TIGHAR
Amelia Earhart Search Forum => General discussion => Topic started by: Skip Daly on July 02, 2014, 11:22:07 AM
-
Obviously, there is currently a lot of attention focused on the aluminum "patch," these days, and the new photo showing the covered window is exciting.
However, I still find the photo of the Bevington Object and the sonar anomaly at the base of the reef to be the among the most intriguing bits of evidence/information to emerge in the search. (Also, the "debris field" photos.)
Was just wondering if there is any on-going analysis happening on that front, or is there nothing else to look at there (until the next trip, of course)?
I remember someone pointing out an (apparent) overhead view the Bevington Object in one of the newly-found photos that were being analyzed by the study group. Was any enhancement done on that? (or was the object too small in the frame?) Just wondering if it might have provided any additional corroboration for the object actually being the landing gear?
thanks!
-Skip
-
Nothing new on the anomaly or the Bevington Photo. The Bevington Object is no longer on the reef. It may or may not be the debris field seen in the video. The sonar anomaly may or may not be the airplane. All we can do now in either case is to go and look.
The "patch" is infinitely more important because it's a physical artifact in our possession that appears to have the potential to be a conclusively identified piece of NR16020.
-
Man I hope this thing is still there this summer!
-
It appears the Univ. of Hawaii submersibles are still operating.
http://www.nbcnews.com/science/weird-science/resting-darkness-sunken-ghost-ship-rediscovered-near-hawaii-n262841
-
It appears the Univ. of Hawaii submersibles are still operating.
http://www.nbcnews.com/science/weird-science/resting-darkness-sunken-ghost-ship-rediscovered-near-hawaii-n262841
Not necessarily ... "A small submersible vehicle came upon the shipwreck last year researchers at the University of Hawaii announced Friday (Dec. 5)."
-
The submersibles are still operating, exploring sonar targets near Hawaii that may be sunken Japanese subs.
-
A 1901 shipwreck at the mouth of San Francisco Bay was discovered through sonar imaging in November 2014. A report of the NOAA search (http://www.history.com/news/found-san-franciscos-deadliest-shipwreck) has interesting images of the SS City of Rio de Janeiro on the bottom, about 100 meters deep. The ship went down, with about 130 casualties, only 36 years before AE's disappearance.
-
Have a look at some remarkable very high res "Deep Vision" side scan sonar images of a C-45 in Lake Ontario (http://www.shipwreckworld.com/articles/gallery/96/407) and a number of vessels in Oneida Lake. (http://www.shipwreckworld.com/articles/tug-boats-and-barge-wrecks-in-oneida-lake)
Although a very different environment on the bottom of these freshwater lakes, vs Niku, wonder how this level of resolution would render the anomaly.
-
All remarkable images. Let's see how long it is before someone takes one of the C-45 and tries to say it is Earharts' Electra on the bottom of the ocean!
-
DeepVision (http://www.shipwreckworld.com/reviews/deepvision-de340-side-scan-sonar-review) is pretty cool.
It would be extra cool if TIGHAR could get that kind of imagery (http://www.shipwreckworld.com/articles/gallery/96/407) at Niku.
Is this similar to the equipment that is being planned?
-
Is this similar to the equipment that is being planned?
No. DeepVision is side-scan sonar. Been there. Done that. At great expense.
Niku VIII will use HD video on an ROV to investigate the anomaly detected with side-scan sonar in 2012.
-
I wonder if this outfit would be interested in using Niku VIII as a trial run?
http://www.nbcnews.com/science/science-news/cyclops-submersible-brings-deep-water-exploration-21st-century-n321726
-
I wonder if this outfit would be interested in using Niku VIII as a trial run?
Cyclops is too large to be deployed from Nai'a and we are committed to using Nai'a (having paid them a considerable portion of the charter fee). We'll use an ROV deployable from Nai'a to check out the anomaly.
-
TIGHAR Tracks Vol 29 (http://tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/2013Vol_29/February_2013/Niku_VII.pdf), describes technical difficulties with the ROV camera that occurred during the 2012 Niku VII expedition.
For NIKU VIII, will the camera and ROV be from two different vendors or the same operator/ set up?
How will the camera and ROV for Niku VIII be coordinated or tested?
The plan for NIKU VIII (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Niku8/niku8plan.html)notes it will “Focus on known sonar targets” but does not mention the Debris Field that Jeff Glickman identified in 2012 (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/63_DebrisField/63_DebrisField.htm). Will it be investigated and how? Does the Nai’a have the ability to station itself so as to get an ROV over the same areas as the KOK did? For example can it search that area where the Debris Field is, that is closer to the reef edge than the sonar anomaly?
-
TIGHAR Tracks Vol 29 (http://tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/2013Vol_29/February_2013/Niku_VII.pdf), describes technical difficulties with the ROV camera that occurred during the 2012 Niku VII expedition.
For NIKU VIII, will the camera and ROV be from two different vendors or the same operator/ set up?
How will the camera and ROV for Niku VIII be coordinated or tested?
We're discussing that with potential vendors. The camera and ROV will be from the same vendor and the system will be thoroughly tested before the expedition. Niku VII was a painful lesson. I can't promise that we won't make mistakes but I CAN promise that they will be NEW mistakes.
The plan for NIKU VIII (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Niku8/niku8plan.html)notes it will “Focus on known sonar targets” but does not mention the Debris Field that Jeff Glickman identified in 2012 (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/63_DebrisField/63_DebrisField.htm). Will it be investigated and how? Does the Nai’a have the ability to station itself to get to get an ROV over the same areas as the KOK did? For example can it search that area where the Debris Field is, that is closer to the reef edge than the sonar anomaly?
Nai'a should be able to moor over both the anomaly and over the "debris field" locations provided that sea conditions are relatively calm and the wind holds steady from the usual easterly direction. Operations at Niku are always weather dependent but we'll be there for two weeks during a normally benign time of year. That's the best we can do.
Editted to annotate the second quote correctly
-
An anomaly the size of a small plane. An isolated cluster of manmade objects above it. A shallow area above this “debris field”, that is near where the Bevington object was photographed and where Emily Sikuli saw plane wreckage. The search area for Niku VIII seems very small relatively speaking.
If you were to produce a map that included all of the areas where people have suggested the plane could be, and then delineate the focused search areas for Niku VIII, it would be hard to illustrate. It would be like trying to illustrate something the size of the head of a pin on a map the size of a shopping mall. Even relative to the size of Nikumaroro, these are small areas to search. These are also obviously extremely difficult areas to search, or even get to. As painful as Niku VII may have been, it seems clear to me that the sonar and video images, obtained from that expedition have provided good reason to search a more focused area.
I am enjoying the Preponderance of Evidence series on Facebook. It is a good reminder of the process used to look for the plane, and to try to determine what happened to Earhart and Noonan. If what is left of the plane is found, I hope people remember the effort and method it took to determine to focus in on those small areas.
-
I've debated how to bring this up, but this thread appears to be a good opportunity. As background, I attended the 2012 conference in DC and happened to sit with the representative of one of the sonar companies who spoke on the last day. I believe he was from the company that ran the autonomous side scan sonar vehicle. Our chat was maybe 10 minutes, but it became apparent that there had been very little coordination in how the sonar search would be conducted and whether the vehicle would even work in the environment off Nikumaroro. I thought, "surely they'll figure this out and make it work by the time the expedition actually starts," so I didn't ask anything about it during the presentation. After the many trials and tribulations that came to light during Niku VII, I wish I had said something and maybe better planning could have resulted.
This leads to the current Niku VIII. I've seen very little description of exactly how the ROV search is to be done, but it sounds like the plan is to look at the anomaly and the debris field. My question is whether that is all you plan to do? It sounds very "success oriented" to me--we'll go look at the prime target, prove it's Earhart's Electra, and celebrate victory. But what if the anomaly turns out to be nothing related to Amelia Earhart? Is there a backup plan to do anything else with this ROV equipment in case the primary target is a bust? Is the equipment and the mother ship capable of searching elsewhere along the reef slope--deeper or in rougher waters--and avoiding the problems encountered previously operating an ROV from the Nai’a?
I don't mean to be pessimistic, but I work in a part of the aerospace industry where we routinely get into trouble by assuming everything is going to work perfectly and vastly underestimating the cost and complexity. Trying to think through all the things that could go wrong and having contingency plans accordingly (risk management, in other words) is often what saves a program from cancellation when the "success oriented" assumptions don't pan out.
-
Jeff Scott is right on! Plan it out before you leave.
Ted Campbell
-
The plan for the underwater investigations during the upcoming expedition are are not "success oriented." They're "reality oriented."
We're dealing with a number of limitations:
• Money. The best way to search the reef slope is with manned submersibles. Last year we tried to raise the money to do that. Couldn't do it. So we have to accept that that option is not available to us.
• For all the trials and tribulations of the 2012 trip, we did come away with a side-scan sonar survey of the western reef slope. While we were there we checked out a number of "targets" pointed out to us by the contractor. None was of interest. The anomaly that was later spotted is the only sonar target that seems worth investigating.
• The "debris field" Jeff Glickman spotted in the ROV video is the only thing that seems worth chasing in all the underwater video shot in 2010 and 2012.
• Money. The ship we hope to be able to afford is Nai'a. She's a great ship for supporting land ops and divers but she's a poor platform for "live boating" an ROV - so we're not going to be able to do a "mow-the-lawn" ROV search of the reef slope.
• We hope to be able to find the two targets worth investigating - the "anomaly" and the "debris field" (aka the "fender"). Our ability to do much more than that with the ROV will be very limited.
• The plan for stabilizing Nai'a over the targets is shown in the attached illustrations. We can't actually moor the ship. The reef slope is too steep. The best we can do is tie off to the shipwreck and an anchor set in the reef-edge and rely on the prevailing wind to hold us in place. We've used this technique many times to position the ship near the island.
• In addition to the ROV operations we'll have a SCUBA team covering the shallower areas off the Bevington Object location looking for smaller debris that may have been left behind or washed back up.
-
Great pictures Ric; who was the intrepid sole who climbed the mast to take the last picture? :o
-
Great pictures Ric; who was the intrepid sole who climbed the mast to take the last picture? :o
I get to do stuff like that. I'm the only expendable soul on the team.
-
That one is toooooo easy. So I will resist the temptation. ;D
LTM, who remembers the movie They Were Expendable,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 ECSP
-
Ric, out of curiosity, have you thought about taking a small drone? I thought the video you captured from the copter trip was very informative - especially when thinking about why Lambrecht didn't spot anything. Given how cheap drones are, it might make a nice piece of footage and help members see things in perspective.
-
Ric, out of curiosity, have you thought about taking a small drone?
The plan is for our cameraman, Mark Smith, to deploy two drones during the expedition. He'a already running test flights. An amphibious drone will be used to capture shots of the ship and the dive team at work - as well as any sea life (dolphins, sharks, turtles, manta rays, white whales, sea serpents, etc.) that may happen by on or near the surface. Another drone will work with the land team doing aerial searching for objects that need to be checked out. We're not sure how the birds will react to the drones. We could have some trouble with the frigates if they see the drones as prey.
The drone footage is sure to be featured in the documentary we'll make of the expedition. No deal with Discovery Channel or other media this trip. The possibility for truly historic footage is too great to sell the rights for what we could get. This time we'll produce our own film. Everyone who contributes at least $49 to the "Put My Name Up In Lights (http://tighar.org/store/index.php?route=product/category&path=43)" campaign will be listed in the credits of the documentary. Where else can you get immortality for $49?
-
Thanks Ric. I've already signed up to get my name in the credits (and hope to have lots of company).
-
Is the Niku VIII going to be more viewing and surmising only, or are you planning on actually hauling something up topside if its really interesting? Maybe this isn't posible, but if the wreck we re looking for is found, or you are reasonably sure that it is visible under the other debris, will you be equipped to lift or even move things out of the way for a better look? A winch and basket, for instance, or as a last resort a dragline of some kind?
-
The reason I am asking is I believe as others probably do, that the Debris Field is a pile of WWII Seabees heavy equipment used for clearing and construction for development of the village, and was discarded before they left. They may or may not have known what was there before, but it could have covered and flattened anything, such as an aluminum airplane. There are many objects of seemingly man made origin, such as wheel rims, perhaps idlers and guide rollers and tracks, etc. from tracked vehicles, as well as possible aircraft parts. But the aircraft parts, to me anyway, seem to be mostly underneath or buried by the different debris on top. Since we aren't especially interested in bulldozers and halftracks, to better find the airplane it may be necessary to excavate or shove things around to get at what is important to this search. I don't have the locations in the video for specific parts, but there is a suspicious "thing" which may be a wing or tail that may or may not have numbers on it, partially covered by sand and junk. More info on the specific video location is shown in the comments of the "Debris Field" video.
-
Is the Niku VIII going to be more viewing and surmising only, or are you planning on actually hauling something up topside if its really interesting?
Excuse me if I sound a bit testy about this but we are doing aviation archaeology, not salvage. We're following accepted protocols that you are not familiar with. We're not going to "haul something up topside" just to get a better look at it. If we encounter an object of interest we'll examine and photograph it as thoroughly as possible without disturbing it. Then, if we decide that it may be from the Electra and it is small enough to be recovered and conserved, we'll consider raising it.
-
The reason I am asking is I believe as others probably do, that the Debris Field is a pile of WWII Seabees heavy equipment used for clearing and construction for development of the village, and was discarded before they left.
The Seabees were never there. There was heavy equipment used by the Coast Guard for building the Loran station at the southeast tip of the island but the U.S. had nothing to do with the development of the village. That was entirely a British operation and was done entirely by Pacific Islanders using hand tools long before the Americans arrived.
Please do us all a favor and familiarize yourself with the facts of the case before expounding on your opinions.
And please don't tell us about the parts of the plane you think you see in the video. There are no obvious airplane parts in the video. Jeff Glickman spotted some coral shapes that he thinks MAY be parts of the landing gear. We'll try to check them out.
-
Sorry, I didn't mean I knew anything more than anyone else. Just my opinion. That's what you wanted, I presume.
-
Just my opinion. That's what you wanted, I presume.
We welcome opinion based on fact.
-
I understand, and I have total respect for you and the crew for what you are doing and the hours and effort that have gone into providing us the opportunity to view these great pictures and videos. And that's a fact!
-
I vaguely remember from a previous expedition that N'aia was able to locate a mooring of the west end of Niku. If that is the case, would that provide an alternate to the "moor to shore points and use the wind to hold us in position" plan? I'm asking because Niku has had a nasty way of surprising us over the years (I fully expect one of the planned camera drones to be taken out by the bird life on this trip) and we should have alternatives in place due to what looks like a very small window of time to actually deploy the ROV and look for things.
LTM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR no. 2189 ECSP
-
I vaguely remember from a previous expedition that N'aia was able to locate a mooring of the west end of Niku. If that is the case, would that provide an alternate to the "moor to shore points and use the wind to hold us in position" plan?
The mooring is well off the northwestern tip of Nutiran, a long way from where we need to be to investigate the underwater targets.
-
Ah, I see. That's unfortunate. I was trying to think of anything that would stack the deck a little more in our favor, since using the ROV is going to be complex enough as is.
LTM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR no. 2189 ECSP
-
I'm just curious, has the team looked into the mooring/hover techniques used by other deep-water expeditions who utilized ROV's to explore/image points of interest (I.e. Bismark, Titanic). While the Nai'a is all that is available and within budget, it seems to come up a little short as an ROV platform as Ric said earlier in this thread. Hopefully a large contribution to the "preponderance of evidence" this year will open doors to bigger and better technology. Also, IMHO the US Navy owes some support to these efforts. The Research Vessel Knorr (owned by the U.S. Navy and operated by Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution under charter agreement for the American ocean research community) supported the search and discovery of the Titanic.
-
I'm just curious, has the team looked into the mooring/hover techniques used by other deep-water expeditions who utilized ROV's to explore/image points of interest (I.e. Bismark, Titanic).
I swear. Questions like this make me think that we somehow give people the impression that we just fell off the turnip truck.
What you want for ROV operations is a DP (dynamic positioning) boat. Dial in a lat/long and the ship holds that position rock solid regardless of sea conditions. It takes special thrusters to do that. DP boats are expensive.
-
Ballard and Woods Hole were in a uniquely serendipitous situation where Titanic was concerned. He was not only a Woods Hole official, but a naval officer who was able to utilize the time and resources surpluses that were available after having completed the primary contractual mission of surveying one of the navy's lost subs earlier than allowed for. He also actually had data on where the Titanic's hulk could be found, compliments of the navy. Not a bad stack of the deck.
Not sure why the navy would owe anything here unless they decided to feel badly about not having been able to find Earhart in 1937. Somehow I can't see that launching major assets to Gardner Island with no other legit navy business in the area of that sort. Looks like TIGHAR's stuck with doing the best she can.
Pesonally I would favor a full-blown, heavy-duty all out canvassing of the entire seamount - but then a vacation home on the moon would be interesting too... My reason is simply that, with all due respect to this more surgical effort, I'm convinced that the possibilites of where the craft could have gone if it landed at Gardner are too vast for me to have a great deal of confidence in this one thing (the anomaly). Just MHO, of course.
If the long shot comes through from this effort, bully.
If TIGHAR manages to investigate the anomaly well enough despite the challenges but finds nothing, then another place not to look is settled.
If conditions upset poor Nai'a too much or other events unfold to spoil an effective effort, then nothing will be gained - always that risk.
-
with all due respect to this more surgical effort, I'm convinced that the possibilites of where the craft could have gone if it landed at Gardner are too vast for me to have a great deal of confidence in this one thing (the anomaly). Just MHO, of course.
As I have said, I think the odds of the anomaly being the airplane are 50/50 at best. Where you and I differ is that I am personally convinced that the airplane DID land at Gardner. I am convinced not as an article of faith but by the preponderance of genuine evidence we have uncovered from multiple independent lines of investigation. I do not ask you to be convinced.
-
...I am personally convinced that the airplane DID land at Gardner.
Somehow I had NOT missed that fine point! ;)
We also differ on those odds about the anomaly. I'm not sure how to assign a probability to that one other than by gut.
That you allow me to express that difference here is also appreciated as fair, thank you for that.
I do not ask you to be convinced.
Thinking on that, I've amended - yes, actually, you do ask it - of all. That's fair enough, however - what else would you do???
I would also love for you to prove the Gardner hypothesis positive. I have nothing against it, merely a new appreciation of the overall set of possibilities.
I am concerned that you will always face a hefty segment of the public who will remain unconvinced as long as you are short of dramatic, artifactual (...is that a word? Is now...) evidence: circumstantial things will always be arguable either way.
-
I think we all agree you know what you are doing, Ric. We all want to be a part of this great expedition! and will probably always have suggestions as to what we can think of to make the trip go more smoothly, whether we know what we are talking about or not...meanwhile, have an excellent go at it and don't forget the ice chest!!
-
Where'd you get the picture of the cow, Bob?
-
Cow popped up on an internet inquiry, I can't remember where. Inquisitive fellow, isn't he?
-
Cows are.
We have a lot of them around here. They aren't considered the brightest critters, but they spend a lot of time worrying at fences and can eventully look clever by getting out... and into the road where they kill... cows and cars. :D
Was just struck by the 'anomaly' of a cow looking at me there... thanks! ;)
And there's something to be said for the perserverance of the cow, maybe it was Freudian on my part after all: we all do our best.
-
Yes, this one's an anomoly!!!
-
Ric,
Just a thought - albeit a little late - would an anchored platform offshore Niku act as the stationary station for the ROV and a line from the Nai'a to the platform control the ROV?
Ted Campbell
-
And I am convinced this is a landing gear hanging on the slope. I just pray it is still there and not 5,000 feet lower.
-
Let's all remember one thing about our hoped-for Niku VIII sonar target - it is the CONROY Anomaly, which forum member Richie Conroy first brought to everyone's attention, and which we are now going to try and get a close look at.
LTM, who tries to give credit where it's due,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 ECSP
-
Yes, and I pray it is still there too. And didn't finish it's slide down the slope.
-
Is he still active on the forum? I haven't seen anything from him in a while.
Let's all remember one thing about our hoped-for Niku VIII sonar target - it is the CONROY Anomaly, which forum member Richie Conroy first brought to everyone's attention, and which we are now going to try and get a close look at.
LTM, who tries to give credit where it's due,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 ECSP
-
Is he still active on the forum? I haven't seen anything from him in a while.
Richie's last post was on October 2, 2014
-
Hope Richie is well. Monty's right - it was Richie who spotted this - wasn't it first named for him?
-
I hope this isn't the same Richard Conroy. It seems to match his profile though..............
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-29875332
-
Yikes!
Talk about bullets from a smoking gun..... !!
amck
-
Doesn't sound good, timing sucks.
-
You all know this but it may be worth repeating that name coincidences are not unusual. I once googled my name and home city (Baltimore) and noticed that I had the second largest number of hits. The highest number was a known sex offender who lived a couple miles from where I worked. :o Fortunately his age and race were different but talk about a blow to your ego...
-
Yikes!
Talk about bullets from a smoking gun..... !!
amck
lol.
I'm sure there are lots of blokes named Richie Conroy over there.
-
You all know this but it may be worth repeating that name coincidences are not unusual. I once googled my name and home city (Baltimore) and noticed that I had the second largest number of hits. The highest number was a known sex offender who lived a couple miles from where I worked. :o Fortunately his age and race were different but talk about a blow to your ego...
Quite true. Opposite for me though since I'm basically the only me I can find online. No one shares my name, at least not on the internet.
-
Victim's FB page has pictures of the accused.
Modified to remove URL of victim--not our Richie
-
Occurs to me we're getting wrapped around the axle over the most improbable. Everything seems to point to the innocence of our gentle but missing Richie - who's free as a bird according to his wife's site.
-
Ummmm, guys? There's that Little knowledge can be a dangerous thing, thing ...
LTM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 ECSP
-
U guys kill me honestly, I keep a low profile because up coming expedition incase it ain't what we hope it is an u guys blow my cover haha
Hope every one is ok am snd been on forum every day just not logging in av still been researching all things Earhart
-
Tell me about it, was wondering if tighar wud have sent an expedition to find me haha
But no I ain't done anything that ain't above board as they say
-
Richie!
Glad to see you with us again....! 8)
-
Leave it to a Liverpudlian to make an entrance ;D
LTM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 ECSP
-
Oh thank heavens! The previous posts had me hyperventilating a little!
-
If that anomaly isn't the airplane Richie is going to hyperventilate when I send him the bill for the ROV.
-
I rather think you'll be buying him a pint, Mr. Gillespie. ;)
LTM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 ECSP
-
I rather think you'll be buying him a pint, Mr. Gillespie. ;)
Heck, I'll buy him a gallon.
-
Tell me about it, was wondering if tighar wud have sent an expedition to find me haha
But no I ain't done anything that ain't above board as they say
;)
-
haha Ric
I knew there was another reason for laying low :D
If you do find wreckage and there is a debris field what kind of artifact apart from say the data plate, Would you bring to the surface ?
My apologies if this has been asked and answered before :)
-
If you do find wreckage and there is a debris field what kind of artifact apart from say the data plate, Would you bring to the surface ?
Ric has hit the road.
I don't expect him to visit the Forum until some time after his return to headquarters.
The team has protocols in place with Kiribati. There will be at least one observer onboard with whom they can negotiate.
I believe the ROV has only limited grappling capabilities. IF they see something that looks diagnostic, and IF it is within the capabilities of the ROV, and IF the Kiribati rep OKs the recovery, then they might try to bring something back.
That's my understanding, at any rate, FWIW.
-
Thanks Marty
Has any thought been giving, To Take a rope with hook down via Rov to attach it, So ship could hoist the anomaly to shallower waters in diving range for better investigation ?
I know you all have missed my wacky ideas :D
-
Oh that is so WRONG on so many levels Richie! The archeologists are spinning in their graves!
Glad it was just a wacky idea though.......
Good to hear from you again too!
-
Let's all remember one thing about our hoped-for Niku VIII sonar target - it is the CONROY Anomaly, which forum member Richie Conroy first brought to everyone's attention, and which we are now going to try and get a close look at.
LTM, who tries to give credit where it's due,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 ECSP
I agree that Richie deserves credit and I believe the anomaly should be referred to as the Conroy Anomaly as a matter of respect, irregardless of the objects origins. As a participant in the EPAC and having studied the 1938 aerial photos, I believe the area south of Seven Site is very interesting - especially the area of downed trees that seem out of place. Glad to hear from you Richie and happy you are O.K.
LTM
-
Thanks Jeff and Gary
I would prefer the sonar anomaly to be the Tighar sonar anomaly for now, as Ric has said previously if he called it the Conroy anomaly and it turns out to be a big rock or an unknown boat or plane i would basically be slaughtered by the world press and as the leader of Tighar it should be him that takes the Flack :-\
Also it's not my wish to take credit for Tighar's hard work just for spotting a shadow on an image, If it is the bird we should all take credit for being part of a brilliant hard working team that is Tighar, If it ain't am sure Ric and co will bring back some thing else back for us to mull over as they usually do ;D
Thanks Richie ;)
-
Well said, Mr. Conroy sir. *thumb's up*
LTM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 ECSP
-
After reading through various discussions on sub-water movement patterns/current flows at Niku on the forum, I'm curious as to underwater currents at the depth of the anomaly. It was mentioned that shallow waters at the reef will experience the greatest wave energy, and deep waters below an undetermined threshold are typically calm and undisturbed, even with a hurricane above. I've read about specific locations in deep trenches or underwater ridges that give way to massive waves that don’t show on the surface. For example, submariners during World War II were known to avoid the Strait of Gibraltar because of its internal waves.
“Scientists have made the first measurements of internal waves breaking at a crucial spot in the Pacific. About 200 miles northeast of Samoa, a huge volume of seawater — equal to 35 Amazon rivers — barrels through a narrow underwater channel, then wends its way into the depths of the northern Pacific. Researchers led by University of Washington oceanographer Matthew Alford found that 800-foot-high internal waves act like a gargantuan mixer at the spot, churning together seawaters of different saltiness and temperature until they're thoroughly blended together.”
Source: http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2014/05/22/towering-underwater-waves/9178513/
Of course, the area right off the reef’s edge at Niku is probably not affected by this type of action. However I’m curious as to the incremental, if any, movement of the sonar anomaly or other free-resting underwater features. Maybe it will be in the same spot as 2012, maybe not. As for the potential “debris field” targets off the Bevington Object, those look to be enveloped with coral, and possibly hardened in place. Just a thought until we see the results of the current ROV dive of 2015.
-
So glad to hear from Richie!! And that all is OK!