TIGHAR
Amelia Earhart Search Forum => General discussion => Topic started by: Ric Gillespie on July 29, 2013, 09:38:29 AM
-
On Friday, July 26, the TIGHAR Board of Directors met with Jeff Glickman to discuss how we want to proceed with analysis of the recently-acquired 1938 aerial photos. As you know, we have made hi-res jpegs of the images available to any TIGHAResearcher via Flickr. Quite a number of people have requested and received access to the TIGHAR Flickr account.
The hi-res jpegs are a way to make the imagery widely available in keeping with the RNZAF restriction that they be used only for TIGHAR research. As Jeff explained to us, the problem with jpeg images is that the process of converting them from the original format to jpeg greatly reduces the amount of information in the image and introduces distortions and "artifacts" that aren't really there. In other words, to present the images in a format everyone can read we have to significantly degrade their quality. No way around it.
Accordingly, the TIGHAR Board has tasked me with recruiting a "Study Group" of TIGHAResearcher volunteers from EPAC and the TIGHAR Forum who have the hardware and software necessary to work with the 16bit TIFF files that preserve the quality of the images we brought back from New Zealand. The objective of the Study Group will be to call my attention to features and objects of interest that may warrant Jeff's closer inspection and processing with special techniques. Jeff will provide me with the specs for what volunteers will need to have to participate in the Study Group and some guidelines that will help Study Group members avoid some pitfalls in processing the images (for example, using the Brightness and Contrast tool in Photoshop automatically degrades the image from 16bit to 8bit - not good).
As soon as I have the specs from Jeff I'll publish them here so that prospective Study Group participants can see if they have what's needed to help do a detailed examination of the photos. We'll set up the Study Group as a separate email list.
-
Ric, I have tried to upload TIFF files to the forum before without success, so have had to convert to JPEG format, not so good. Is there a limit on the size? I have the software programs for handling TIFF files and, most of the images and files for Tighar on my pc's are in this format. Unfortunately a lot of the detail and information is lost when converting to JPEG format. Am I doing something wrong?
-
Am I doing something wrong?
I don't think so. Apparently the Forum software can only handle jpegs.
-
Ok guys, that explains a lot then. Shame though, JPEG format is ok for everyday media but for work they are pretty dire. Software imaging using TIFF format gives you more scientific applications as opposed to air brushing models blemishes out ;)
-
Here are the specs Jeff Glickman recommends for Study Group participants.
IBM PC Compatible with Windows 7 Service Pack 1 (Microsoft NT 6.1.7601.17514), or Apple Macintosh with Mac OS X Mountain Lion 10.9
Intel i7 or XEON, 4 cores or higher, 3.2 GHz or higher
GPGPU 900MHz graphic clock or greater; 2GB Memory or greater; 750 cores or greater;
1920 x 1024 minimum display resolution (2560 x 1440 resolution display preferred)
Color calibrated display
16GB of RAM or higher
1TB of hard disk or solid state storage or higher
Adobe Photoshop CS5.1 (12.1) or higher; or Adobe Photoshop CS 5.1 Extended (12.0.4) of higher; or Apple Aperture 3.4.5
Nikon View NX 2 Version 2.7.6
16-bit TIFF support required
Export the Nikon NEF file using View NX 2 as TIFF 16 bit file
All processing must be done as 16 bits per pixel
Do not use tools such as adjust brightness and contrast
(Note: Nikon View NX 2 is a free download but it won't be needed if we start from 16bit TIFFs rather than the original NEF raw images.)
-
I have asked if the RAW format images can be made available to researchers via mailed DVD etc. I don't know if that would be available or just TIFF? I understand there would be use restrictions that should be hashed out as well.
-
Has consideration been given to using an FTP site for file transfer? I have the necessary hardware and software as well as an unlimited Internet data plan. I work with Nikon RAW format images routinely as I am an avid photographer. I use the same photo hardware Jeff used to create the images. Nikon D800. I use FTP sites to transfer these large files routinely.
-
I have asked if the RAW format images can be made available to researchers via mailed DVD etc. I don't know if that would be available or just TIFF? I understand there would be use restrictions that should be hashed out as well.
I'll put the NEF (raw) files in the DropBox folder along with the TIFFs.
-
Has consideration been given to using an FTP site for file transfer?
TIGHAR doesn't have an FTP. Services like DropBox are easier and better.
-
Dropbox is fine. While FTP is an actual defined "File Transfer Protocol", Dropbox and others in this genre of file transfer capability, essentially provide the same capability that TIGHAR needs in this instance. I was unaware TIGHAR had a subscribed Dropbox account.
-
I'll load the NEF files into the Dropbox folder and then send an invitation to both Joshua and Irv. Anybody else have the wherewithal and the desire to be in the Study Group?
-
Anybody else have the wherewithal and the desire to be in the Study Group?
Ric,
Desire? Brimming with an excess of it. The wherewithal? "No doubt about it, Rocky - I gotta get myself a new hat!" :'(
Friend
-
Would like to be a part of the Study Group as well. Thanks for the opportunity.
Bob in Cedar Rapids
TIGHAR #4294R
-
I have the hardware and software as recommended; please sign me up. Whether I have the eyesight remains to be seen ...
-
"No doubt about it, Rocky - I gotta get myself a new hat!"
Been a while since I heard that one. You're dating yourself.
-
I'll send out the invitations as soon as the NEF files finish loading into the Dropbox. It's an 11.64 GB folder. Takes a while.
-
Count me in please. NEF is good.
-
Even with a new hat, Bullwinkle here has not idea what language you all are speaking. No study group for me. LOL!
But can't wait to find out what you find....if I can understand that! Wow!
-
Hi Ric
Count me in if u need any more help
Thanks Richie
-
Please don't volunteer for the 1938 Photo Study Group unless you meet the specs. It will just frustrate you and muddy the water.
I currently have the following volunteers:
Art Carty (EPAC)
Greg George (EPAC)
Joe Cerniglia (EPAC)
John Balderston
Irvine John Donald
Jeff Neville
Bob Harmon
Shannon Council
Thomas Sampson
Peter Kearney
Richie Conroy
Did I miss anybody? Thomas Sampson and Peter Kearney are not yet members of TIGHAR so I can't add them to the Study Group until they join (http://tighar.org/membership.html) at the TIGHAResearcher level or above.
-
I was missed. :-[
-
I was missed. :-[
Ooops! Sorry. Also, it looks like Richie is not a member at the TIGHAResearcher level.
Here's how the Study Group looks at present.
Art Carty (EPAC)
Greg George (EPAC)
Joe Cerniglia (EPAC)
John Balderston
Irvine John Donald
Jeff Neville
Bob Harmon
Shannon Council
Joshua Doremire
-
I would love to be part of the study group- I think this will be fascinating!
LTM~ Who's dusting off her studying skills,
Stacy
-
Peter Kearney are not yet members of TIGHAR so I can't add them to the Study Group until they join (http://tighar.org/membership.html) at the TIGHAResearcher level or above.
I am now, so you can put my name back ;D
-
VERY impressive study group! Looking forward to reading the results.
-
We should include the "curved door" in the list of items to look for in our hi-res image searches.
"Taniana came to Nikumaroro Island with his parents in 1945 when he was eight years of age and
remained there until the colony was abandoned in 1963. Most interesting among Taniana’s memories
of Nikumaroro Island was his recollection of finding shiny metal debris, including what he described as
a door (curved) on the beach of Aukaraime South, and just inland of the beach."
This report is here (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Expeditions/SolomonIslands/Solomons2011.pdf).
-
Ricker, good info. Also spurred me to review all the oral history for clues. Thanks very much!
-
Hi folks. In looking at the photos I have a question for the study group. Photo 324 has a boat-like object that I noticed. It might be a photo flaw but I'd be curious what you think. Thanks!
(first time posting photos so I hope it did it right.)
Sandra
-
Hi Sandra
In my opinion it's just a flaw in the images there seem's to be quite a few, However keep up the good work.
Am sure Ric will give you a more certain answer than i :)
Thanks Richie
-
I was missed. :-[
Ooops! Sorry. Also, it looks like Richie is not a member at the TIGHAResearcher level.
Here's how the Study Group looks at present.
Art Carty (EPAC)
Greg George (EPAC)
Joe Cerniglia (EPAC)
John Balderston
Irvine John Donald
Jeff Neville
Bob Harmon
Shannon Council
Joshua Doremire
Ric, as a paid-up Research member, I would appreciate receiving the NZ photos. If you would like me in the Study Group, I will offer to help.
-
Hi folks. In looking at the photos I have a question for the study group. Photo 324 has a boat-like object that I noticed. It might be a photo flaw but I'd be curious what you think. Thanks!
(first time posting photos so I hope it did it right.)
Sandra
Good job Sandra. I don't know what that is. I don't think it's a boat, but it's not a flaw in the photo because it's there in several other images. The attached image is from 0284. It's fairly large (maybe 30 feet?), light colored, and skinny. The interesting thing is that it's offshore the Seven Site. Could be a floating log but I've never seen a log floating in the lagoon. Puzzling.
-
Oooops! Sorry Sandra. I thought you meant the thing in the lagoon. The boat-shaped thing on the reef is a flaw in the photo.
-
Ric, as a paid-up Research member, I would appreciate receiving the NZ photos. If you would like me in the Study Group, I will offer to help.
We'll send you an invitation to the TIGHAR Flickr account so that you can view the hi-res jpegs. Thanks but no thanks on the Study Group.
-
regarding the Thing In The Lagoon that Sandra called attention to; ever since this began for me I have wondered why The Castaway ended up at the place on the island that is the "Seven Site" (or whatever it really should be called !?!)?...If you look at the lagoon from overhead, as i would if I were in an airplane, and you think of a strong incoming tide, the 7 site is just about where flotsom would be likely to come up against the far shore...
So I can't help but think that someone saw a floating object go into the lagoon and up to the far shore; something that presumably could be something of interest or of possible future use...Or possibly even paddled in on it or ...well, you see what I mean.
So I hope that some thought can be given to that...
I suppose the 'woods will be full 'of things like that when you guys get narrowed down...
But if it was a wing, or a tail surface, or somesuch, and the Castaways...Okay; AE !!...thought it would mark their position, and even the fact of their existence, then that would be a place to hang out, until they were too weak to move again;.... that's where the bones were, right ?
And that's where The Initial In White Coral Rocks is, right?
C'mon Guys! While I'm young !?!.......
Bill
-
Ric, as a paid-up Research member, I would appreciate receiving the NZ photos. If you would like me in the Study Group, I will offer to help.
We'll send you an invitation to the TIGHAR Flickr account so that you can view the hi-res jpegs. Thanks but no thanks on the Study Group.
Ric,
I have no problem not being part of the Study Group, but as I have met all the eneumerated criteria, I insist that you forward to me the same highest resolution photos available only to the Study Group (TIFF or whatever).
-
However, I am curious - with the greatest of all due respect of course, why now the interest in continuing the search if you are confident that the L10E wreck and other artifacts / remains have already been found as you have stated in your suit and apparently intend to demonstrate in court?
Well, Jeff, it's about Discovery, isn't it?
Can there be too much information out there? Is there no room for corroborational information? Must we all dig with the same trowels?
And, could these photos have been discovered years ago? Are we the most competent to analyze them?
Perhaps you have all the answers. I await your explanations.
-
Ric,
My suggestion to you is stay out of this discussion.
Ted Campbell
-
+1
Bravo!!!! - my feelings exactly, thank you for putting this into words
-
Yes, thank you, Jeff! My feelings exactly!
-
Couldn't have said it better myself, Jeff. You are right on the money.
-
As I can understand this picture, it is a TIGHAR search that is underway; TIGHAR's rules apply. TIGHAR has the discretion to choose among its members who will or will not participate; is being a 'Research Level' (and major donor) enough for one to 'demand' these pictures? I think it is not. I think there can be many reasons TIGHAR might decide not to allow someone into the group.
The rules for accessing the highest resolution images are enumerated in the first post of this thread, Jeff. I don't see anywhere "Tim or other litigants excluded". And this being a public forum, one must take into account the use of interstate communications, of course.
Thank you again for your good wishes. They are appreciated.
-
The rules for accessing the highest resolution images are enumerated in the first post of this thread, Jeff. I don't see anywhere "Tim or other litigants excluded". And this being a public forum, one must take into account the use of interstate communications, of course.
Thank you again for your good wishes. They are appreciated.
it clearly states that Ric is tasked with creating a study group that meets a specific criteria. it does not state that the study group is open to all research level supporters.
I believe Ric already stated that you would be sent the link to the flickr files that all research level supporters have access to.
edit: this is NOT a public forum.
-
I believe the exact wording was: "Accordingly, the TIGHAR Board has tasked me with recruiting a "Study Group" of TIGHAResearcher volunteers..." [emphasis added]
While I don't necessarily have a pony in this particular show, I will nonetheles be so bold as to suggest that I'm pretty sure the concept behind recruiting is that there is a definite degree of prerogative on the part of the recruiter as to who is accepted and who isn't.
-
While I don't necessarily have a pony in this particular show, I will nonetheles be so bold as to suggest that I'm pretty sure the concept behind recruiting is that there is a definite degree of prerogative on the part of the recruiter as to who is accepted and who isn't.
While I accept this logic, Tim, I don't think the approach is particularly helpful to the TIGHAR cause.
-
I, too, would like to be in the study group.
Jeff, I also felt you spoke my mind.
-
While I accept this logic, Tim, I don't think the approach is particularly helpful to the TIGHAR cause.
if you really wanted to be "helpful to the cause" I think you have a pretty good idea what you could do and it would not involve looking at anymore pictures
-
*idly wonders if it'd look excessively silly to wear a formal blue blazer over his Pacific blue TIGHAR T-shirt while in a certain federal building out West"
LTM, who's never accused of being in style,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 CER
-
Monty,
You can stand next to me in my teeshirt:
T Ted
I inherently
G grieves
H harassment
A at (the)
R ridiculousness
We might stand out amoung the crowd.
Ted Campbell
-
Dress code for Casper - TIGHAR blue!
LTM,
Monty Fowler
-
Monty,
OK, a blue teeshirt with pastel blue lettering.
Ted
-
I really hope I misread / over-read your intent - we agreed that the high road was a better place to walk and I still have that hope for you.
The Road Not Taken
Two roads diverged in a yellow wood,
And sorry I could not travel both
And be one traveler, long I stood
And looked down one as far as I could
To where it bent in the undergrowth;
Then took the other, as just as fair,
And having perhaps the better claim
Because it was grassy and wanted wear,
Though as for that the passing there
Had worn them really about the same,
And both that morning equally lay
In leaves no step had trodden black.
Oh, I kept the first for another day!
Yet knowing how way leads on to way
I doubted if I should ever come back.
I shall be telling this with a sigh
Somewhere ages and ages hence:
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I,
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.
Robert Frost
Jeff, the choice was made on January 12, 2013.
-
Jeff, the choice was made on January 12, 2013.
Isn't that the date any threads speculating about underwater shapes were shut down?
-
Jeff, the choice was made on January 12, 2013.
Hey Richie, if you are out there I believe Tim just confirmed your theroy via Robert Frost.
Hi All
This Quote from Tim Mellon is exactly what the lawsuit is about
"Can't, Matt: I fully respect Ric's prohibition since 12 January 2013 against any further discussion of underwater images"
12 January 2013
I Believe this was the date that 2 different things happened.
A. Ric had had enough of Tim's claim's of seeing violins, toilet rolls, skeletons etc in 2010 Rov video, And called time due to it damaging Tighar's image and good work.
B. Tim on the other hand believed he was getting close to what he believed to be the truth, And by Ric banning images being posted confirmed this.
-
Ric, as a paid-up Research member, I would appreciate receiving the NZ photos. If you would like me in the Study Group, I will offer to help.
We'll send you an invitation to the TIGHAR Flickr account so that you can view the hi-res jpegs. Thanks but no thanks on the Study Group.
Ric,
I have no problem not being part of the Study Group, but as I have met all the eneumerated criteria, I insist that you forward to me the same highest resolution photos available only to the Study Group (TIFF or whatever).
Tim: I have consulted with my legal team and have decided that TIGHAR cannot grant you access to any further research material at this time. To be frank, there are TIGHARs who want to see your membership revoked altogether in light of what is viewed (and will ultimately be proven) to be completely frivolous litigation. Some fear that a disagreement with you will drag them into the current or even subsequent litigation. Some want you banned from the Forum. I obviously haven’t gone to that length yet in light of your past contribution to TIGHAR. Still, given you’re demonstrated willingness to resort to litigation against those who don’t share your views, I have little choice but to consider the ramifications of your involvement in further research and I cannot expose any of our membership to that risk. As for your future as a TIGHAR member and continued Forum access, at some point, the TIGHAR Board of Directors will consider the issue and their determination rests almost entirely with you and how long you want to distract TIGHAR’s efforts and research with a meritless lawsuit that you cannot win. Simply put, you need to decide what is most important to you: Continuing this silly lawsuit or putting it behind us and joining our ongoing research effort.
-
The Road Not Taken
Two roads diverged in a yellow wood,
And sorry I could not travel both
And be one traveler, long I stood
And looked down one as far as I could
To where it bent in the undergrowth;
Then took the other, as just as fair,
And having perhaps the better claim
Because it was grassy and wanted wear,
Though as for that the passing there
Had worn them really about the same,
And both that morning equally lay
In leaves no step had trodden black.
Oh, I kept the first for another day!
Yet knowing how way leads on to way
I doubted if I should ever come back.
I shall be telling this with a sigh
Somewhere ages and ages hence:
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I,
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.
Robert Frost
Jeff, the choice was made on January 12, 2013.
yes, i believe it was also frost who said: "A successful lawsuit is the one worn by a policeman"
-
Poets do not always represent the best, practical advice...
"Bur granting that some did say in all seriousness that the poets lie too much: he was right- we do lie too much.
We also know too little and are bad learners: so we have to lie.
And which of us poets has not adulterated his wine? Many a poisonous mishmash has been produced in our cellar,
many an indescribable thing has been done there.
....
Ah, how weary I am of the poets."
......
Nietzsche, Zarathustra, Second Part, Ch 17.
But I still like the poet who said something about extending olive branches, from both sides, so that middle meeting grounds can be found.
-
Tim -
Come back from the dark side - it's not too late.
You are suing your friends...
-
Tim,
I am sure a lot of us want to think of you as an elite donor rather than part of the problem.
You could send a plan to the museum and follow up by sending your own experts to obtain a copy of the images. As you have indicated via a lawsuit you don't believe TIGHAR the best outfit for doing this. "Discovery" would be making sure an outfit you are in doubt of got what was needed by doing it yourself.
You should also consider that slowing down TIGHAR is going to make it take years longer to find a part of the aircraft that can be recovered to prove to the world what really happened. I am grateful for every sunrise and know people in ill health that are also grateful for every additional sunrise they get to see. What they do with the extra sunrises is up to them, but, they sure enjoy every single one knowing our time is limited. It is the simple things like driving them home from the hospital and they have their hand in the breeze enjoying another day. In no way do I wish to rub in the reminder you got about our limited time on earth. I am just exposed to enough of it first hand recently that I think everyone should think about it instead of taking life for granted so much.
You have the ability to fund a complete expedition, fund better equipment, a better boat, and more time to try and find a part of the aircraft for recovery and proof. Perhaps you have resources (people and equipment) that can be put to tax deductible use at PanAm Systems that you are the Chairman of. If you 100% fund an entire expedition I don't see how anyone would object if you and your expert hand picked staff were in charge of and ran it. Could also be another future profitable division of the company dedicated to underwater search and recovery.
The 2012 expedition is leading the way to what new known problems have to be solved esp. with the underwater terrain.
You could also start your own website and forum. *Groan* I can hear some poor sap in your IT department getting this assignment already. ::)
You can watch from the sidelines.
It is a free country and you can do as you wish. You already have your name known as a elite donor aka "part of the solution". The lawsuit makes you "part of the problem". How do you want to finish this chapter for others to read? I just happen to be reading an unfinished and entertaining book.
-
Jeff Neville, you have a fabulouse way with words! Love your posts.
-
Ric,
I'd like to be a part of the study group. I have the necessary hardware as listed.
-Wayne C.
-
In regards to Ric's response on the upcoming court motion to dismiss and the refraining of Mr. Mellon from further Tighar research...I firmly approve of his response and comments in regards to this matter. I think Ric made it clear, that we have gone too far to have the image of this organization tarnished because of something that is beyond our control. When I say that...I mainly am addressing you Mr.Mellon. We all know that you have played an elite member and donor of Tighar for years. We all know that you have been a part of one of the many expedition teams to Niku. For many of us, would have loved to have gone on one of those expeditions...but you were chosen because of your contribution and your knowledge of this project. That my friend says alot! But, I have to step back and wonder...Is it because you didn't take anything back on this last expedition you were on? I say that with an openness of a friend. We as TIGHAR members are all friends. We are here for one common goal and that is to find the final puzzle of Amelia last days. There are times in our lives when we want to find something really bad and we will go to any length to find it. But along the way there are dangers and snares that come our way...and sometimes we are left holding the bag empty. I feel that this happened in your life. I know to some of us, when the team went to Niku last summer, many of us wondered ourselves if we would solve any answers with having to come back home early. I can imagine having to be the captain at the helm and his thoughts. He too must have had the same thoughts. But, we as TIGHAR friends and members have to get past those times, the dangers, and the snares. We have to go on with life and pursue the goal. We will find her...but we also need your help! So I ask of you to drop these allegations against TIGHAR and help us to complete the final chapter of Amelia's life! Thanks!!!!
-
We all know that you have played an elite member and donor of Tighar for years.
That is not correct. Tim Mellon had no association with TIGHAR whatsoever until last April. He made his million-dollar contribution eight days after his first contact with TIGHAR and a month before ever meeting me. If that seems strange to you, you are not alone.
TIGHAR has many generous major donors who have demonstrated great loyalty to the organization over many years. Tim Mellon is not one of them.
but you were chosen because of your contribution and your knowledge of this project.
Tim Mellon was not "chosen" to be member of the expedition team. I understood it to be a condition of his contribution. He had, and has, little knowledge of the project.
-
You have shown remarkable restraint, Ric, and I compliment you...you and and the rest of you devoted hardworkers of Tighar Patience, good manners, good humor, and Grace Under Pressure !?!
Makes one long for the days when differences of this sort were handled through Seconds, and the choice of weapons.
Har! Har!
Bill
-
You have shown remarkable restraint, Ric, and I compliment you...you and and the rest of you devoted hardworkers of Tighar Patience, good manners, good humor, and Grace Under Pressure !?!
Makes one long for the days when differences of this sort were handled through Seconds, and the choice of weapons.
Har! Har!
Bill
Yeah. Pity. I'm not bad with a broadsword.
-
Ric,
I'd like to be a part of the study group. I have the necessary hardware as listed.
-Wayne C.
I'll send you an invitation to the Dropbox and directions on how to register for the Study Group forum.
-
My apologies Ric! I've been under the impressions for quite sometime
That Mr. Mellon played a vital role in a recent expedition from
Comments that he had made. For some reason now...I feel mislead led astray from his comments. Anyway please forgive me on this matter.
-
Ric
Please consider me for the study group. I have required hardware,
software and I am at researcher level membership. Nice speaking with
you last week !
-
Ric,
I have the required hardware/software and would be interested in the study group.
Thanks,
Terry
-
I have the required hardware/software and would be interested in the study group.
Thanks Terry. I'll send you an invitation to the Dropbox and the Study Group.
-
Ric --
It looks like because of (upward) changes in my fortunes I'll be able to kick in a little more to TIGHAR, and can definitely swing Researcher. I looked at the specs carefully and did some research...what it appears to me is that I would be able to open and examine the 16 bit TIFFs on my computer but it would not be an optimal situation (that is to say, the specs are the average of one below what Jeff recommends).
Would it be possible to access and download the 16 bit TIFFs anyway (once I have fulfilled the Researcher requirement, of course), and just not count myself as part of the study group? I definitely understand what you mean about not muddying the waters. I'd consider my participation to be on the level of looking at the jpegs on Flickr, except having a better shot at actually seeing something.
I will abide by whatever works best for TIGHAR. Thanks...
-
Would it be possible to access and download the 16 bit TIFFs anyway (once I have fulfilled the Researcher requirement, of course), and just not count myself as part of the study group? I definitely understand what you mean about not muddying the waters. I'd consider my participation to be on the level of looking at the jpegs on Flickr, except having a better shot at actually seeing something.
I will abide by whatever works best for TIGHAR. Thanks...
I appreciate your desire to help but if I give you access to the 16bit TIFFs I have to do the same for all TIGHAResearchers and suddenly we'll have hundreds of cooks stirring the broth.
There are currently about 20 members in the Study Group and they're doing a great job. We have plenty of eyeballs on the imagery. The challenge is figuring out what is real and what is illusion.
-
Understood. I'll be glad to be able to help a bit more financially than I have up to this point, anyway.
-
I know Ric has said be patient but ANY NEWS?????
The study group has, cumulatively, spent many hundreds of hours scouring the 1938 photos. The level of detail to which they have scrutinized the photos is truly impressive. To date they've found and discussed 26 anomalies, odd shapes, and suspicious-looking features. Some are flaws in the developing process or coincidental alignments of the film grain. Others are patterns in the vegetation that the brain interprets as recognizable shapes. We have a couple of really dramatic examples that demonstrate how easily the brain is fooled into seeing things that aren't there. We do have a few identifiable man-made objects on the ground. (For example, Richie found one of Norwich City lifeboats.) A few anomalies need further analysis by Jeff Glickman.
Bottom line at this time: This has been a tremendously useful and educational exercise but, so far, no conclusive sign of castaway activity has turned up.
-
How different does the Seven Site look at full res? The big ren tree? Amazing that a Norwich City lifeboat was found, I'd love to see that. Might there be a day when these images are released to the public? Perhaps far down the road, after you (we?) prove Niku is where Amelia and Fred ended up?
what is real and what is illusion.
Moody Blues fan? ;)
-
How different does the Seven Site look at full res?
Not very. The big difference is that we have several different views of the area. That let's us confirm or deny a suspicious feature that might turn up in a single image.
The big ren tree?
Your question is a classic example of how mythology has grown up within The Earhart Project. There is a single "big ren" tree at the Seven Site now but Gallagher says only that the bones were found a under a ren tree - not a "big ren." The whole area was forest in 1938. There is no single big tree apparent in the 1938 photos.
Amazing that a Norwich City lifeboat was found, I'd love to see that.
See below.
-
Wow - now THAT level of detail is impressive.
Well, well worth the trip to NZ, I'd say!
LTM, who gets tired of squinting at pixels,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 CER
-
I assume the Study Group has studied this object. It appears in the shape of a fuselage with a stubbed port wing, rounded where one would expect to find the engine, empennage missing, but open aft. A dark area appears in the position of the Pilot's hatch. The rear of the apparent fuselage seems to be somewhat elevated and casting a shadow on the bottom.
-
See below.
from the Wiki page re Norwich City Survivors' Shelter to give some idea as to scale: "Both Norwich City lifeboats washed ashore on Gardner. They were likely 26' in length and weighed 1800 pounds fully equipped."
-
What is the cylindrical-looking object viewed end-on at the left edge of the frame right at the edge of the shrub/tree line?
-
Hi BMangus
That is just a flaw in image
Tim can u provide the reference number for image ?
-
Tim can u provide the reference number for image ?
Richie, it's from frame #47, the last in the entire series which we ordered from the Museum (<$800, BTW). Resolution is approx. 15000 squared.
-
Tim can u provide the reference number for image ?
Richie, Tim's "apparent fuselage" is in our _DSC347. It's also in the July 18, 2012 GeoEye satellite image. Like all of Tim's airplane parts it's made out of coral. I've walked past it many times.
-
Like all of Tim's airplane parts it's made out of coral. I've walked past it many times.
Thank Goodness for an eye-witness account in which I can believe. But Ric, are you sure it is coral, and say, not lava? Have you had a sample analyzed?
-
But Ric, are you sure it is coral, and say, not lava?
Quite sure. I suggest you read up on coral atolls.
-
Ric, or someone in the photos study group -- Can you indicate on the satellite image of the island where the image of the Norwich City lifeboat is located?
Thanks,
Jeff P.
-
DSC0272 - the last of the '38 photos on Tighar's Flikr photo stream. On the near left hand shore just to the right of the scratch in the film.
-
This image shows where the lifeboat is in relation to the shipwreck - just where it should be. BTW, what's that thing back in the bushes?
-
BTW, what's that thing back in the bushes?
Here's a closer look.
-
Looks like an airplane. Note fuselage, wing and engine (port) nacelle.
Just as camels in the sky, these fotos are very conducive to bunnies in the bushes.
-
Is that a trail in the bush as you look at it to the right?
I've been looking at that "trail", and the more I study it, it looks to me to be a flaw in the negative.
Any suggestions as to scale in that vicinity? there's a pretty big boulder just off the beach below it, any guess as to the size?
As for who found it - that's Ric's credit, I just put words to it. Unless it's the breakthrough we've all been waiting for, then I'm all over it!
-
This feature is a genuine mystery. Jeff Glickman spotted it and, at first, it was a real mind-blower. The "airplane" even appears in a second image, although it seems to be facing in the opposite direction.
The "trail" is real and seems unnaturally straight. It only appears in this one image and it is not present in later aerial photos or satellite images, so it seems to have grown back in, which suggests that it was man-made.
After careful scaling, Jeff determined that the "airplane" is about twice as big as a Lockheed Electra, so unless somebody landed a DC-3 there (don't even GO there) it's not an airplane. It's possible that the "trail" and/or the "airplane" are somehow associated with the hypothetical Camp Zero. We don't know what the hell it is but you can bet that we'll be checking it out that area when we go back.
Lessons:
• it's easy to be fooled by shapes
• accurate scaling is crucial
• there is no substitute for ground-truth (physical hands-on inspection)
-
I don't have access to any photo's, but my first impression of this one is a tarp or oil cloth pulled over some kind of square shape.
B
-
For a while this was really traumatic. We couldn't resolve an airplane in the bushes with the Bevington Object. The matching of the water levels on the reef with the post-loss radio transmissions would be pure coincidence. And how could the plane go undiscovered by Maude and Bevington, the New Zealand Survey, the Bushnell Survey, etc., etc. ? And yet, if the plane was there, it was there - whether we understood how or not. It was actually a relief to establish that it can't be the plane, but it was an interesting exercise that tested our willingness to accept that we could be wrong.
-
... it was an interesting exercise that tested our willingness to accept that we could be wrong.
And this is what differentiates TIGHAR from other efforts.
LTM, who is always willing to admit,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 CER
-
Has the Nimanoa cairn been sighted?
-
The "trail" is real and seems unnaturally straight. It only appears in this one image and it is not present in later aerial photos or satellite images, so it seems to have grown back in, which suggests that it was man-made.
Could it possibly be a low/shallow escarpment visable only from certain angles? To my mind, the NZ survey map would seem to suggest this. Though I still think it's a scratch on the negative.
(http://tighar.org/aw/mediawiki/images/thumb/e/e2/Contour_Map_NZ_Aviation_Survey_%28Wigram_AFB_Archives%29.jpg/800px-Contour_Map_NZ_Aviation_Survey_%28Wigram_AFB_Archives%29.jpg)
-
Ric,
Is there a way to "crop" an area on the orginal photos where something interesting might be then post it in the TIF format? I am just wondering if this method would reduce the file size so it will go through the web.
Ted Campbell
-
Re the possibility of trails: when a trail is cut in this environment, how long does it generally take before the vegetation regrows?
-
Could it possibly be a low/shallow escarpment visable only from certain angles? To my mind, the NZ survey map would seem to suggest this.
Those are one foot contour lines. I think the little pinnacle on the survey map is too low and too far inland to be the airplane-shaped feature.
-
Could it possibly be a low/shallow escarpment visable only from certain angles? To my mind, the NZ survey map would seem to suggest this.
Those are one foot contour lines. I think the little pinnacle on the survey map is too low and too far inland to be the airplane-shaped feature.
I was referring to the contour lines as an explanation for the "trail".
-
I know. I'm suggesting that there's not enough change in elevation to show up as something as big as the airplane-shaped feature.
-
If I'm following Tim Collins' idea right, the contour line might correspond to a somewhat exposed strata of coral.
Yes that is what I've suggested. We're seeing an exposed side face of a "cliff" (albeit maybe a foot or so tall) as it were. Whether or not there is a flat area above it, and hence the possibility of a path, I couldn't say. Frankly I'm still not certain it isn't a scratch on the negative.
This "path" or what ever it is seems to follow the same contour lines indicated in that area on the NZ survey map.
Any feature resembling an airplane is another topic entirely - I would suggest it is simply coincidentally-shaped vegetation.
-
In any case, it will be interesting to see if TIGHAR can turn anything up at this location when back out there. It kind of sticks out, like the '7 Site' did, I think - draws the eye to something 'different', for sure.
Speaking of the 7 Site (see attached), it doesn't seem likely that this pattern was cut out of the vegetation with a pen-knife in the previous year. Does anyone in the Study Group detect any signs of human habitation or use of this area from these photos?
-
Speaking of the 7 Site (see attached), it doesn't seem likely that this pattern was cut out of the vegetation with a pen-knife in the previous year.
The 7-shaped area of bare coral rubble is a natural feature that is visible in the 1937 Lambrecht Photo. There are many other bare coral areas around the island. This one just happens to be in the shape of a 7.
Does anyone in the Study Group detect any signs of human habitation or use of this area from these photos?
Nothing definite yet but there a few things that we'll ask Jeff Glickman to look at.
-
So I was looking that "airplane" and "path" over. I know I am not an expert and I am not sure the scale works but I have an idea. Could it be a shelter of some sort? I first thought it could be part of the plane. Almost a place to put someone that was hurt and couldn't move well. Get him out of the sun, and the path could be from carting supplies from the NC survivor's camp.
-
Could it be a shelter of some sort?
That's seems like as good a hypothesis as any. One thing we know about the airplane-shaped thing is that it's reflective value is different from the vegetation, so it would appear to be something other than just an oddly shaped clump of bushes. If it's a shelter, what is it made of? As far as we know, there were no big tarps aboard the airplane. There were "engine covers" in the Luke Field inventory but it dosn't seem like they would be that big.
-
Ric -
I've been looking at the fotos you posted of the "airplane-shaped thing" and I think your arrow in the second image isn't pointing to the same feature that is seen in the first image. It's a bit too high in the frame. Line up the bushes (?) on the beach. It should be directly inland from the biggest bush in the darker area next to the beach (how's that for directions!) which would be a bit lower in the frame. But even then that's not where I see the original airplane-shaped thing, I see it a bit lower even, facing the original direction.
Ok enough already, i give up. I'm starting to see bunnies everywhere.
-
Could it be the lifeboats' sails and a scavenged tarp as described by Capt. Hamer in his statement:
"The boats’ sails were used to make a tent to keep out the rain but when they became saturated rain began to come through making life fairly miserable."
and here:
"A more suitable site was selected and parties told off for various jobs. One party under the Second Officer was told off to obtain water, another for cocoanuts and the remainder to build a shelter. The lifeboat axes came in very useful for this. Small trees were cut down, trimmed and lashed between four large trees in the form of a square. A trellis of smaller trees and branches was formed on top and over this the two sails were spread. Around three sides a barricade was made to keep out the crabs, leaving the lee side open for the fire, which was soon got under way. The ground was cleared of twigs etc., and then covered with leaves over which was placed a couple of blankets and old canvas which had been washed ashore."
Here's a link:
http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Norwich_City/NorwichCity3.html#4
-
I agree it's most likely not the Norwich survivors camp. I'm suggesting it could be AE's Camp Zero, re-using the Norwich's lifeboat sails and the canvas as her own shelter.
-
That's a good question. Maybe the NZ party interpreted it as the Norwich camp given the materials used. As I understand it, they were on the island for 10 weeks busy surveying the northwest end of the island for a potential airstrip. That seems like a lot of time to find and catalogue other items on the island as well. I need to reread their report.
-
I agree salvaged supplies from the Norwich City mixed with AE supplies may have caused it to be confused by survey crews as related to the Norwich City.
Survey crews did not know to look for AE.
Note the described sails and old canvas appear to be missing in the picture of the Norwich City shelter.
The Norwich City crew knew rescue was on the way and made their camp deep in the trees out of the rain
AE may have had a different situation and it may have made sense for AE to move some N.C shelter materials closer to the open so as to be ready to signal for help.
That possible trail is in the direction where one may go from the hypothesized camp zero (close to the plane when it was still on the reef) to salvage NC wreck debris as well as to salvage any supplies that may have washed up from the plane after it went over.
-
That's right, they did photograph it but I've always assumed it was the second NC camp. Good question.
-
the following image is off NC survivors camp, By the reflection of certain objects means the site was uncovered, Now bare in mind a few men struggled to erect a rain cover due to battering from wind, Would Ameila and fred be able to erect a canvas sail on there own ?
Am a window installer i build \ replace conservatory's regularly so if it starts raining and the customer has carpet or wooden flooring we have to cover roof with tarpaulin which is a lot lighter than a canvas sail, Yet for the customer it must be like watching a clip from laurel and hardy :)
So i would rule out it being camp zero, My honest opinion is it's a flaw but foreign matter is underneath the negative and not above it
-
I guess that would all depend on AE and FN's condition and whether it was raining and/or windy when the operation was performed.
-
Well no because both Amelia and Fred fresh as daisy's would not in my opinion be able to build such a sturdy shelter, Maybe rather than it being a shelter they piled tree's on tree's or bushes to build a defense wall against wind and by coincidence the wall finished level with surrounding bush to give off the shelter like properties ?
More to the point on looking for a place to land Amelia and Fred would have been aware of, Being noticed from a certain altitude of searching planes If you view the over flight by Ric, It took Ric to point out people on shore for us to see them?
A human at the height over flight search was conducted you may be mistaken to be a floating stick in all honesty, However if Amelia or Fred attached some branches\brushes to their back and ran out It would be 100% chance of being spotted out of curiosity alone
-
Glickman looked vey carefully at both the airplane shaped thingy and the trail. They are not flaws.
Would a sail survive eight years? Gallagher found no clothes with the bones after only three years.
-
Ya gotta admit it's pretty crazy. I was just noticing the similarity in the shape of the Harney Electra model in this photo of me and my Dad at a talk I gave at Old Rhinebeck Aerodrome last summer and the "not-an-airplane" in the bushes in the 1938 photo. It's a great lesson in how easy it is to see something that's not there.
-
Ric, great comparison images. It's really amazing how one can make out an engine, wing, fuselage, cockpit windows, and tapering nose cone in the 1938 photo, but simply be fooled by illusion.
Ric -
I've been looking at the fotos you posted of the "airplane-shaped thing" and I think your arrow in the second image isn't pointing to the same feature that is seen in the first image. It's a bit too high in the frame. Line up the bushes (?) on the beach. It should be directly inland from the biggest bush in the darker area next to the beach (how's that for directions!) which would be a bit lower in the frame. But even then that's not where I see the original airplane-shaped thing, I see it a bit lower even, facing the original direction.
Ok enough already, i give up. I'm starting to see bunnies everywhere.
I noticed the same thing as Mr. Collins. Thought I'd call out where I think the "not an airplane" blurred object may actually lie in the overhead image.
It's hard to tell how inland the "not an airplane" object is from the shallow image angle. So I added a couple arrows pointing out where its location might be more likely. I am no expert at deriving the location based on the other image, and I did only use the posted low-res jpegs, but here goes:
1) Red arrow indicates original callout by Ric/Jeff Glickman.
2) Green arrow indicates possible actual location of the "looks like, but not an airplane" object, facing same direction, it seems, as in the other image.
3) Blue arrow indicates possible other location for the object, closer to shore. This is just me trying to "triangulate," in a sense, based on the other image.
Or it could lie somewhere in between the green and blue arrows.
In the last image attachment, the first thing I noticed, besides the possible trail, is the two large mounds with dark tops, as indicated by the white small arrows.
I never saw a "plane" until someone called it out. Mounds seemed very similar in size, shape, and shading, so thought it was interesting.
-
Would a sail survive eight years? Gallagher found no clothes with the bones after only three years.
Eight years? Untreated canvas in the harsh environment of Niku?
My guess - and it is only that - is that the untreated canvas of a sail would probably not survive. By untreated, I mean it did not have waterproofing of any kind, which it could not have because otherwise it wouldn't be able to be used as a sail, let alone be stowed in the cramped confines of a lifeboat.
As an argument to support that, I offer up the evidence at the titular "shoe site." When TIGHAR went back the second time to that site, to excavate its possible grave, they found the remains of a leather work glove Ric had left there the year before - and there wasn't much left of it at all. After only one year.
Now lifeboat covers, on the other hand, might survive, because they were both treated and, usually, painted. Or paint alone may have been the treatment in that era. Either way, something was applied to one side of the canvas to make it more durable.
I would guess that the engine covers for the Electra weren't treated, or if they were, it was with something like linseed oil on one side only. Otherwise they would have been too stiff to use. "Scotchguard" spray-on waterproofing hadn't been invented yet.
LTM, who tries to keep things covered,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 CER
P.S. - the plane shape in the bushes looks like a P-47 to me, the early razorback version. But that is my WWII mental map at work.
-
Sorry Monty. P47 first flew in 1941. Photo taken in 1938. Not a P47. Not a DC3. Not a DC2. No aircraft known to have crashed there. Likely not an aircraft but likely it's "Vegetitis". Very similar to "Coralitis". A medical condition where lumps of coral are identified as real objects for no good reason.
-
I know, Irv. ;D
What I was trying to point out in my usual convoluted way was that MY mental map of images, in my increasingly-tattered brain, saw what it had been the most exposed to. In this case a WWII aircraft. I didn't "see" an Electra because I'm a WWII buff and have a pretty extensive mental image library of WWII aircraft.
Our brain sees what it expects to see. Most of the time. Some of us, like Richie Conroy, are gifted with the ability to see outside the narrow confines of our memory. I am not.
LTM, who tries to keep things real,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 CER
-
As an argument to support that, I offer up the evidence at the titular "shoe site." When TIGHAR went back the second time to that site, to excavate its possible grave, they found the remains of a leather work glove Ric had left there the year before - and there wasn't much left of it at all. After only one year.
Correction: I left the glove there in 1991. We found it when we came back to that site in 1997 - six years later. The upper surface of the glove was relatively intact. The under-surface (in contact with the ground) was almost completely eaten away.
-
Glickman looked vey carefully at both the airplane shaped thingy and the trail. They are not flaws.
Would a sail survive eight years? Gallagher found no clothes with the bones after only three years.
Ric -
This has festered with me quite a bit over night - So if Glickman has examined these features and made determinations and suggestions about them, then why did you bait the thread with your "golly gee, what could this be?" in your post of October 3rd? Many of us have since been seriously wracking our brains out over these features thinking that there was the possibility to make a genuine contribution to the effort. But for what? Only to have been spinning our wheels the whole time? You're the first person to lose patience over wild ruminations and fanciful scenarios so what was the point here? We all get it that you want to write things up for presentation, but baiting and being all secretive and terse and not sharing information about things that become hot topics on the forum is not helpful to the cause and certainly a good way to go in my opinion. You have a very knowledgeable and resourceful (AND very generous I might add) constituency here and it's probably not a great idea to mess with it.
-
...
1) Red arrow indicates original callout by Ric/Jeff Glickman.
2) Green arrow indicates possible actual location of the "looks like, but not an airplane" object, facing same direction, it seems, as in the other image.
3) Blue arrow indicates possible other location for the object, closer to shore. This is just me trying to "triangulate," in a sense, based on the other image.
Or it could lie somewhere in between the green and blue arrows.
...
Regarding the "airplane feature" as viewed from that angle: in my opinion, the tip of the "wing" almost touches the base of your blue arrow. Once you discern that, then look to the left and you can see the engine nacelle. The fuselage is a bit obscured.
-
This has festered with me quite a bit over night - So if Glickman has examined these features and made determinations and suggestions about them, then why did you bait the thread with your "golly gee, what could this be?"
As I have said, the purposes of this forum are as a research tool and an educational tool. The two purposes are related. We're all learning. Struggling with the apparent "airplane-in-the-bushes" was tremendously educational for me. We agonized over that damn thing for weeks until Jeff was finally able to get a solid scale for it. I wanted to share just a little bit of that experience with the Forum because I think it's valuable. I put up the image at 07:35 on October 3 and less than two hours later I explained that it isn't really an airplane. If that's "messing" with the Forum, I apologize.
-
Regarding power of suggestion I didn't see an airplane shape until the picture of the Harney model was put up in the same orientation. It probably seemed like the trail was a skid mark for a while. What is the latest on the light colored object closer to the shore that was a possible lifeboat at one time?
-
I will admit that Ric also did this exercise with the photo research group. I believe I was the biggest fish he caught. When you look at the hi res photo and digitally zoom in the shape of an aircraft leapt out at me. A few of us asked questions like why the skin was the same colour as the vegetation and Ric played along by providing a photo showing the Electra's polished skin was a very dull and discoloured greenish by the time it left on its last leg. Ric let the exercise go on much longer than the public forum. I think it was a day or two. Then he let us in on Jeff Glickman's findings.
I felt a bit sheepish and I'm not 100% convinced it's not an aircraft. Ric has said that area has not been well searched. But it showed me that it's as easy to mistake vegetation as easily as coral for aircraft parts. Power of suggestion. I'm certainly not upset by Ric doing this. In fact I found it extremely educational. My two cents.
-
So, is this 'airplane-but-not-actually-an airplane-in-the-bush' feature along with the 'trail'; possibly a camp from the Norwich City survivors; possibly reused as 'camp zero' for AE and FN, - Is this also possibly what created the 'signs of recent habitation' observation as indicated in Lambrecht's Report?
Apologies for the awkward punctuation.
-
Hi Tim
I understand what you are saying, So imagine what Ric and the Tighar board felt like having all there years of hard work about to blow up in there face, The image seriously had Ric and co questioning there own hypothesis, So why not see forum members responses to the image when they seen it, The forum members only had to wait a couple hours to speculate what the object was, Jeff Glickman showed Ric the anomaly on return flight from New Zealand and had to wait weeks for Jeff to get back to him with results.
The image only came to light with the study group last week with the "what do you see in this image" question and was days before we were told what the image was meant to show, Now as shocking as it sounds i did not even notice the plane like object instead i found what looks like an A carved into floor and asked Ric if this is what he meant, So imagine what i was thinking when Ric pointed out what he and Jeff thought might be the Electra right there mangled up at the end of what looked like skid marks....
My Thought being "And yous have the cheek to say we see camels in the sky at least we only claim to see airplane parts and NOT a whole crash site and that, if the pilots who took the photo's had missed it, Then they shouldn't be piloting a plane...
For me what happened with this image was a good thing, As we got to share in the up and down moment of it, And proved even Jeff and Ric can get things wrong sometimes
Anyway sorry for waffling on about it, I just found this whole episode an eye opener and hope u Tim C will understand why Ric done it
Thanks Richie
-
Gallagher found no clothes with the bones after only three years.
Do we know the bones were there for only three years?
-
We don't have 100% proof
But logic suggests if the skeleton remains and sextant box found close by belonged to a crew member of Norwich city, Then i doubt there would be a sextant box there to find.
Due to sextant box being in the condition it was found with numbers still visible on outside suggests it hadn't been there 11 years i.e from a Norwich city survivour
That leaves you with who ever it belonged to having seen the skeletal remains said nothing and went were ever without telling anyone of there discovery..
I have been thinking about these bones for awhile now and why Gallagher thought it might of been remains of Amelia Earhart... I was watching a video last night and noticed that Amelia has got a gap in between her 2 front teeth and Gallagher mentions teeth nearly all intact and mentions dental records being able to identify remains ?
These are just my opinions, Good question though Paul
Thanks Richie
-
Our brain sees what it expects to see. Most of the time. Some of us, like Richie Conroy, are gifted with the ability to see outside the narrow confines of our memory. I am not.
LTM, who tries to keep things real,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 CER
[/quote]
Thank you Monty your comments mean allot :)
-
... Gallagher mentions teeth nearly all intact ...
No. "Bones Found on Nikumaroro" (http://tighar.org/wiki/Bones):
"The bones included:- (1) a skull with the right zygoma and malar bones broken off: (2) mandible with only four teeth in position; (3) part of the right scapula; (4) the first thoracic vertebra; 5) portion of a rib (? 2nd right rib); (6) left humerus; 7) right radius; (8) right innominate bone; (9) right femur; (10) left femur; (11) right tibia; (12) right fibula; and (13) the right scaphoid bone of the foot"
-
Hi Marty
My apologies i was going off the following information http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Bones_Chronology.html
4a. Sept. 23, 1940
Telegram No. 71 from Gallagher to Jack Barley, Resident Commissioner, Ocean Island Transcript:
Some months ago working party on Gardner discovered human skull - this was buried and I only recently heard about it. Thorough search has now produced more bones (including lower jaw) part of a shoe a bottle and a sextant box. It would appear that (a) Skeleton is possibly that of a woman,
(b) Shoe was a womans and probably size 10,
(c) Sextant box has two numbers on it 3500 ( stencilled ) and 1542– sextant being old fashioned and probably painted over with black enamel. Bones look more than four years old to me but there seems to be very slight chance that this may be remains of Amelia Earhardt. If United States authorities find that above evidence fits into general description, perhaps they could supply some dental information as many teeth are intact. Am holding latest finds for present but have not exhumed skull. There is no local indication that this discovery is related to wreck of the "Norwich City". Gallagher.
"Perhaps they could supply some dental records as many teeth are intact" I was under the impression that some teeth became dislodged in transition between Gardner and Suva.
Thanks Marty for clearing this up :)
-
Marty there seems to be something not right here, Gallagher says many teeth are intact, But then says Am holding latest finds for present but have not exhumed skull ?
Does he mean he has unearthed skull but not removed it from burial site ?
Could there have been more teeth present when skull was unearthed to when skull was actually exhumed ?
-
"Perhaps they could supply some dental records as many teeth are intact" I was under the impression that some teeth became dislodged in transition between Gardner and Suva.
From "Bones Found on Nikumaroro" (http://tighar.org/wiki/Bones_found_on_Nikumaroro):
Telegram No. 1 – circled 4 From Gallagher (http://tighar.org/wiki/Gallagher) to Vaskess (http://tighar.org/wiki/Vaskess). Confidential. October 17, 1940.
Complete skeleton not found only skull, lower jaw, one thoracic vertebra, half pelvis, part scapula, humerus, radius, two femurs, tibia and fibula. Skull discovered by working party six months ago — report reached me early September. Working party buried skull but made no further search. Bones were found on South East corner of island about 100 feet above ordinary high water springs. Body had obviously been lying under a "ren" tree and remains of fire, turtle and dead birds appear to indicate life. All small bones have been removed by giant coconut crabs which have also damaged larger ones. Difficult to estimate age bones owing to activities of crabs but am quite certain they are not less than four years old and probably much older.
Only experienced man could state sex from available bones; my conclusion based on sole of shoe which is almost certainly a woman's.
Dental condition appears to have been good but only five teeth now remain. Evidence dental work on jaw not apparent.
Compare that report to the quotation given above from the same article and you will be able to determine how many teeth were lost in transit.
-
...
1) Red arrow indicates original callout by Ric/Jeff Glickman.
2) Green arrow indicates possible actual location of the "looks like, but not an airplane" object, facing same direction, it seems, as in the other image.
3) Blue arrow indicates possible other location for the object, closer to shore. This is just me trying to "triangulate," in a sense, based on the other image.
Or it could lie somewhere in between the green and blue arrows.
...
Regarding the "airplane feature" as viewed from that angle: in my opinion, the tip of the "wing" almost touches the base of your blue arrow. Once you discern that, then look to the left and you can see the engine nacelle. The fuselage is a bit obscured.
Is this what you mean, Tim? I think what you're saying is outlined in blue in this diagram. What I originally saw, as identified by the green arrow in my original post, is what is outlined in green. I only drew an airplane shape because that's what I "saw" originally when this "not an airplane" object was first discovered. I am in no way subscribing to certainty, just outlining the shape I saw, which, maybe I wanted to look familiar. Any takes?
Sorry to keep breaking up the conversations here. I do not mean to intrude, and I am not in the group of thinking it's something that it's not. Just wanted to clear up the possible anomaly I noticed.
-
I don't believe it's actually a plane. A reef water landing still makes the most sense with all of the circumstantial. But hopefully it is something that relates to the mystery.
-
Ric -
This has festered with me quite a bit over night - So if Glickman has examined these features and made determinations and suggestions about them, then why did you bait the thread with your "golly gee, what could this be?" in your post of October 3rd? Many of us have since been seriously wracking our brains out over these features thinking that there was the possibility to make a genuine contribution to the effort. But for what? Only to have been spinning our wheels the whole time? You're the first person to lose patience over wild ruminations and fanciful scenarios so what was the point here? We all get it that you want to write things up for presentation, but baiting and being all secretive and terse and not sharing information about things that become hot topics on the forum is not helpful to the cause and certainly a good way to go in my opinion. You have a very knowledgeable and resourceful (AND very generous I might add) constituency here and it's probably not a great idea to mess with it.
And only two or three took the bait ;)
Joking aside, I point out what maybe a trail leading up from the 'beach' to the area circled. The start of the 'trail' comes in from the left of the 'beach', where the arrow points. It interests me because all the activity on Gardner takes place to the right towards the SS Norwich City. The NZ camp and the Maude/Bevington landing as well, to the right of the Norwich City, correct me if I am wrong. Any how, take a look at the images and see what you think...
-
Of course it could just be another optical illusion, I always wondered where Kiwi fruit came from...
-
"But I do have problems with the endless underwater coral plane parts theory. Oops, definitely doesn't qualify as a theory. More like a presupposition."
But much more difficult to prove, or disprove due to the location though. It was a very deceiving image for sure but we know what has been found on Gardner island/Nikumaroro, bones, shoe parts, wooden boxes, bits of Alclad, bits of glass etc... so far, but not a complete airplane which will have been logically a lot easier to notice than shards of glass for example. As Ric pointed out, in one image it vaguely resembles the outline of an airplane but, in the next image, nothing even close.
Not sure how many images of the same area there were of the forty odd taken but compared to the number of individual frames from underwater video footage I guess it's a tiny percentage.
As mentioned before on numerous occasions until something is actually brought to the surface it is all speculation. Time will tell.
I still like the orientation, location, shadow and size of Richies sonar anomaly, it has a lot going for it.
IMHO of course
-
"But I do have problems with the endless underwater coral plane parts theory. Oops, definitely doesn't qualify as a theory. More like a presupposition."
But much more difficult to prove, or disprove due to the location though. It was a very deceiving image for sure but we know what has been found on Gardner island/Nikumaroro, bones, shoe parts, wooden boxes, bits of Alclad, bits of glass etc... so far, but not a complete airplane which will have been logically a lot easier to notice than shards of glass for example. As Ric pointed out, in one image it vaguely resembles the outline of an airplane but, in the next image, nothing even close.
Not sure how many images of the same area there were of the forty odd taken but compared to the number of individual frames from underwater video footage I guess it's a tiny percentage.
As mentioned before on numerous occasions until something is actually brought to the surface it is all speculation. Time will tell.
I still like the orientation, location, shadow and size of Richies sonar anomaly, it has a lot going for it.
IMHO of course
Understood, and I completely agree Jeff. In the meantime, before the physical search, looking at 1938 photos of Niku can't hurt if looked at objectively and with a scientific mindset. Then of course, peer reviewed by the skeptical forum members to the best of their ability. I mean skeptical in a good way.
BTW I was referring to Mr. Mellon's coral airplane parts as questionable. I have no knowledge whether you support or oppose his viewpoints.
And to the possible trail you identified in the 1938 photo, it looks interesting leading to the "could be nothing" area with the "not an airplane" blur.
-
Joking aside, I point out what maybe a trail leading up from the 'beach' to the area circled. The start of the 'trail' comes in from the left of the 'beach', where the arrow points.
The "trail" from the beach may be an illusion caused by the bushes but there does seem to be something funky going on in that open area.
It interests me because all the activity on Gardner takes place to the right towards the SS Norwich City. The NZ camp and the Maude/Bevington landing as well, to the right of the Norwich City, correct me if I am wrong.
You're right. Everything happens south of NC except for the transects cut by the New Zealand survey.
According to Lee's report (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/New_Zealand_Survey_Report/gardnerreport.html), "The survey work consisted of traversing an area of about 200 acres at the northwestern corner of the island and stadia profiles were taken at five chain intervals from which a contour plan has been prepared." A"chain" is 66 feet so five chains would be 330 feet. In dense vegetation, anything between the stadia profile lines would probably not be seen. The location of the stadia profile lines in this illustration are speculative.
-
What does locating one or all of the lifeboats do for the search? Guess it shows the validity of scanning the photo's as well as being a part of the history of the island.
I think that the lifeboat helps to show what a known object looks like and provides scale. Also, it may be a resource that held water. Anything that a castaway may find use for is a good place to look more closely. The lifeboat, coconut groves, depressions that hold rain water, highpoints for look outs, etc.
-
Also, it may be a resource that held water.
Interesting point I hadn't thought of. But what would the water be like?
-
The holes might be used to divert water to collectors. So after a hard rain, a lifeboat could be a place to go to and see what water was collected or still in it. If it held water for a while I think it would be dilluted somewhat but I bet it would not taste good either way. The NC crew collected water out of a Guano dump!
A reason for the path?
-
Hi Marty
My apologies i was going off the following information http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Bones_Chronology.html
4a. Sept. 23, 1940
Telegram No. 71 from Gallagher to Jack Barley, Resident Commissioner, Ocean Island Transcript:
Some months ago working party on Gardner discovered human skull - this was buried and I only recently heard about it. Thorough search has now produced more bones (including lower jaw) part of a shoe a bottle and a sextant box. It would appear that (a) Skeleton is possibly that of a woman,
(b) Shoe was a womans and probably size 10,
(c) Sextant box has two numbers on it 3500 ( stencilled ) and 1542– sextant being old fashioned and probably painted over with black enamel. Bones look more than four years old to me but there seems to be very slight chance that this may be remains of Amelia Earhardt. If United States authorities find that above evidence fits into general description, perhaps they could supply some dental information as many teeth are intact. Am holding latest finds for present but have not exhumed skull. There is no local indication that this discovery is related to wreck of the "Norwich City". Gallagher.
"Perhaps they could supply some dental records as many teeth are intact" I was under the impression that some teeth became dislodged in transition between Gardner and Suva.
Thanks Marty for clearing this up :)
Martin, Richie, Ric......
If Gallagher indicates an mentions that he "have not exhumed skull", and that its also mentioned in the telegram from Gallagher to Vaskess on October 17, 1940 that the "Working party buried the skull" ...it makes you wonder if the bones and the skull we are looking for are still on the island. Afterall, finding bones gets very sacred and haunting at times. Anyone of us, who finds a skull and a set of bones on an island, would most likely place a marker over it and rebury the bones. It's the most sacred thing to do. In the past its been brought up that Gallagher took the bones back with him. I find that very hard to believe. If he did and he does mention the bones to be that of Amelia...why didn't he return them to U.S. for analysis? Anyway, I still believe, that the bones and skull are reburied under the marker on the island. I don't know why I feel this way, but I do! Please care to comment!!!
-
If Gallagher indicates an mentions that he "have not exhumed skull", and that its also mentioned in the telegram from Gallagher to Vaskess on October 17, 1940 that the "Working party buried the skull" ...it makes you wonder if the bones and the skull we are looking for are still on the island.
You are welcome to your private opinions, but you are not welcome to private "facts."
The skull was exhumed; other bones were found; all were shipped to Fiji (http://tighar.org/wiki/Bones).
Hypothesizing begins after you familiarize yourself with the facts of the case.
-
Couple of random thought's here.
The photo of the "not a plane" in the bushes: That sure does look more like a plane crash than anything else. I know it isn't, I get that but if you look at it you can see it. The shape's seem to fit that of a plane and the long "trail" that would of been from the plane crashing and gouging out a "trail". But lets assume that it was something, doesn't even have to be AE just any thing that crashed there. Wouldn't someone from Gallagher's team of explorer's have noticed something? I mean the Camp for the NC must have been of some interest to someone, if only the kids? I don't know what that really is but I'll bet my shirt if TIGHAR goes back they will be looking.
Also, was there any indication that some sort of investigation was carried out as to who the bones were? I am thinking if it were me I would just assume it was someone from the NC that got left behind. But then there are reports that some of the villagers seeing "aircraft" wreckage on the reef. I just can't wrap my head around the fact that these people were hear, knew AE's story. Had reports of wreckage, bones, sextant and no one thought to go investigate anything? Something here just doesn't add up
-
Wouldn't someone from Gallagher's team of explorer's have noticed something?
Gallagher had no team of explorers. The colonists on Gardner were the poorest of the poor from the Southern Gilberts. They were the dregs of society who had nothing to lose by accepting jobs as government laborers and emigrating to an unknown wilderness. Few could speak any English and Gallagher's Gilbertese was marginal at best. There were a few somewhat educated colonists, such as Temou Samuela, the island carpenter, from the Ellice Islands (Emily's father) and Buakee Koata, the Native Magistrate - but he left about the time Gallagher arrived. In short, if the laborers saw something like airplane wreckage, whether out on the reef or on the shore, there is no reason to think they had any cultural reference for linking it to the bones found elsewhere on the island. From what we can glean from official records about Gallagher's relationship with the laborers, there was very little dialogue. He cared deeply about their well-being but to them he was the Komitina ("commissna" - commissioner), an intimidating and distant authority figure.
After Gallagher's death there was a great deal of sentimentality about his genuine dedication to the success of the colony but the picture that later evolved of Gallagher as "Karaka" a sort of Dr. Livingston figure, appears to be largely myth.
I mean the Camp for the NC must have been of some interest to someone, if only the kids?
Seems reasonable.
I don't know what that really is but I'll bet my shirt if TIGHAR goes back they will be looking.
You bet we will.
Also, was there any indication that some sort of investigation was carried out as to who the bones were? I am thinking if it were me I would just assume it was someone from the NC that got left behind. But then there are reports that some of the villagers seeing "aircraft" wreckage on the reef. I just can't wrap my head around the fact that these people were hear, knew AE's story. Had reports of wreckage, bones, sextant and no one thought to go investigate anything? Something here just doesn't add up
I think you're ascribing to much awareness to the settlers. Any awareness the villagers had of Amelia Earhart had to come via Gallagher. We have no information about how much he told them about Earhart, or even how much he knew about Earhart himself beyond the fact that she had disappeared in the region while trying to fly around the world. Did he tell the locals anything more than that she was a famous woman who had gone missing a few years ago?
-
The NZ survey team would have physically covered a high percentage of the island. Is there a report that accompanies their maps? Surely if aircraft wreckage, or anything of interest, they would have reported it.
-
Thanks for the Reply, just seems like there are so many bits and pieces to a puzzle that I find it hard to think that it wasn't looked into more than it was. I was not aware that the colonist were that destitute and the language barrier was that big of an issue. Still the man (Gallagher) was there long enough for some head scratching one would think. I'll go back to my arm chair again.
:)
-
The NZ survey team would have physically covered a high percentage of the island.
Ahhh, the old "would have" monster rears its ugly head. Actually, the NZ survey team physically covered very little of the entire island. They concentrated their efforts on the part of the island where it looked like might be possible to build an airfield.
Is there a report that accompanies their maps?
In the Archives (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Archivessubject.html) section of the TIGHAR website under "Nikumaroro/Gardner Island and Regional Background" you'll find four reports.
Surely if aircraft wreckage, or anything of interest, they would have reported it.
"Would have" again. Probably? Yes. Surely? No.
-
Ahhh, the old "would have" monster rears its ugly head. Actually, the NZ survey team physically covered very little of the entire island. They concentrated their efforts on the part of the island where it looked like might be possible to build an airfield.
So you're suggesting that much of their topographical map was simply made up?
-
Tim,
Poor quality maps, both topographical and nautical, plagued the Allies throughout the campaigns in the Pacific. There is at least one account of the crew of a U.S. sub (U.S.S. Wahoo I think) used an elementary school geography textbook to locate and naviagte the appraoches to Wewak, New Guinea. The Marines on Guadalcanal were issued topo maps that were totally inaccurate. MArines resorted to drawing their own maps. It would be safe to assume that the topo maps of Niku, which were from the same, or earlier time period, would have been equally inaccurate.
-
I stand corrected, sort of - the report states "The survey work consisted of traversing traversing an area of about 200 acres at the northwestern corner of the island and stadia profiles were taken at five chain intervals from which a contour plan has been prepared."
So running a surveying chain at 5 chain intervals (5 x 66ft = 330ft) it would be quite possible to miss something as large as an airplane, especially in dense jungle-like terrain.
-
Here is a link to one site that addresses Wahoo using a school atlas for navigation:
http://www.mackinnon.org/wahoo-warrep-3.html
-
So you're suggesting that much of their topographical map was simply made up?
Not at all. Their detailed map of the "Aerodrome Reserve" - later called Nutiran (nuZEEran - New Zealand) in their honor - was created with a ground survey. The map of the entire island is largely the result of the aerial photos we've been studying.
For contrast, look at what the USS Bushnell survey did a few months later. They erected three towers from which sightings could be taken of specific points around the shore of the lagoon and they took direct overhead aerial photos that were then used to create mosaic. The resulting U.S. Hydrographic Office map is far better than the New Zealand map but, even so, the Bushnell surveyors didn't tramp over much of the island. There was no need.
-
Please don't hang me for this but! I was looking at the image again that Ric Posted. Now I know it isn't a airplane, it might not even be related to AE. However I looked on Bing and Google to see if there was something there. Well Google had nothing, it was all overgrown. But when I took a look at Bing I found what I pointed out as an Object in the shrubs and a "path" or the illusion of an object and path. The problem is it looks to be much farther inland than on the old photo. However you look at it something is there Man made or not, something unusual is there.
I return you now to more relevant conversations.
-
One possible reason trails may be developed is a routine to watch for ships to signal. The northern most tip of the island allows a good wide view North, West and East. The tip south of the hypothesized camp zero allows a good view of the west and a good part of the southern horizon. The Norwich City could provide a high point to see over the horizon more. From some of the pictures the “beach” looks too rocky and steep to walk on easily so the route may be inland at times and connect natural areas of no growth.
-
Please don't hang me for this but! I was looking at the image again that Ric Posted. Now I know it isn't a airplane, it might not even be related to AE. However I looked on Bing and Google to see if there was something there. Well Google had nothing, it was all overgrown. But when I took a look at Bing I found what I pointed out as an Object in the shrubs and a "path" or the illusion of an object and path. The problem is it looks to be much farther inland than on the old photo. However you look at it something is there Man made or not, something unusual is there.
In this 2011 satellite image it looks less rectilinear. Trails, if there were any, would not survive for more than a few years.
-
Erosion? It looks like a fair amount of water has flowed into the 'feature' from about 11 O'Clock. The reddish/white/gray area at the bottom looks like an alluvial fan.
-
Has this area been that 'open' for long, or more brushy in years past?
The density of vegetation on Niku depends entirely on rainfall and rainfall is erratic. The island goes through periods of drought and other periods of relatively abundant rainfall. 1938 was a severe drought year. 1960-63 was so bad that they abandoned the colony. Aerial photos taken in 1985 show a very lush island. And so forth.
-
There are objects there - question is 'what are they' I guess.
That's all Buka forest in that area and my guess is that we're seeing some big fallen Buka trees.
-
They suggest a similar lay-out to the 'foundation / wall' up north, but not quite the same appearance. The 'wall' looks too irregular to be 'tree trunk' to me.
And the "wall" up north is not in an area of big trees. The Buka forest is inland from there.
-
Believe we've already covered this in June...I pointed out the bing image and Ric provided GeoEye image from 2011 with the comment that there is nothing there...
http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1225.msg25595.html#msg25595 (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1225.msg25595.html#msg25595)
-
Has anyone been able to examine the photo's under a stereoscope? I realize that they are prob'ly not very common, or maybe they are, I don't know, but it seems that they can make details pop out in what would appear to be 3D. After all, the were indispensible to photo analysis for the majority of the 20th century....
Brad
-
Has anyone been able to examine the photo's under a stereoscope?
Brad,
I don't think that would work. The brain expects to view the two images creating a stereo view to be imaged at the same time, separated by the distance between the two pupils (the observation or 2nd 'camera' position). If you see a 3D movie, take off your glasses and you'll see the two images are just slightly different (I saw 'Gravity' this weekend and they did a fantastic job with the 3D effects!). Even if one image were resampled to move the observation distance from where it was taken to the correct distance (e.g., the pupil to pupil distance), the time/altitude/attitude would still be wrong. In a 3D movie if you took off your glasses, you'd see a big difference between the images. The sun shadows and relative geometry between the two views would be way off kilter. I think the difference between a true stereo view and our synthesized view would give the viewer a real headache, and not provide any useful information.
I recall a previous post about using stereo views but it's left as an exercise for you to find it ;)
-
Has anyone yet come up with an explanation of this bright object in Frame #43? It does not look to me like a defect in the film as the bright object seems to be surrounded with a darker boarder.
-
Has anyone been able to examine the photo's under a stereoscope?
Brad,
I don't think that would work. The brain expects to view the two images creating a stereo view to be imaged at the same time, separated by the distance between the two pupils (the observation or 2nd 'camera' position). If you see a 3D movie, take off your glasses and you'll see the two images are just slightly different (I saw 'Gravity' this weekend and they did a fantastic job with the 3D effects!). Even if one image were resampled to move the observation distance from where it was taken to the correct distance (e.g., the pupil pupil distance), the time/altitude/attitude would still be wrong. In a 3D movie if you took off your glasses, you'd see a big difference between the images. Theto sun shadows and relative geometry between the two views would be way off kilter. I think the difference between a true stereo view and our synthesized view would give the viewer a real headache, and not provide any useful information.
I recall a previous post about using stereo views but it's left as an exercise for you to find it ;)
A stereoscope is very useful with aerial photos if the aircraft was flying a straight course and a timer was rigged to cause the camera to snap pictures at regular intervals. Since most of the things of interest (rocks, trees, etc) aren't moving, what you have in two consecutive images is essentially the same as though both images were taken at the same time with two cameras many yards apart. Looking at two consecutive images from a roll through a stereoscope gives a lot of information; various geographic and defense mapping agencies used to hire hundreds of people to spend their day looking through rolls of film that way. This only works really well if the camera is fixed relative to the plane (not hand held and pointed out the window) and the pictures are taken at precise known intervals.
-
Are not stereoscopic pictures taken with a special camera specific to that purpose? I would venture to guess that any possibility for stereoscopic viewing with these photos, coincidental as it may be, would probably require no small amount of manipulation to make it actually work. Nonetheless, in my opinion, it's worth a try if somebody has the inclination or know how to take it on.
-
I'm going to purge this thread of all sniping, including my own, and in future I'll remove any posting from this and any thread that is not constructive discussion or an informed critique of substantive issues.
-
Has anyone yet come up with an explanation of this bright object in Frame #43? It does not look to me like a defect in the film as the bright object seems to be surrounded with a darker boarder.
Tim,
Does the same 'object' appear in a different photo of same area? That would be one way to help determine whether it is a flaw or a real object, I believe.
I see a suggestion of shadowing (darker border you mentioned), but I can't tell if it's true shadowing off of a real object, or just some effect of flaw / film or glare and a halo effect, etc. Seems like a real object could be bright enough to blind us as to details (glare) and possibly create a dark halo effect too - but over my head technically to say, I'm sure.
In any case, looking at the same area in a different photo might tell you the most about whether real or flaw.
Jeff, we have additionally examined frames #18 and #44, but do not see the same bright object. Could be obscured by vegetation in either case, due to angle of view. (I trust we are using the same frame numbering system).
I lean towards defect now.
-
Has anyone yet come up with an explanation of this bright object in Frame #43? It does not look to me like a defect in the film as the bright object seems to be surrounded with a darker boarder.
Tim,
Does the same 'object' appear in a different photo of same area? That would be one way to help determine whether it is a flaw or a real object, I believe.
I see a suggestion of shadowing (darker border you mentioned), but I can't tell if it's true shadowing off of a real object, or just some effect of flaw / film or glare and a halo effect, etc. Seems like a real object could be bright enough to blind us as to details (glare) and possibly create a dark halo effect too - but over my head technically to say, I'm sure.
In any case, looking at the same area in a different photo might tell you the most about whether real or flaw.
Jeff, we have additionally examined frames #18 and #44, but do not see the same bright object. Could be obscured by vegetation in either case, due to angle of view. (I trust we are using the same frame numbering system).
I lean towards defect now.
My thought is simply from what I've learned by following Glickman and others 'in the know' on this site and elsewhere that a real object would tend to make a repeat appearance in other frames shot of the same area, but perhaps more shadowed, or brighter, or shaped differently because of change of aspect, etc. If it does not appear in repeat, and the 'feature' lacks clear 'interaction' with it's surrounding environment or clear suggestion of discernable 'features' within the whole of the 'object' then it is likely merely a flaw.
It has been intriguing to be able to study these pictures in such detail, although I have to confess others did far more heavy lifting than moi. I quickly realized my poor skills and eyes probably could not sift many needles out of such a haystack. I also confess coming to a personal belief that anything that would be truly noticable from the altitude these were taken would likely be something the NZ crowd may well have noticed and looked into further themselves, long ago.
The odds of finding personal effects, short of an open parachute, etc. seem remote to me. The odds of the NZ crew overlooking aircraft wreckage after such a survey seem equally as remote to me. Just MHO, of course, other's MMV, no doubt. And as I said, my skills are not so notable anyway. But I am grateful for having had the opportunity to see these unique photos.
-
Any news guys? Richie, Ric, anyone?
The study group has done a great job examining the 1938 photos. Now it's up to Jeff Glickman to review what they've found.
-
How about throwing us a bone Ric - how many items of interest did you guys find?
-
Just curious about the large dark spot on the SE reef? oils spill? natural?
What is the thinking on it?
Also the small pond looking area just inland of it with light spots around it looks odd(not the big pond/ lagoon spillway near the lagoon but the small area with a light ring around it and a few light spots next to it close to shore.
-
Going through all of the posts in the 1938 photos Study Group Thread and the images therein I stumbled across something I hadn't noticed before. In the first image I had drawn a circle around '???? just beyond the surf line'. In the second image I pointed out something which resembles a trail in the bush. When studying these two images next to each other on one of my PCs I noticed that you could draw a straight line between the '???? just beyond the surf line' and the start of the 'trail'. It's as if you could wade from '???? just beyond the surf line' in a straight line through the water to the start of the 'trail'. Probably just a remarkable coincidence but all the same, what a coincidence.
-
That's a compelling case you've presented.
Just the sort of detail we've been hoping for.
-
In the second image I pointed out something which resembles a trail in the bush. When studying these two images next to each other on one of my PCs I noticed that you could draw a straight line between the '???? just beyond the surf line' and the start of the 'trail'.
I think the apparent trail is very interesting and the open area at the end needs to be investigated. I don't buy an association with the ??? beyond the surf line. You can draw a straight line between any two points.
-
In the second image I pointed out something which resembles a trail in the bush. When studying these two images next to each other on one of my PCs I noticed that you could draw a straight line between the '???? just beyond the surf line' and the start of the 'trail'.
I think the apparent trail is very interesting and the open area at the end needs to be investigated. I don't buy an association with the ??? beyond the surf line. You can draw a straight line between any two points.
Exactly, and that's where the other coincidence occurred. An image John out up a while back...
http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1222.225.html (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1222.225.html)
-
Exactly, and that's where the other coincidence occurred. An image John out up a while back...
John's straight line shoreward from his POB (Possible Bevington Object) come ashore at the bush where your yellow arrow starts. The PIT (Possible Trail Inland) begins several hundred feet up the beach to the north. I think we can say that the PIT is on the shore roughly opposite the area where the Bevington Object appears in the 19037 photo. That's enough to make it interesting.
-
Not to be too scientifically picky here, but:
Isn't "possible bevington object" referred to as "PBO" instead of "POB"?
And isn't "possible trail inland" referred to as "PTI" instead of "PIT"?
Might also be the "1937" photo....
-
Not to be too scientifically picky here, but:
Isn't "possible bevington object" referred to as "PBO" instead of "POB"?
And isn't "possible trail inland" referred to as "PTI" instead of "PIT"?
Might also be the "1937" photo....
Corrections noted. Gotta slow down.
-
I have numbered the shrubs on the two images so that you can see that the PTI is indeed just off of the point where John noted that the PBO might be in the surf line and where I circled ? in red. If you make allowances for the differing camera angles in the two images (note that they are two different images of the same area taken at different times) then the PCZ, possible camp zero, might be indicated here.
-
There's a clearing at the end of the trail. There's a white object in the clearing. I agree. We really need to to go to that spot and see if there's anything there.
-
There's a clearing at the end of the trail. There's a white object in the clearing. I agree. We really need to to go to that spot and see if there's anything there.
Unfortunately Ric that area is in the over-wash area? Still, it's something to look into. I will check some later images to see if the shrubbery/topography is still useful as a guide to finding the exact spot.
-
Unfortunately Ric that area is in the over-wash area?
No. John's red line goes way too far inland. The little clearing at the end of the trail is much closer to the beach and just at the edge of the Buka forest.
-
Hi All
I brought this up a while back on epac site
After looking further into this anomaly i believe it needs investigating more by experienced persons due to similar characteristics
Anyone else see the likeness
Thanks Richie