the water as well as negatives taken from the Walrus.
-
Thanks Richie. Great link to that news video. Good update.
-
Yes, thanks for the post Richie! That was a great report. Keeping the TIGHAR name out there in print and video....
-
Watching that NZ television report (love that accent) has me more hopeful that there IS something worth finding on these images, based on the resolution Jeff Glickman was able to demonstrate with just one frame that showed the Norwich City.
LTM, who remembers the song Freeze Frame,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 CER
-
Just thought i would post this link
http://tvnz.co.nz/world-news/us-group-in-christchurch-tries-solve-amelia-earhart-mystery-video-5504852
Thanks Richie
Richie, you da man! Thanks!
DITTO, Richie, way cool to see same day coverage! It's really great to get a glimps of Mr. Glickman's setup . . . dang, what a Pro!
dp
-
Yes, thanks, Richie! Great to see the report and see a bit of what was going on in NZ.
-
The close up of the Norwich City was awesome. Surely if there's something to be seen it will be seen?
-
What would you most like to see in these photo's? ( besides Nessie and any relatives on the reef)
My personal hope is for fire features at the 7 site, some evidence of Camp Zero....
-
Arg, every time I try to view that video I get a message telling me it is not available. Why oh why am I being punished? ???
Seriously though, is it my browser or something?
-
Arg, every time I try to view that video I get a message telling me it is not available. Why oh why am I being punished? ???
Seriously though, is it my browser or something?
I just tried the link and it works for me on IE9. I guess your browser is punishing you :)
-
While we can all hope for a magic "gotcha" image of something more conclusive, I'm hoping we will at least have indicators of new places to look for further archeology examinations. Perhaps remains of Lambrecht's "signs of recent habitation", or indicators of interim camps prior to the seven site. IMO; if the seven site was the final location of our intrepid aviatrix, I imagine there must have been other interim sites along the way. The distance from our theoretical camp zero (near the landing site) to the seven site just seems a bit far to make in one jump.
-
While we can all hope for a magic "gotcha" image of something more conclusive, I'm hoping we will at least have indicators of new places to look for further archeology examinations. Perhaps remains of Lambrecht's "signs of recent habitation", or indicators of interim camps prior to the seven site. IMO; if the seven site was the final location of our intrepid aviatrix, I imagine there must have been other interim sites along the way. The distance from our theoretical camp zero (near the landing site) to the seven site just seems a bit far to make in one jump.
I agree that a conclusive image of anything is unlikely, likely just more tantalizing things to be looked for in the next expedition. In the long term these photos might best function as a sort of baseline for the state of Niku pre-colonist, pre-coast guard. Up until now its been hard to say definitely any feature on Niku was definitely the same as when AE and FN had been there, debunkers could attribute everything to those who arrived in the 1940's, these photos should allow clarification of what was and wasn't there for the larger features/items.
-
Arg, every time I try to view that video I get a message telling me it is not available. Why oh why am I being punished? ???
Seriously though, is it my browser or something?
See my reply in the Forum FAQs and problem solving section. (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php?action=post;board=1.0) I've fixed the problem on my computer but don't know why it works.
-
Surely if there's something to be seen it will be seen?
If the resolution is good enough, the remains of the Electra should be visible.
Also signs of recent habitation should be clear.
And remember, the bones at the seven site were not found until after these pics were taken. So the hi-res pics of the seven site will be most interesting indeed. Even if remains are not visible, the many fire sites should still be visible.
-
...and something at the 'G'/'E' site...That's my hope, even if only white coral rocks in some kind of pattern at that location.
Judging from some of things that have been said, there was *something* there at some point....Right ??
Depends on how it compares with the 'resolution' in the 'Sat.Photos', I suppose...
Waiting...
Bill
-
Remember that the photos were taken at the same time a survey party was landed on the island that stayed for ~ 2 months. They camped near the beach opposite the NC wreck. They surveyed the island, particularly the lagoon but also the rest of the island, any obvious plane wreckage would have spotted and they do not mention it in their report
http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/New_Zealand_Survey_Report/gardnerreport.html
It is unclear if they knew this island had been part of the AE search so they may not have been particularly attentive to such things but if any wreckage was there ( or in the photos ) its likely out near the edge of the reef were they wouldn't have gone or would have mistaken it for NC debris.
-
Hi Matt
It was world news at the time, Even islands that didn't have radio or what ever were checked by sea or air, Also it is obvious that the NZ party never did a thorough job of surveying island, Or they would have discovered skeleton whether the remains are from Norwich city crew or Possibly Amelia.
If they did discover bones of the castaway would they have immediately thought Amelia or a crewman of the Norwich City ?
I honestly don't think these new images will shed any light on the hypothesis that we aren't aware of, Just my opinion
They didn't have much to take ashore, Anything i believe the colonists may have found would probably just be classed as being from Norwich City Crew,
As there is no mention of the colonists believing the remains to be of Amelia Earhart, Just Gerald's
Thanks Richie
-
HMS Leander, Supermarine Walrus Z2 K5783 from which the photographs were taken was one of the first batch produced by Supermarine at Woolston.
"12 Supermarine Walrus I ordered 5.35 to Spec 2/35 under Contract No 391700/35/C.4 ( c ) from Vickers-Supermarine, Woolston
Serial Numbers: K5772 to K5783. The following were still in service 9.39
Total: 6"
Here is the link to the Fleet Air Arm archive. Quite an interesting page.
http://www.fleetairarmarchive.net/aircraft/Walrus.htm (http://www.fleetairarmarchive.net/aircraft/Walrus.htm)
-
Possibly the aircraft was serial number L2222.
According to Fleet Air Arm Aircraft, Units And Ships 1920 To 1939 by Ray Sturtivant, L2222 was one of "168 Supermarine Walrus I spotter-reconnaissance amphibian biplane flying boats ordered 10.7.36 under Cont No 534422/36 to Spec 37/36 from Vickers-Supermarine, Woolston and numbered L2169 to L2336."
The particulars of L2222 are:
FF 7.1.38; Allocated PD Sealand 10.1.38; For 715 Flt 5th Cruiser Sqn in Far East (NTU?); 720 Flt New Zealand Sqn in HMNZS Leander ('Z-4' later 'P9A') from 6.38 - 5.39; To RN charge 24.5.39
(FF = first flight. PD = packing depot. Flt = flight. Sqn = squadron. NTU = not taken up. RN = Royal Navy)
Some more pertinent information about L2222 can be found here (http://www.adf-serials.com.au/2a2.htm):
/38 Embarked HMS LEANDER for surveys of Pacific islands
24/11/38 Reconnaissance of Christmas Island (Pacific) flown but catapult cradle lost overboard HMS LEANDER on launch so subsequent operations confined to calm waters when aircraft could be lowered into the water by crane
and here (http://www.rafcommands.com/forum/showthread.php?3073-Walrus-of-New-Zealand-Navy):
According to 'The Supermarine Walrus' by G W R Nicholl, the author was pilot of Walrus L2222 embarked on Leander in late 1938 and operating in the Pacific at that time.
-
Hi All
Rather than start a new post, on the following link scroll down to 10 or 11 picture down of Amelia in cabin with Manning can anyone tell me what the object is top left corner " left of manning s head in cockpit ?
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/40-Issue-MY-WEEKLY-READER-KIds-Newspaper-DEPRESSION-1937-Dust-Bowl-FDR-Earhart-/290942415753?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item43bd84f389
Thanks Richie
-
Rather than start a new post, on the following link scroll down to 10 or 11 picture down of Amelia in cabin with Manning can anyone tell me what the object is top left corner " left of manning s head in cockpit ?
It's actually on the centerpost of the windshield. It's the back of the magnetic compass.
-
/38 Embarked HMS LEANDER for surveys of Pacific islands
24/11/38 Reconnaissance of Christmas Island (Pacific) flown but catapult cradle lost overboard HMS LEANDER on launch so subsequent operations confined to calm waters when aircraft could be lowered into the water by crane
That's really interesting and probably why Leander was positioned off the southern side of Gardner during the aerial survey. That's the lee side of the island where the water is calmest.
-
Research Needed: In writing up when and how these aerial photos were taken I need to confirm that December 1, 1938 was the ONLY day HMNZS Leander was at Gardner Island. We know Leander was at Christmas island immediately before coming to Gardner and that she went back to Suva (Fiji) upon departing Gardner. Can we establish where she went from there?
-
Some info on Leander:
http://www.worldnavalships.com/directory/shipinfo.php?ShipID=429
-
Here is a link to the official report that includes December 1937. Need the report like it that must have been compiled the following year:
http://www.atojs.natlib.govt.nz/cgi-bin/atojs?a=d&d=AJHR1938-I.2.3.2.5&e=-------10--1------0Lulu-- (http://www.atojs.natlib.govt.nz/cgi-bin/atojs?a=d&d=AJHR1938-I.2.3.2.5&e=-------10--1------0Lulu--)
-
The official report just gives the date she returned to Auckland, so no help there.
http://www.atojs.natlib.govt.nz/cgi-bin/atojs?a=d&d=AJHR1939-I.1.2565&cl=&srpos=0&e=-------10--1------0Lulu-- (http://www.atojs.natlib.govt.nz/cgi-bin/atojs?a=d&d=AJHR1939-I.1.2565&cl=&srpos=0&e=-------10--1------0Lulu--)
-
Based on above reports, it looks like departed Auckland 11/7/38 for Suva and other Pacific islands, departed Niku 12/1/38 for Suva, departed Nukualofa 12/9/38 for Auckland, arrived Auckland 12/12/38 and was docked till 3/30/39. Haven't found info on other ports along the way.
-
Based on above reports, it looks like departed Auckland 11/7/38 for Suva and other Pacific islands, departed Niku 12/1/38 for Suva, departed Nukualofa 12/9/38 for Auckland, arrived Auckland 12/12/38 and was docked till 3/30/39. Haven't found info on other ports along the way.
That's what I needed to know. Good work. Thanks.
-
Research Needed: In writing up when and how these aerial photos were taken I need to confirm that December 1, 1938 was the ONLY day HMNZS Leander was at Gardner Island. We know Leander was at Christmas island immediately before coming to Gardner and that she went back to Suva (Fiji) upon departing Gardner. Can we establish where she went from there?
In the Felicity Caird thesis from Canterbury University in Christchurch that I posted about recently (https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1258.msg26262.html#msg26262), one of her cited documents is from general correspondence of Air Vice-Marshal Cochrane with the title of "AIR 1 103/2/6 Surveys and Mapping: Surveys of Pacific Islands: HMS Leander, (G/C Cochrane) 1938." In her narrative, she had made a statement about how strapped Leander was for time: "HMS Leander was on such a tight schedule during the expedition that she was only able to visit each island long enough to disembark a survey party and stores." The islands she named were Hull, Gardner, and Christmas. In this 1987 thesis, Caird states that this document was at the National Archives in Wellington.
-
The research bulletin describing the 1938 photos is now up on the TIGHAR website. See Lost and Found (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/68_LostandFound/68_LostandFound.html).
You'll see that TIGHAR members at the TIGHAResearcher level and above can request access to hi-res JPEGS of the photos by sending an email to Pat (the President of TIGHAR, Website Designer, Publications Art Director, member Services Manager, my wife, and the brains behind the whole she-bang). Pat will reply with an invitation to join TIGHAR's Flickr account where you can view and, if you wish, download the photos. It's okay to post screen captures of things you see (or think you see) on the forum but you can't just spread the photos around willy-nilly. If you want your own set of photos but don't want to join TIGHAR you can order scans from the museum.
One other thing. We have a TIGHAR Board of Directors meeting that will take us out of town and keep us pretty busy for the rest of this week so please be patient. Pat will respond respond to your request as soon as possible. Thanks.
-
Hey Ric...Its nice to know that the winds of change are finally happening for you. You deserve a break like this and this is truly quite the break TIGHAR needs to solve this mystery. Anyway I read the LOST and FOUND article just awhile ago and found it very interesting. As I was looking at the pictures of the island...The very first one. I noticed something very interesting. I don't know if you and Jeff saw this...but was puzzled by its shape. So wanted you, Jeff, Richie, and all other forum members to take a glance at this and tell me what it is. Thanks!!!!
-
I don't know if you and Jeff saw this...but was puzzled by its shape. So wanted you, Jeff, Richie, and all other forum members to take a glance at this and tell me what it is.
I'm not sure what that is. It's probably natural. Possibly something from the shipwreck. But it's way too big to be anything associated with the airplane.
-
The circled object on the beach has a similar shape to a lifeboat, possibly from the NC.
Had the survey team come ashore at the time the photos were taken?
-
Had the survey team come ashore at the time the photos were taken?
No. They were standing off, waiting for Leander to come around and help with the unloading.
Attached is a different view of the same area. (Nice detail huh?) The stuff on the reef is Norwich City debris.
-
The circled object on the beach has a similar shape to a lifeboat, possibly from the NC.
Here's a really tight shot of the object. Hard to say. It only looks like this in the one view.
-
No, that's the largest violin I have ever seen!!
Great quality to these pics! This has to be exciting.
-
Here's a really tight shot of the object. Hard to say. It only looks like this in the one view.
I think it's quite exciting that there's the possibility for corroboration among these fotos.
-
Haha, yeah it's either a violin or a gigantic pile of toilet paper. Time for a press release.
-
There is a picture of the lifeboat (http://tighar.org/wiki/SS_Norwich_City) that has a sign next to it. I wonder if this sign is one of the two noted on the survey map (http://tighar.org/wiki/File:Contour_Map_NZ_Aviation_Survey_(Wigram_AFB_Archives).jpg) and that can determine where to look for the lifeboat. Both signs or markers are close to shore a little south of the Norwich City.
It's hard to read the sign next to the lifeboat though. Note the bushes next to the boat. It must be up the slope a bit
In the news report of TIGHAR's NZ visit, the picture shown in it of the Norwich City was taken from the water.
Ric, were other photos besides the aerials copied while there?
-
There is a picture of the lifeboat (http://tighar.org/wiki/SS_Norwich_City) that has a sign next to it. I wonder if this sign is one of the two noted on the survey map (http://tighar.org/wiki/File:Contour_Map_NZ_Aviation_Survey_(Wigram_AFB_Archives).jpg) and that can determine where to look for the lifeboat. Both signs or markers are close to shore a little south of the Norwich City.
This object is further north than either of the notice boards shown on the NZ survey map. The notice board that was put up by the lifeboat is the one left by the NZ survey. (The other notice board was put up by Maude and Bevington in 1937.) The notice board by the lifeboat was near the NZ campsite south of a point directly ashore from the shipwreck and, of course, wasn't there yet when the photo was taken. So if the object is a lifeboat it's not the one by the notice board. Also, I would say that if it's a lifeboat it's inverted.
In the news report of TIGHAR's NZ visit, the picture shown in it of the Norwich City was taken from the water.
Ric, were other photos besides the aerials copied while there?
There were just a couple of shots taken from the Walrus after it landed. We used one of them for the TV spot because it was a good illustration of how much detail we could get.
-
These photos really are a great find!! Is it known when this drought took place on the island? Im wondering if the photos are representative of the view AE would have had when she first came upon the island?
If yes, and she could see as much as we can, then she must have been sorely disappointed to find the island uninhabitated and without much drinking water.
-
Is it known when this drought took place on the island? Im wondering if the photos are representative of the view AE would have had when she first came upon the island?
The island was still in good shape when Maude and Bevington were there in October 1937. When Maude returned to drop off the first PISS work party in December 1938 he was shocked to find the island desiccated by drought.
-
Thanks Ric. So we are actually seeing the island a little clearer than AE would have when surveying the island, IF she did, prior to landing. Regardless of whether AE thought there were inhabitants or not she still had to land on this patch of an island only if because she was running out of fuel and options. The sight of the wreck may have led her to believe that there may be inhabitants and at least be near shipping lanes.
-
After landing on Nikumaroro Island, do you think there could have been any compulsion for AE and Fred to hang around the NW tip of the island maybe knowing that part of the island was the closest and therefore first to be reached by something approaching from the northwest?
Jeff
-
I am very new to all of this and don't know any where near the things that all you guys know, but I have a couple of questions about the photos. At the time these were taken, was anyone else supposed to be on the island? I mean, would there have been another airplane sitting on the island as the photos were taken?
-
Marie
Everyone has to start somewhere. Just keep reading as much as you can.
At the time the '38 photos were taken, there was a survey party arriving by ship. Apparently they did not go ashore until after the day the photos were taken by aircraft, so no, there should not have been anyone ashore at the time of the photos, and certainly not another aircraft as there was no place to land other than the reef flat. No airport was ever built there, but the lagoon was later used for seaplanes to land.
I hope that helps.
Andrew
-
Thanks, Andrew! I just keep thinking I see what looks like an airplane in some of those shots. Made me wonder if there were any other airplanes supposed to be there at the time. I know how easy it is to think you "see something", and I am probably not even aware of what I'm actually looking at. Probably just some tress that form the shape I think I see. Thanks again, though, for answering my question.
-
So I've been wondering about the new (old) photos... If anything notable has been revealed in any of these photos... any shades or objects noted that might coincide with the position of the nessie object in the Bevington photo?
Unfortunately, I'm not in a position this moment to become a researcher member, to gain access to the scans, although I hope to be able to join sometime soon. After examining these new photos, is there any additional evidence or curious finds of note?
New Lurker,
Steve Schlutt
-
Please try to remember that Ric has previously posted that it wasn't possible to taxi the Electra off the reef flat due to a deep natural barrier closer to the tree line. Ric will correct me if I am not remembering correctly. This means the Electra would be sitting fully exposed on the reef flat and not anywhere inside the tree line. When looking at the new photos I believe one of the first things to look for would be the Bevington Object. I'm sure Jeff Glickman, who triangulated the Bevington object position in those photos from last year, will produce that position on at least one of the new photos so we can all see the approximate location. He likely did that as one of his first reviews. Ric has Jeff created such an overlay document yet?
-
Please try to remember that Ric has previously posted that it wasn't possible to taxi the Electra off the reef flat due to a deep natural barrier closer to the tree line. Ric will correct me if I am not remembering correctly. This means the Electra would be sitting fully exposed on the reef flat and not anywhere inside the tree line.
Remember, we don't know anything for certain. We have evidence/clues that we have interpreted as being supportive of a particular hypothesis but let's be careful not to treat those interpretations as facts. As I wrote in Lost & Found (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/68_LostandFound/68_LostandFound.html), "This new research resource is a time capsule that allows us to explore the island as it was 75 years ago. What we’ll learn remains to be seen. Of course we’ll look for signs of human activity at the Seven Site and elsewhere. We’ll look for possible signs of aircraft wreckage on the reef and beach, but as with all exploring, it will be important to not just look for what we think might be there but to also keep our eye out for the unexpected."
When looking at the new photos I believe one of the first things to look for would be the Bevington Object. I'm sure Jeff Glickman, who triangulated the Bevington object position in those photos from last year, will produce that position on at least one of the new photos so we can all see the approximate location. He likely did that as one of his first reviews. Ric has Jeff created such an overlay document yet?
Jeff has yet to do a precise geo-referencing of the aerial obliques with the Bevington Object but we can eyeball the right place to look within fairly close tolerances. So far there's no sign of the Bevington Object in the 1938 images but there are still some processing techniques to be applied that may bring out more detail
-
So far there's no sign of the Bevington Object in the 1938 images but there are still some processing techniques to be applied that may bring out more detail
Ric, isn't this the Bevington object we're looking at in image "_DSC0339"? To me it appears to be an object sticking out of the water and not a blemish because of apparent shade at the same angle as the "Norwich City". I've attached a cropped version of the image with reference marks and a zoomed-in view of anomoly.
I saw this in the high res image and assumed everybody was looking at it - in fact had glossed over it and was looking for clues in other parts of the island. . . :o
Respectfully submitted, John
(note: corrected the image number and grammatical error)
-
Very interesting indeed. Fyi - for relative scale, keep in mind that the Norwich City was about 53 1/2 feet wide.
-
Also something at about the 2 o'clock position to what you've circled but not as clear.
The object at the 2 o'clock position does not repeat in the other photos, and it's far enough above the surf line that it should if it were real. It looks a lot like the similar anomaly directly in front of the bow of the NC that looks like a tall post with gradation lines on it. I think they are both photo flaws.
-
Ric, isn't this the Bevington object we're looking at in image "9298746431_34"?
You're talking about _DSC0339. Yes, it's an interesting feature (I won't call it an object -yet). We seem to have two exposures that cover that part of the reef looking east, _ DSC0339 and DSC0341 (_DSC0340 is another copy of the same negative as _DSC0341). Remember that the sequence of the numbers signifies only the order in which we copied the negs, not necessarily the order in which the original photos were taken.
The two exposures - 339 and 341 - were taken moments apart as the Walrus flew along the shore either north to south or south to north (can't tell which). The Possible Bevington Object (PBO) is visible in 339 but not in 341, but the wave action along the reef is constantly changing as waves wash ashore. The wave pattern on the reef in 341 suggests to me that it was taken AFTER 339. It looks to me like a wave is coming ashore. The "wavelet" shoreward of the PBO in 339 looks further shoreward in 341. There is a bit of surf just seaward of the PBO in 339 which appears to "bloom" in 341 and may have obscured PBO.
I agree with Charlie that the feature at 2 o'clock is probably a flaw in the image. It's not there in 340.
-
The two exposures - 339 and 341 - were taken moments apart as the Walrus flew along the shore either north to south or south to north (can't tell which).
Come to think of it, if I'm right about 339 being taken before 341 then the plane was flying north to south and the photographer was shooting out of the port side window.
-
If Nessie is the remains of the Electra, AE and possibly Fred could have placed any items that they may have retrieved from the plane somewhere adjacent to the shoreline and very close to the plane. It could be that some of those items may not have been removed by AE and Fred from where they would have been placed adjacent to the shoreline. This could mean that some of these items may be in place today where they were deposited?
-
The two exposures - 339 and 341 - were taken moments apart as the Walrus flew along the shore either north to south or south to north (can't tell which).
I went back to the uncropped images to look at wave patterns, and noticed in the full frames we have a good indicator of the direction the airplane was flying - the "thingy" in the upper left corner of the image. (I googled up photos of the Walrus, including one being craned aboard the HMS Leander (attached), and couldn't figure out what the "thingy" is.)
At any rate, image "_DSC0333" shows a wider field of view than _DSC0341. We see the same "thingy" in the upper left corner, as well as the front end of the starboard wing pontoon mid-frame on the right side of the image. From this orientation we can deduce that the observer was taking pictures out of the starboard window, and the airplane was flying south to north. However, I will hazard a guess that our Walrus crew always had the sensation they were flying backwards. . .(i.e. we'll have that spiffy Spitfire please. . ) ;D
Respectfully submitted, John
-
We see the same "thingy" in the upper left corner, as well as the front end of the starboard wing pontoon mid-frame on the right side of the image. From this orientation we can deduce that the observer was taking pictures out of the starboard window, and the airplane was flying south to north.
The "thingy" is in every photo and in exactly the same place in upper left hand corner of the frame. I think it's in the camera, not something on the airplane. If so, it's not an indication of which way the airplane is flying. Of course, the float is a clear indication of the airplane's direction of flight. The float is in some photos but not in others. When it does appear, it's always the starboard side float. So, either all of the photos were taken from the starboard side of the airplane or none of the photos taken from the port side included the float.
-
Is it possible that the location of the "PBO" may be a little beyond the left hand edge of the crop of frame 341 shown above due to the slightly different perspective (almost directly above the NC) and increased magnification of that frame?
-
Is it possible that the location of the "PBO" may be a little beyond the left hand edge of the crop of frame 341 shown above due to the slightly different perspective (almost directly above the NC) and increased magnification of that frame?
The PBO is south of the prominent bush on the shore which is also visible in 341. I've brought the PBO to Jeff Glickman's attention. He says it could be a flawed grain in the film but it seems too big for that. He's going to do a precise geo-reference to see if it's in the same place as the Bevington Object appears in the 1937 photo. If it is, then it's probably the Bevington object. Jeff wanted me to pass along his compliments to John Baldreston for spotting this thing - whatever it is.
Jeff also cautioned me that a forensic imaging job has come up that will keep him busy for the next couple weeks so we'll have to be patient.
-
Thanks Ric.
I found this info (which may explain the "thingy") here: http://www.aerialsearch.net/terms.html
"An aerial photography camera "stamps" a marker—most often a black shape of some kind—in the corner and/or center of the each outer edge of every frame that it takes. These shapes are called "fiducial points", and are used to help properly align the photos and make measurements of terrain details which the photos depict."
Looking at some of the low-res examples that have been posted it seems that notes of some kind may have been scribed in that unexposed corner of each negative?
-
Looking at some of the low-res examples that have been posted it seems that notes of some kind may have been scribed in that unexposed corner of each negative?
I think you're right. Even in the hi-res images the numbers are barely discernible, if at all.
-
The "thingy" is in every photo and in exactly the same place in upper left hand corner of the frame. I think it's in the camera, not something on the airplane. If so, it's not an indication of which way the airplane is flying. Of course, the float is a clear indication of the airplane's direction of flight. The float is in some photos but not in others. When it does appear, it's always the starboard side float. So, either all of the photos were taken from the starboard side of the airplane or none of the photos taken from the port side included the float.
Thanks Ric - makes good sense! And thanks Wayne for the idea of a "fiducial point" - this thing in the corner looks like a physical object, so I'm checking out aerial photography techniques in the 1930's to see if it was a fixed object attached to the camera. Interesting! v/r JB
-
John it was probably something near the film “gate” of the roll film holder which stopped light from hitting the film at that corner. From my photography background I know that some photographers would file characteristic notches into the film gate of each roll film back they used so that they could identify which one needed repair in the event of problems (light leaks, poor frame spacing, etc).
From my brief bit of internet research, fiducial points (if that is what the markings on these negatives are) seem to be mainly used for mapping applications when aerial cameras are oriented in a vertical position, rather than the oblique views photographed in this instance.
-
Ric,
I know it's early, but has Jeff found anything of interest in the new photos thus far?
We all know he has a "day job" and our interest is secondary to his making a living but it would be neat to hear he has seen something that woud peak our interest.
Ted Campbell
-
I know it's early, but has Jeff found anything of interest in the new photos thus far?
As you correctly note, Jeff has a day job that keeps him very busy. Asking him to meticulously inspect each of the 41 images would be neither fair nor efficient. We already know there are a number of objects of interest that Jeff will want to look at and, if possible, quantify as to size and probable composition.
Jeff was our guest for part of one day of the recent TIGHAR Board of Directors meeting and we talked in some detail about the 1938 Aerial Photos. Those discussions led to the formation of the Study Group that is just now getting up and running. The Study Group will examine the photos in great detail and, we hope, identify objects, features or anomalies to which Jeff can then apply highly specialized forensic techniques. When we have results we'll report back to the Forum.
-
...
The Study Group will examine the photos in great detail and, we hope, identify objects, features or anomalies to which Jeff can then apply highly specialized forensic techniques. When we have results we'll report back to the Forum.
Is this to suggest that Jeff won't be thoroughly examining all the photos but just items of interest identified by the study group?
-
Is this to suggest that Jeff won't be thoroughly examining all the photos but just items of interest identified by the study group?
Not necessarily. Jeff will want to take a close look at all of the images but having a number of eyeballs on best-resolution copies of the photos should jump-start the process and save a lot of time.
-
How long will it be before you let us look at the new photos? Sure would be a good time to look thru them and speculate with people on the forum. Great way to pass time. I'll also understand why if you can't post them yet.
Matt
-
How long will it be before you let us look at the new photos? Sure would be a good time to look thru them and speculate with people on the forum. Great way to pass time. I'll also understand why if you can't post them yet.
We do not have permission from the RNZAF to publish the photos for the general public. They are approved only for TIGHAR research. Hi-res jpegs of the photos are available to any TIGHAR member at the TIGHAResearcher (http://tighar.org/membership.html) level or above via the TIGHAR Flickr account.
-
you can't put up low resolution JPEGs of the new images we haven't seen??
-
you can't put up low resolution JPEGs of the new images we haven't seen??
As I have tried to explain, we only have permission to use the photos for TIGHAR research. What does that mean? Who is a TIGHAR researcher? Any member of the general public who signs on to the forum? That renders the restriction meaningless. A TIGHAR researcher is a TIGHAR member who has jpi[oined TIGHAR at the TIGHAResearcher level.
Posting the aerial photos for everyone as lo-res jpegs would not only violate the spirit of our agreement with the RNZAF but would not result in useful observations.
-
you can't put up low resolution JPEGs of the new images we haven't seen??
As I have tried to explain, we only have permission to use the photos for TIGHAR research. What does that mean? Who is a TIGHAR researcher? Any member of the general public who signs on to the forum? That renders the restriction meaningless. A TIGHAR researcher is a TIGHAR member who has jpi[oined TIGHAR at the TIGHAResearcher level.
Posting the aerial photos for everyone as lo-res jpegs would not only violate the spirit of our agreement with the RNZAF but would not result in useful observations.
Ric, I do not mean to argue the point, but the museum had no problem sending me low resolution versions of all of the images directly. I received an email from Mr. O'Sullivan very early this morning. This is the email that was sent to me along with 41 images of the island.
Good morning Kevin
Yes, electronic reproductions are available for purchase.
I’m having them scanned at the moment. The resulting file will be 48bit, RGB, Tiff, at 5000px on long edge at 3000 dpi, with a resulting file size of approximately 1.5GB. They will optical scans with no interpolation. The price is $14 +GST per frame. There are 47 frames in total on the roll, so I’ll let you work out the total figure.
I have attached my order form which I’ll require to be completed and returned before I send any files. I’ve also attached some contact sheets for you to select individual frames. These were done before the frame numbers had been given so please just mark on the file somehow and return that to me.
Matthew O’Sullivan
Keeper of Photographs
Research Team
phone: [+64 3] 343 9521 (general enquiries)
[+64 3] 343 9537 (photographic enquiries)
fax: [+64 3] 343 9549
45 Harvard Ave
Wigram 8042
Private Bag 4739
Christchurch 8140
New Zealand
www.airforcemuseum.co.nz
AIR FORCE MUSEUM OF NEW ZEALAND
P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail
Regards
The Info Team
Air Force Museum of New Zealand
-
Ric, I do not mean to argue the point, but the museum had no problem sending me low resolution versions of all of the images directly. I received an email from Mr. O'Sullivan very early this morning. This is the email that was sent to me along with 41 images of the island.
I too have an email from Matt O'Sullivan.
"The photos are for your (TIGHAR) research only. If they are used in any type of publication, including film, the credit "RNZAF Official" must be used, not necessarily on screen but definitely in the credits. No you can't sell copies, any enquiries to that end should be referred back to the Museum."
I would urge anyone who wants to see the photos but does not want to become a TIGHAResearcher to contact Matt. Looks like the electronic reproductions he's offering might be a nice income stream for the museum.
-
...
I would urge anyone who wants to see the photos but does not want to become a TIGHAResearcher to contact Matt. Looks like the electronic reproductions he's offering might be a nice income stream for the museum.
Somehow I think getting the contact sheets for free is the whole point of the exercise.
-
...
I would urge anyone who wants to see the photos but does not want to become a TIGHAResearcher to contact Matt. Looks like the electronic reproductions he's offering might be a nice income stream for the museum.
Somehow I think getting the contact sheets for free is the whole point of the exercise.
exactly, I don't have the capabilities to do anything with the high resolution images, I just wanted to know WHAT new photos had been found. I understand your reasoning behind only making the high resolution images available to "research level supporters" but not showing what was found to everyone seems to go against past findings of tighar.... especially when the low res versions appear to freely distributed...
-
I think that it was very kind of the Museum to first, seek out TIGHAR and if it had a desire to acquire the images for research. Secondly for providing the ability for TIGHAR to copy them at no cost. (yes there was a cost to Tighar to go and acquire them).
I also think its good for the Museum, who now see an opportunity to raise some, probably, much needed funds, to make their property available to the public.
The museum had no problem providing the low res shots to anyone who asked but it costs real money to make the scans or hi res copies. Even getting a 1.5 gb scan of one image isn't just attaching it to an email. Real work and computer server and internet time is involved. I am sure if you fly out to New Zealand and offer to do all the scanning or photography then you too would be allowed to have a copy. But the fact is the rights to the images are still owned by the Museum. They want to raise money and for that reason you would likely still have conditions on your right to distribute your copies.
Thats all that the Museum has done here. They essentially said to TIGHAR that they could come and make photographic copies for free but were restricted in distribution. That was very generous of the Museum and Ric is living up to that commitment.
The museum sees an opportunity to recover the costs of reproduction and distribution as well as probably to make a few bucks profit. You can see that in the email from Matt O'Sllivan as reproduced in the earlier post from Kevin Weeks.
Photography is art and is copyrightable. Just like music, books and movies. I sell some of my better photos and give some away. Its my right but even in the stuff I give away I express that they can only be distributed to others where there is no personal or commercial gain. After all, I own the photos and the rights. I want control of my work.
Look at software. Ever read that agreement it comes with? It essentially says you do not own the software but are merely allowed to use a copy. You cannot distribute it as though you own it. Even freeware has this control.
Ric and TIGHAR are just living up to the commitment made to the museum as they should. Clearly the Museum can distribute whatever they want and its clear they have decided to distribute the low res copies. Good for them. That's marketing 101. Give people a taste for free then up sell. But Ric hasn't got that right.
The above is my opinion and is not intended to offend, just help to clarify.
BTW. The Low Res shots are good only for showing you the composure of the shot. Aerial shots are not close ups so the detail is in the hi res. The scanned images at 48bit should be amazing. I think it might be worth the $600 plus dollars for the whole set.
-
irvine, if you noticed, I did not post the images that were sent to me. I was making a reasonable assumption that since the museum is freely distributing the sheets, that if asked they may give permission to display them on the forum.
It's a representation of what you would get from being a research level supporter or advertising for the museum's available prints....
I hope I'm not being perceived as promoting some sort of copyright infringement??
-
Here's the thing - or my thing, anyway. Crowd sourcing or whatever you choose to call it, can be a wonderful tool and has yielded valuable clues for TIGHAR. Such as the Conroy Anomaly.
But, as Clint Eastwood used to say, "A man's got to know his limitations." TIGHAR has wisely, I think, recognized its limitations in this case and is using the few, scarce resources it has to try and extract the maximum amount of information in the minimum amount of time. Nobody who is doing this is getting paid. Neither is anyone hiding anything, or distorting anything, etc. It cost TIGHAR more than $3,000 to go to NZ to get this information. Was it worth it? Time - and patience - will tell. I know enough to never bet against TIGHAR.
LTM, who will let others do the manipulating,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 CER
-
irvine, if you noticed, I did not post the images that were sent to me. I was making a reasonable assumption that since the museum is freely distributing the sheets, that if asked they may give permission to display them on the forum.
It's a representation of what you would get from being a research level supporter or advertising for the museum's available prints....
I hope I'm not being perceived as promoting some sort of copyright infringement??
For one, I don't perceive you as 'promoting' copyright infringement, but in this case we're dealing with a less-than typical research condition where the 'open forum' is concerned. Because of good faith, TIGHAR needs to honor the agreement about 'research use only' and in this case, to carefully define what a 'researcher' is, hence Ric's statement above -
Posting the aerial photos for everyone as lo-res jpegs would not only violate the spirit of our agreement with the RNZAF but would not result in useful observations.
That is TIGHAR's working positon in this case. We don't have the typical 'put 'em up and let 'em have at it' condition in this case, i.e. whereby all forum watchers can dive in and sleuth through the visuals. What TIGHAR has done is define researcher as one at the 'Researcher' membership level, for starters, then as those among the research-level members who have the interest and equipment to fly-speck the hi-res versions of these photos for possible clues to an Earhart presence.
I enjoy being part of the Photo Research Group and don't want to appear snotty about it, please. But to Ric's point - the low-res images are not going to provide much for real assessment, and an appropriate arrangement has been made that satisfies both the museum's proprietary interest as well as TIGHAR's need for serious study of the material, IMO. It does not make sense to post low res images here to create a less-favorable search condition - and possibly offend the spirit of the agreement with the Museum.
If a member is able to freely get the low-res images from the museum gratis, more power to them, go for it. TIGHAR just sees posting here as a violation of the trust built with the museum, I think. But your ability to do any meaningful search will be very limited with the low-res images, hence TIGHAR's second concern: what is the point in supporting a less-enabled search via low-res images?
If studying these images for clues is your desire, why not seek to join the official photo group?
Like I said, I'm not looking to do research with them. I don't have capabilities to do so. I just wanted to know what were the newly discovered photos? that's it. take a peak, see how thorough the picture taking was.
It just seems a departure from the tighar norm where the maximum amount of data is shown. I'm hoping the current lawsuit isn't changing tighar's stance on data sharing. Yes I know there is an agreement! I'm talking the low res, "these are what we went to get detailed images of". As far as I know the museum was not asked if that could be shown, please correct me if I'm wrong on that.
-
Am I the only one that see's a bit of underhandedness on Kevin's part?
The response from Matt indicates he thought he was going to sell images to Kevin, and he only sent the contact sheets so Kevin could pick out the ones he wanted copies of, for a price.
And yet Kevin now says he did all that to just to get the contact sheets for free.
So it sounds like Kevin "played" Matt, telling him he wanted to purchase copies, all the while just trying to get the contact sheets for free.
Seems a little shady - am I missing something?
-
Am I the only one that see's a bit of underhandedness on Kevin's part?
The response from Matt indicates he thought he was going to sell images to Kevin, and he only sent the contact sheets so Kevin could pick out the ones he wanted copies of, for a price.
And yet Kevin now says he did all that to just to get the contact sheets for free.
So it sounds like Kevin "played" Matt, telling him he wanted to purchase copies, all the while just trying to get the contact sheets for free.
Seems a little shady - am I missing something?
After looking at the condition of the negatives I wouldn't lose sleep over it. IMO they will need the higher resolution and several images to do much. As a perk the museum gets some free advertising by making it known the images are available for a price.
I have faith in TIGHAR that any 'smoking guns' would have been news before they returned from the trip. Further I imagine any interesting finds would be made known to the public by TIGHAR. Look at the sonar anomaly for an example.
So even if you don't have the means I imagine the results will be published eventually. They are NOT kidding about needing a (expensive even used) workstation class PC as a single image is 200+MB compared to your average Facebook picture of 1-10MB.
-
After looking at the condition of the negatives I wouldn't lose sleep over it. IMO they will need the higher resolution and several images to do much. As a perk the museum gets some free advertising by making it known the images are available for a price.
Yes, I'm a Researcher and I have the higher resolution images, and even in those, things don't automatically pop out. That plane was flying pretty high - these are not closeups.
The advantage of several images of the same area, of course, is you can eliminate photo flaws - if something appears in more than one shot in the same place, it's not a photo flaw. Just a couple months ago we were fantasizing about Earhart and Noonan building the "Arrow" signal for aerial searchers, but it doesn't appear in any of the new images - it was a ghost. Such is the danger in working with just one image.
It dawned on me while looking at the hi-res photos, that it would be nice if it were possible to overlay the official map grid on each image, so as to more easily identify the locations of anomalies, but since these are all obliques at an unknown (precisely) altitude and angle, that would be one heck of a math job.
I don't normally question people's ethics, but it just didn't seem straightforward to me. I'm probably just missing something, and 'taint my business anyway. I just pictured a bunch of other people doing the same thing just to get the free contact sheets and overwhelming Matt, none of them intending to ever actually purchase copies. But it might be in Matt's interest to make the contact sheets available online somewhere just so people would be encouraged to purchase copies. The contact sheets would be really low-res and useful only for choosing which pics to order.
It would help the museum if they did sell some copies. Like people could buy just one or two or three shots and not spend a lot, and still have pretty good copies. They are lower res, but they are big enough to work with. Good enough for the casual poker-arounder. Then if they want to get more serious, the Researcher package is the same cost as just a handful of pictures, and you get all 47 images in hi-res plus all the other advantages of being a Tighar Researcher. Sounds like a win-win to me.
-
Plus the museum pictures could be handled on a standard computer, nothing high-end needed...
-
Am I the only one that see's a bit of underhandedness on Kevin's part?
The response from Matt indicates he thought he was going to sell images to Kevin, and he only sent the contact sheets so Kevin could pick out the ones he wanted copies of, for a price.
And yet Kevin now says he did all that to just to get the contact sheets for free.
So it sounds like Kevin "played" Matt, telling him he wanted to purchase copies, all the while just trying to get the contact sheets for free.
Seems a little shady - am I missing something?
I did no such thing. this is a copy of the email that I sent to the museum. I purposely left tighar out of my communications. I did not expect or ask for prints to be sent. I was expecting to be sent a price per print/set that is all. When he emailed me the low resolution prints I was curious as to the copyright stance the museum would take on these images since they sent them out without even asking. But thank you Charlie for questioning my ethics.
I would like to direct this email to Matthew O'Sullivan who I have read in the news located a new set of prints of Gardner Island. I was wondering if it would be possible to obtain copies of these prints for personal research??
Thank you for your time
Kevin Weeks
-
When he emailed me the low resolution prints I was curious as to the copyright stance the museum would take on these images since they sent them out without even asking.
The way to resolve that question is to ask the museum what its stance is.
It is certain that the museum has not ceded its rights to you (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1317.msg26896.html#msg26896) simply by sending you the contact prints.
-
The way to resolve that question is to ask the museum what its stance is.
It is certain that the museum has not ceded its rights to you (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1317.msg26896.html#msg26896) simply by sending you the contact prints.
I agree with you on both points. I have not asked the museum because I don't feel it is my place to ask. this is not my forum. Would Ric post them if it was OK'd by the museum?? He has already very firmly stated his position against the low res images for whatever reason.
I have not stated anywhere here that they did. I merely stated that because they send out the low resolution copies they may allow them to be displayed on the forum if asked first, with proper citations. Please note that I did not post the pictures nor have I shared them. I only shared exactly what it took to acquire them.
-
Not sure the museum pics are low res. Look at these specs:
The resulting file will be 48bit, RGB, Tiff, at 5000px on long edge at 3000 dpi, with a resulting file size of approximately 1.5GB. They will be optical scans with no interpolation. The price is $14 +GST per frame. There are 47 frames in total on the roll.
Isn't that hi-res?
Makes it look more attractive for people who only want a few to look at.
-
Not sure the museum pics are low res. Look at these specs:
The resulting file will be 48bit, RGB, Tiff, at 5000px on long edge at 3000 dpi, with a resulting file size of approximately 1.5GB. They will be optical scans with no interpolation. The price is $14 +GST per frame. There are 47 frames in total on the roll.
Isn't that hi-res?
Makes it look more attractive for people who only want a few to look at.
By lo-resolution I am referring to the groups of pictures that were sent to me to reference which frames I would like to purchase. they are definitely not sending low resolution images out for the $14 price.
-
By lo-resolution I am referring to the groups of pictures that were sent to me to reference which frames I would like to purchase. they are definitely not sending low resolution images out for the $14 price.
Yeah, I think they might even be using the same set of hi-res negatives that Ric & Jeff left at the museum.
That would be a good second source for someone who doesn't want to do the Researcher level on Tighar.
A guy would really have to buy two shots of the same area to eliminate photo flaws, though. Like the 2 best shots of the seven site or the 2 best shots of the landing site. Even if a guy bought all 4 of those it would be less than Researcher membership by a wide margin.
I guess the only disadvantage is it would be impossible to really compare anomalies directly with Researchers, because of the different scans used. But if they are both using the same negatives it would be close.
-
Why would anyone try to save money by buying from the museum instead of uping their membership to Researcher level? If you care about this effort then you should put your money behind it here.
-
Exactly, Mr. Powell.
I can see this spiraling down into a, "I (insert name here) personally found Amelia," kind of thing.
If that's what floats your boat, well, then, good for you. Just don't forget who rendered those images high resolution in the first place. That's right, TIGHAR.
LTM, who prefers to pass the ammunition,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 CER
-
Any preliminary findings from the study group?
-
Any preliminary findings from the study group?
No. I doubt very much that there will be many, if any, interim reports.
If you've ever traveled with children, you might know how annoying it is for them to keep asking, "Are we there yet?" I'm pretty sure that TIGHAR plans to wring as much information as it can from the photos--and to make the information publicly available as soon as humanly possible for a group of volunteers.
-
Any preliminary findings from the study group?
Marty is right. We're just getting started. There is a lot to look at and there's a learning curve in being able to distinguish possible objects from natural features. There will be many false alarms. We'll only report on stuff that passes muster.
-
Exactly. Unfortunately, this endeavor is not one for the instant gratification crowd. The only way to do it and make sure we don't miss anything is to be relentlessly, grindingly thorough. And that takes time.
LTM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 CER
-
It sure would be nice if you could pass along to us armchair analysts any helpful keys (scale; resolution sizes, references; etc.) that you guys determine, so we can all be on the same page.
-
Ric,
Curious about how much dirt or scratching is present on the negatives. Many of the period pictures we've seen of the island have their fair share of artifacts from dirt, etc., which can cause false alarms and lead to debates over possible artificial objects. Hopefully the 1938 pics will not have that problem to such a degree. Thanks.
Having been sealed up still uncut for so long, it seems like they were not handled very much until now.
-
Curious about how much dirt or scratching is present on the negatives. Many of the period pictures we've seen of the island have their fair share of artifacts from dirt, etc., which can cause false alarms and lead to debates over possible artificial objects. Hopefully the 1938 pics will not have that problem to such a degree.
The negatives are in relatively excellent condition but flaws, dust specks, and scathes are inevitable. The study group is learning how to spot the false alarms.
-
I just want to tell you all "Good luck!" We're all counting on you.
-
Hello Ric,
I was looking at your topic starter , your first entry shows three pictures; the one titled western shore jig , it is the one with the Norwich City ship , anyway ....I know people have been known to see things that are not there if you look to long , but what caught my eye right away was in the reef just to the left of the wreck If you blow up the picture it looks to me like SOS , actually SCS but maybe faint outline of an O , what do you think?
-
what do you think?
I think you're a troll who is simply trying to waste our time with dumb postings. I have put you under moderation.
-
what do you think?
I think you're a troll who is simply trying to waste our time with dumb postings. I have put you under moderation.
Ric,
I like your style....You must be guilty of watching at least one Clint Eastwood movie. :)
Pat
-
what do you think?
I think you're a troll who is simply trying to waste our time with dumb postings. I have put you under moderation.
When someone's under moderation do we educate (as one of TIGHARS aims) them to show them where they are going wrong?
-
When someone's under moderation do we educate (as one of TIGHARS aims) them to show them where they are going wrong?
We try to educate them BEFORE we put them under moderation - as we did with Mr. Germann.
-
Hello Ric,
I was looking at your topic starter , your first entry shows three pictures; the one titled western shore jig , it is the one with the Norwich City ship , anyway ....I know people have been known to see things that are not there if you look to long , but what caught my eye right away was in the reef just to the left of the wreck If you blow up the picture it looks to me like SOS , actually SCS but maybe faint outline of an O , what do you think?
I apparently can see a lot of things other folks can't see. But in this section of Photo #43, I can see neither "SOS" nor "SCS". Can you help me out by pointing to it with an arrow?
-
All,
Look at the latest "TIGHAR NEWS". Holy cow TIGHAR is getting serious! Count me in on the contribution just after the first of the year - I think I've tapped out the non-profit deduction for 2013.
Ted Campbell
-
Can you help me out by pointing to it with an arrow?
Tim,
I drew a box around what I think he was talking about.
-
Can you help me out by pointing to it with an arrow?
I drew a box around what I think he was talking about.
Thanks, Doug. Way to the left of where I imagined. But the size...I don't think even Sasquatch could have made letters this big in the allotted time.
-
Would they expect rescuers from the sea or the air? Scratching giant letters is suggesting they thought air rescue likely. "If" those are letters.
-
Can you help me out by pointing to it with an arrow?
I drew a box around what I think he was talking about.
Thanks, Doug. Way to the left of where I imagined. But the size...I don't think even Sasquatch could have made letters this big in the allotted time.
But, if the tides pushed the Electra around on the reef for a few days before an outgoing tide took it over the edge, could the plane have done enough damage to the coral that the results could still be seen over a year later?
-
All,
Look at the latest "TIGHAR NEWS". Holy cow TIGHAR is getting serious! Count me in on the contribution just after the first of the year - I think I've tapped out the non-profit deduction for 2013.
Ted Campbell
Thanks for the notice Ted. Wow! That is huge and exciting. Submarines! and in 2014!
Count me in to contribute what I can too.
Go TIGHAR!
-
Ric,
Would you or one of the aerial photo group give us a short summery of what you are or are not finding as you study the photos.
Ted Campbell
-
But, if the tides pushed the Electra around on the reef for a few days before an outgoing tide took it over the edge, could the plane have done enough damage to the coral that the results could still be seen over a year later?
That's an interesting question. I'm not up on coral reef wear patterns and such, but I'm guessing that the angle and altitude of the relevant photos would have a bearing on what might/might not have been scraped on the fringing reef. Directly overhead and from a medium altitude, any such scratchs or wear on the reef might be visible. From a lower oblique angle, which seems to be how most of the 1938 photos were taken, probably not due to reflections of the water and such.
LTM, who likes to imagine images,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 CER
-
With regard to reef visibility, I find it very interesting that it is seemingly possible to see what appears to be to a good depth well off shore south of the Norwich City, off Noriti and Tekibeia. I would presume a fortuitous coincidence of just the right sun and viewing angles? Would that such conditions were north of the wreck as well.
-
Ric,
What's the latest on the photo project?
Ted Campbell
-
Ric,
What's the latest on the photo project?
Ted Campbell
Not much to report. After a great deal of detailed examination by our dedicated researchers the 1938 photos show us an island that exhibits very little evidence of human contact. What man-made features are evident may be attributable to either the late 19th century Arundel planting operations or the 1937 Maude/Bevington visit. The "trails" that seemed to be present in the one image of the Seven Site area that we've had for several years are not apparent in these higher resolution images.
There do seem to be some shapes and marks in the bush on the western end of the island just north of the shipwreck that could be man-made. To our knowledge neither Arundel's workers nor the Maude/Bevington party were ever in that area and it's in the general locale where we've reasoned that Earhart and Noonan may have set up their first onshore camp (aka Camp Zero). Naturally, navigating as best we can to that spot will be one of the tasks for the Niku VIII team.
-
Totally worth going to NZ, I think. We know more now than we did before, and in the end, these pictures may provide a useful cross check if still more new information develops.
LTP, tries to pick his pics,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 CER
-
Totally worth going to NZ, I think.
Absolutely. Everyone always wants, and even expects, dramatic discoveries. When they don't appear, some imagine them. But progress and success come in baby steps interspersed with disappointment.
-
Progress and success come in baby steps interspersed with disappointment.
Whoa ... I see a new TIGHAR motto on the horizon ... shoulder patches ... embroidered leather jackets ... the works!
LTM, who knows a winner when he sees it,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 CER
-
Whoa ... I see a new TIGHAR motto on the horizon
We have lots of bumper-sticker wisdom:
"Expeditions consist mostly of carrying large heavy objects over difficult terrain in bad weather."
"The definition of a successful expedition is the same as for a successful landing - it's any one you can walk away from."
"The hardest part of any expedition is raising the money."
"Stuff is hard to find."
"There are a lot of places in the woods."
"At the end of the day if you can't put what you did on a map you just wasted a day."
Then there's the Adventure Series:
"Never go looking for adventure. It will find you."
"Adventure is what happens when things go wrong.
"Adventure is what you get instead of results."
"Adventure never happens now. Adventure exists only as memory."
"Adventure is discomfort and terror remembered from the perspective of security."
-
I'm writing up a Breaking News piece for the TIGHAR website. Having now captured all of the individual frames from the lo-res contact sheets, there are 45 frames total. Some are near duplicates but every part of the island was photographed from several angles. Let's recognize what we have here. Fifteen months after the Earhart disappearance and before anybody has set foot on the island, we have original large-format negatives on fine-grain, high-quality film of aerial photos for every part of the atoll. Unbelievable.
I'm reading this after long absences from the forum, but I would like to offer an update.
I see references to the Maude party being on Gardner around October 1937, but there was another party (it would appear to have been the Resident Commissioner for the area) was on the beach at Gardner in February 1937 - 4 months before Earhart may have got there, which makes it 7 months before Maude arrived.
Which of course, means that if she landed somewhere near the Norwich City there should have still been a flag pole on the beach, and a fairly new sign.
The document I have detailing the visit is unsigned, other than "I have the honour to be, Sir, Your Excellency's most obedient servant, Resident Commissioner,".
It is on letterhead of "Gilbert and Ellice Islands Colony, Office Of The Resident Commissioner, Ocean Island. Marked Confidential (as all Govt correspondence was) and dated 28th May 1937.
It is sent to "His Excellency, The High Commissioner For The Western Pacific,"
On another island he notes "A small stone mound was hastily erected close to the landing place, on top of shich the flag was planted and a notice-board with the usual inscription placed at the base".
That, in combination with the mention of raising the flag and leaving a notice board at Gardner, is what makes me think there just might have been remnants of a flag there if Earhart landed.
It seems at least the sign may have still been there when the NZ survey party was there. I wonder if, assuming Earhart made it to Niku, there might have been some sort of message in the vicinity..
The photographs would have been taken fifteen months after the Earhart disappearance and Nineteen months SINCE anybody had set foot on the island.
However 4 months before Earhart disappeared, there was an exploration of Gardner Island on the 15th February 1937 and they hoisted 'the flag' and placed a notice board was placed at the edge of the scrub, 50 yards south of the landing place. The landing place was mid way between Reef Pt and S.W. Point.
This party spent two hours exploring the island and noted that on 15th Feb 1937, a few months before Earhart disappeared, there were only a dozen or so coconut trees growing on the island, but also that there were, in their words, 'millions of coconut crabs'.
Lambrecht said "Most of this island is covered with tropical vegetation with, here and there, a grove of coconut palms. Here signs of recent habitation were clearly visible but.."
I wonder if he saw something left from the visit by LEITH only 4 months earlier? But I'll make mention of that in a separate post.
Cheers,
Th' WOMBAT.
-
This will do nothing to solve the Earhart mystery--it's a little mystery in itself.
In the current view of Nikumaroro in Google Earth, I noticed a small feature that looks like a pond near Baureke Passage (see attached photo). Now, I don't really think this is a pond, but I'm wondering what it is.
I don't recall seeing this feature in previous satellite photos of the island, so I'm wondering if it shows up in the 1938 photos, or others of the area (I recall in the Tighar Tracks article titled 'Gallagher's Clues', that US military planes took photos of this part of the island that documented colonist land clearing in this area. I know nothing like this is indicated in the map of Gardner produced by the NZ survey. I suspect no Tighar ever came across it on an expedition. So, what is it? When did it appear on the island...The Mystery of Gallagher's Pond...
-
I don't really think this is a pond, but I'm wondering what it is.
I'm pretty sure it is a Sherman tank.
I don't have time to do an overlay just now.
"Those who have eyes to see will see." ::)
-
I don't really think this is a pond, but I'm wondering what it is.
I'm pretty sure it is a Sherman tank.
I don't have time to do an overlay just now.
"Those who have eyes to see will see." ::)
It's not an L10E.
-
I suspect no Tighar ever came across it on an expedition. So, what is it? When did it appear on the island...The Mystery of Gallagher's Pond...
Been there. Seen that. No mystery. It's a little salt water pond. Natural sink hole. It's there in the 1938 aerial photos.
We passed by it in 1991 while exploring that area. I have a ground level photo in the archives.
-
I knew it was not an airplane, and it looked like a down-home sinkhole to me. Thanks Ric.
-
Does anything the review team found in the photos even remotely suggest the structured "markers" that the British may have left, i.e. their flagpole and notice board claiming Gardner?
LTM, who sees what he sees,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 CER
-
The report by Resident Commissioner J.C. Barley who traveled aboard Leith describes the landing place as "at a spot practically midway between Reef Pt. and S.W. Point. Then it
says "The flag was hoisted and a notice-board placed in position at the edge of the scrub about 50 yards south of the landing place.
The NOTES also by Resident Commissioner J.C. Barley in Leith say "Good landing at half-tide (or more) was found at western end over the reef in small bay about 400 yards south of Reef Point. Further on - "Very conspicuous wreck high up on reef just south of Reef Point..."
and "Flag planted and board erected close to the edge of the scrub about 50 yards south of the landing place in the centre of the bay between Reef Point and South West Point.
That, and maybe some help from Google Earth's ruler tool and visuals from the set of photos might help narrow it down, along with the NZ survey team's description since it seems they may have described finding the notice-board.
Ok, back again. I seem to recall in one of the NZ survey team reports two signs or notice boards. In Feb the flag was hoisted and the notice board was left, but there was no mention of a pile of stones as on at least one other island.
However in October on the next visit "A large cairn was built in a conspicuous position midway between the wreck and the lagoon passage, surrounding a flagstaff and notice board. As similar notice boards were erected at the other islands, a copy of the inscription is enclosed.
GILBERT AND ELLICE ISLANDS COLONY
ADMINISTRATIVE VISIT TO GARDNER ISLAND
HMCS "NIMANOA" - OCTOBER 1937
M.L. SINGLETON, H.E. MAUDE,
MASTER , HMCS "NIMANOA" ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, G & E.I.C.
(Similar boards were placed on the other islands.
*********
So it seems from reading notes and reports from February and October that there were two notice boards placed on each island.
And that there was a flagpole stuck in the ground in Feb, but a bigger one with a large stone cairn around the base erected in October. These references should show exactly where to look in the new high res photos.
Ric, I would really like to see the cairn if these detailed descriptions help to find it in the 1938 photos.
UPDATE - Jeff Victor Hayden has just rediscovered the stash of documents that contain the references I've used at http://digital.library.adelaide.edu.au/dspace/handle/2440/5/simple-search?query=phoenix+islands&sort_by=0&order=DESC&rpp=10&etal=0&start=0
Thanks Jeff.
Cheers,
Th' WOMBAT
-
Ah, so Gallagher's Pond really is a pond. Mystery solved.
That's a relief, because I was girding for battle with Moleski on whether the 'tank' was a Sherman or a Lee :D.
-
More likely a Matilda. Recall it was a British colony island. No obvious explanation why it turned into a salt pond, although I suspect asking a Tommy tank driver might offer a clue...
-
UPDATE - Jeff Victor Hayden has just rediscovered the stash of documents that contain the references I've used at http://digital.library.adelaide.edu.au/dspace/handle/2440/5/simple-search?query=phoenix+islands&sort_by=0&order=DESC&rpp=10&etal=0&start=0
Thanks Jeff.
Cheers,
Th' WOMBAT
Amazing that these documents have been digitized, and I found one interesting nugget after a few minutes of browsing. In the "Memorandum. Local Steps to be Taken if and when Approval of the Phoenix Islands Settlement Scheme is Received" on page 6, detailing first aid supplies, it was noted that:
"The party is particularly liable to suffer from fish poisoning, dysentery, coral sores, and tropical ulcers."
There were lots of ways to die on Niku, especially back then. Imagine what it must have been like for someone facing a medical emergency with only a few, or no, supplies. Not pleasant.
LTM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 CER
-
"The party is particularly liable to suffer from fish poisoning, dysentery, coral sores, and tropical ulcers."
"Tropical ulcers" is a new item for "How to die on Niku 101." (http://tighar.org/wiki/How_to_die_on_Niku_101)
From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tropical_ulcer):
Tropical ulcer (also known as Aden ulcer, Jungle rot, Malabar ulcer, and Tropical phagedena)[1] is a lesion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lesion) occurring in cutaneous leishmaniasis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cutaneous_leishmaniasis). It is caused by a variety of microorganisms (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microorganism), including mycobacteria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mycobacteria). It is common in tropical climates (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tropical_climates).
Ulcers occur on exposed parts of the body, primarily on anterolateral aspect of the lower limbs and may erode muscles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muscle) and tendons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tendon), and sometimes, the bones (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bone). These lesions may frequently develop on preexisting abrasions or sores sometimes beginning from a mere scratch.
-
To paraphrase Dorothy,
" Poisoning and dysentery and ulcers-Oh My! Toto, we're not in Kansas anymore!"
If the surroundings are so unfriendly to a human, how did the colonists, or any tropical dwellers for that matter, handle these maladies?
-
I recall that one of those documents has the original discussion where Gallagher was recommended for the position, after someone else could not take it on.
I'm glad they are of interest to someone else. They kept me amused for many hours while I was away from TIGHAR. The Gallagher thing was one of the big exciting parts of the investigation, but I thought people may have moved past all this old historical stuff.
-
... I thought people may have moved past all this old historical stuff.
You watch - this "old historical stuff" is what will ultimately solve this mystery. What is amazing to me is that more than 70 YEARS after Amelia and Fred disappeared, things relevant to the case are still surfacing in odd/unusual/amazing places.
LTM, who finds dry paint pretty interesting,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 CER
-
Interesting diarama photo (http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=Lockheed+Model+10+Electra+Interior&FORM=RESTAB#view=detail&id=9064A4B2351AB8C272BB9FA90D20EE2F544090EC&selectedIndex=9). Since this string was a bit sleepy of late thought I'd throw this in as bait for those photo-scrutinizing-minded types to conjecture over - a researcher's dream to find this lying in the bush.
The hoax-minded might fuzz it up a bit and tone to sepia and 'release' as 'newly found Japanese archival evidence of Earhart's fate'... ::)
That said - there is (at least) one glaring physical feature that should immediately dismiss this model as less-than historically accurate - can you spot it?
-
Is that a window to the right of the door?
Other questions abound as well, for one, how could the plane have possible ended up with such a large tree so close to the trailing edge of the wing and fuselage?
-
That said - there is (at least) one glaring physical feature that should immediately dismiss this model as less-than historically accurate - can you spot it?
You mean other than the fact that the model is based on a Beech 18?
-
*laughs* More "fun with PhotoShop." Where do you want me to start?
- No International Orange on the leading edges of the wings and top of the stabilizer;
- Rudders are the wrong shape and hinge line is wrong as well;
- No loop antenna;
- No vertical antenna mast behind the cockpit;
- Looks like the location of the portside window and rear entry door are flipped;
- Flaps are wrong;
- Just from a compositional standpoint, how did she manage to land it and get that tree jammed behind the corner of the port wing like that?
- What the heck is that horizontal antenna-looking thing sticking out in front of the cockpit coaming?
The other picture that shows the front of the aircraft is even better:
- Nose is wayyyyy wrong, looks more like a Lockheed 12;
- Hard to tell if the prop blades are colored black or gray - anyway, they don't look like polished metal;
- Prop tips have incorrect yellow warning paint;
- I don't see any mudguard on the one landing gear visible.
Still, a cute little diorama.
LTM, who does a little modeling in his spare time,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189ECSP
-
You guys are GOOD!!!
The extra window was what I had in mind - but the other points are excellent!
We need a bit of trivia like this now and then, y'think? Educational... :)
-
So when can we expect the white van with the camera crew, balloons, and over sized cardboard check to arrive?
-
Be nice. :P
-
Be nice. :P
Sorry, didn't mean for it to be taken any other way than tongue in cheek. I guess I need to reevaluate how thoughtful Thursday is going.
-
LOL!!! No sweat!
-
Interesting diarama photo (http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=Lockheed+Model+10+Electra+Interior&FORM=RESTAB#view=detail&id=9064A4B2351AB8C272BB9FA90D20EE2F544090EC&selectedIndex=9). Since this string was a bit sleepy of late thought I'd throw this in as bait for those photo-scrutinizing-minded types to conjecture over - a researcher's dream to find this lying in the bush.
[snip]
That said - there is (at least) one glaring physical feature that should immediately dismiss this model as less-than historically accurate - can you spot it?
That's Captain Kathryn Janeway of the Federation starship USS Voyager standing there. You can easily see her red uniform shoulders, her communicator badge glinting in the sun, and her infamous hair-do. I recognized it as soon as I saw it, even without clicking your link, which mentions the popular Star Trek website "Memory Alpha" in the photo description.
"The 37s" was a fun episode even with the completely impossible opening segment, wherein an ancient Earth pick-up truck found floating in space is fired right up in the Voyager's shuttle bay. ::)
-
That's Captain Kathryn Janeway of the Federation starship USS Voyager standing there. You can easily see her red uniform shoulders, her communicator badge glinting in the sun, and her infamous hair-do. I recognized it as soon as I saw it, even without clicking your link, which mentions the popular Star Trek website "Memory Alpha" in the photo description.
"The 37s" was a fun episode even with the completely impossible opening segment, wherein an ancient Earth pick-up truck found floating in space is fired right up in the Voyager's shuttle bay. ::)
Good eye!
-
I would suggest we un-pin this from the top of the forum topics. It has been quite some time, and there are unlikely to be any new developments.
LTM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 EC
-
Well, before this thread gets moved, let me ask this question: "Is there any sign in any of the photographs of activity around the site of the cairn/pile of coral slabs found by the Betchart Expedition team?"
Would someone please annotate one of the photographs with the approximate location of the cairn?
-
Would someone please annotate one of the photographs with the approximate location of the cairn?
Would someone please annotate one of the photographs with the approximate location of the cairn?
I've circled the general location but I don't see anything unusual. The putative cairn was seen and photographed by one of the Betchart tourists during one of their walk-abouts. No experienced TIGHAR was present, no GPS reading was taken, and no map was marked. We have only the finder's general description that the feature was at the northwest end of the island.
-
Thanks Ric.
It kind of makes sense they'd favor that area as 'Camp Zero'. It looks to me like they'd have a favorable breeze and with just a few steps perhaps, they'd have a near-180 degree field of view to the horizon and still be able to keep an eye on the Electra.
-
Would it be possible to post a link to DropBox or wherever these are stored so that TIGHAR members, who helped pay for this trip and the analysis, can view them freely and see what they can find?
LTM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 EC
-
Would it be possible to post a link to DropBox or wherever these are stored so that TIGHAR members, who helped pay for this trip and the analysis, can view them freely and see what they can find?
Have you really missed the point of this entire 22 page thread?
-
I know that we never got final report on what was or was not seen. I think it's only fair that those of us who helped pay to send you and Jeff down there get to see the fruits of our investment.
LTM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 EC
-
I know that we never got final report on what was or was not seen.
No "final report" was promised. This thread includes extensive discussions of what was seen and not seen.
I think it's only fair that those of us who helped pay to send you and Jeff down there get to see the fruits of our investment.
Hi-res images of all the NZ photos were made available to all TIGHAR members at the TIGHAResearcher Level and above in August 1013.
-
I know that we never got final report on what was or was not seen.
No "final report" was promised. This thread includes extensive discussions of what was seen and not seen.
I think it's only fair that those of us who helped pay to send you and Jeff down there get to see the fruits of our investment.
Hi-res images of all the NZ photos were made available to all TIGHAR members at the TIGHAResearcher Level and above in August 1013.
On that note, I'd like to ask what Jeff's findings were on this object in photo 301.
And if it wasn't evaluated by Jeff, then I'm curious what everyone thinks this is. It's definitely not a natural object and it's quite large (~ 20').
I'm attaching a small jpg crop of the original photo with location circled.
And then a close-up of the object.