TIGHAR
Amelia Earhart Search Forum => General discussion => Topic started by: Ric Gillespie on July 24, 2015, 09:10:56 AM
-
Here's what we know so far:
• During what we're calling the "Hail Mary" attempt to obtain imagery of the anomaly location the device took a total of 426 photos. A little fewer than half of them - 179 photos, 42% - are useful images. The others show only blue water as the device was descending and ascending, or are extreme, out of focus close-ups of the bottom because the camera was too low.
• Based on the 67 GPS readings taken by Walt Holm during the exercise, Bob Brandenburg plotted the path of the skiff from which the device was lowered. At one point the path came within an estimated three feet of the center of the anomaly coordinates as calculated by Ocean Imaging Consultants from the sonar data collected by Phoenix International. The full anomaly is over 21 meters (69 feet) long running roughly north to south. Based on the skiff path, we should have good coverage of the anomaly location and the areas immediately to the east (upslope) and west (downslope). We're not yet sure about how much coverage we have because we haven't yet matched up the time stamp in skiff GPS readings with the time stamp in the photo meta data. A copy of the plot is attached below.
• There is no obvious airplane debris visible in the photos but neither is there an obvious geological feature to explain the anomaly. There is considerable overlap from image to image in many of the photos so we should be able to construct mosaics that will tell us more about the bottom topography.
• There are a few man-made objects in the photos. There are also a few possible man-made objects. At this point we don't know what they are. All are small (a few inches in size). I'll post some photos.
• The 179 potentially useful photos are loaded into a TIGHAR Dropbox. Each photo is roughly 3MB in size. If you're a TIGHAR member and you'd like a link to the Dropbox just send me an email at tigharic@mac.com.
-
I give up. What's to the left in 351? Fish? Part of the camera system? Don't see anything like it in any others.
-
The path between positions 39 and 40 is parallel, or perpendicular or what angle to the axis of anomaly?
-
Attached is a study I did to get a rough idea of the scale of what was covered and how it relates to the depth and the size of images. The angle of the anomaly is a rough estimate.
I used the sample image provided earlier and using the 2.5" laser scale in it, the image covered about 8’-7” in width. Of course other images would be different based on the camera distance varying. The skiff shown is 6.8 meters. The depth used is 600’ .
This is for rough scale study only.
-
I give up. What's to the left in 351? Fish?
Yep. Big ol' Grouper. He's in several of the photos.
-
Attached is a study I did to get a rough idea of the scale of what was covered and how it relates to the depth and the size of images. The angle of the anomaly is a rough estimate.
I used the sample image provided earlier and using the 2.5" laser scale in it, the image covered about 8’-7” in width. Of course other images would be different based on the camera distance varying. The skiff shown is 6.8 meters. The depth used is 600’ .
This is for rough scale study only.
Greg, I think you have interpreted the Ocean Imaging Consultants image of the sonar anomaly differently than I did. They show a red line (red L in the table) representing the entire length of the anomaly that is 21.432m long. They show a blue line (blue W in the table) representing the portion of the anomaly that has enough elevation (black H in the table, 1.664m) to be casting a "sound shadow" (green line, green L in the table, 2.536m). The blue line is 10.360m or 34 feet long - about 3 feet shy of the length of an undamaged Electra fuselage.
I interpret the "Center" in the table to be the center of the entire 21.432m anomaly. You seem to interpret it as the center of the blue line (putative fuselage). If my interpretation is correct, the blue line (putative fuselage) portion of the anomaly extends down almost to Point 5 in the skiff path.
-
This object occurs in only one photo - 557. Attached below is the annotated entire photo and a detail from that photo. The object looks a bit like a conventional beer can (Guinness to be exact) with a dark body and a silver-colored top facing the camera. However, it's much too small to be a beer can. It seems to be about the size of a D Cell flashlight battery. A similar object, "Can 2" appears in the very next photo and several subsequent photos, as does the fish (his name is Stanley).
-
This object appears in several photos. It's similarity and proximity to "Can 1" suggest that they are probably two examples of whatever-they-are. The best view of "can 2" is in 560.
-
This round shape seems to be embedded in coral. It appears in several images. It's quite close - within a few feet - of "Can 2."
It could be a rusted man-made object or it could be a natural feature but I can't find anything similar in any of the other images.
-
This object appears in 346 through 348 - much earlier in the sequence of photos than the other objects. It could be a natural feature (sea urchin spine?) but the blue color is unusual. It seems to be a cylinder that is flattened at one end and have a gray or silver-colored tip at the other end.
-
Near the blue and gray object in 346 is what appears to be a curved piece of wire reminiscent of the famous curved wire in the 2010 "wire & rope " ROV video.
-
I interpret the "Center" in the table to be the center of the entire 21.432m anomaly. You seem to interpret it as the center of the blue line (putative fuselage). If my interpretation is correct, the blue line (putative fuselage) portion of the anomaly extends down almost to Point 5 in the skiff path.
Thanks Ric. You are correct. I had interpreted the center to be for the putative fuselage only. Attached is a scale study to show the center as the combined putative fuselage and "tail". (total anomaly)
(edit: Point 5 could be closer to the nose depending on the angle interpretation. I can see the angle being more north south than I showed)
-
There's a lot going on in 346. In the upper left corner is another puzzling shape.
-
Thanks Ric. You are correct. I had interpreted the center to be for the putative fuselage only. Attached is a scale study to show the center as the combined putative fuselage and "tail". (total anomaly)
(edit: Point 5 could be closer to the nose depending on the angle interpretation. I can see the angle being more north south than I showed)
Yes, but in any event we do seem to have good coverage of the anomaly location. We'll know more once we've figured out which photos were taken at or between which points.
-
Is it possible that items were discarded/accidentally dropped over the side of Nai'a while it as stationed over the anomaly during Niku VIII?
-
Is it possible that items were discarded/accidentally dropped over the side of Nai'a while it as stationed over the anomaly during Niku VIII?
In theory, yes, but we're pretty careful about stuff like that. None of this stuff looks familiar and there were no small drink cans aboard as far as I know.
-
I'm not a football follower but I have always thought a Hail Mary sounded like the best part of a game. Well, I'm sure on the edge of my seat!
-
"Can 2" reminds me of an ammunition cartridge. What is the distance between the red laser dots again?
On another note, I am aware of some investigations into anomalies on the Martian surface that used fractal analysis to identify unusual, potentially non-natural objects. Any chance that such an approach could be applied here?
-
"Can 2" reminds me of an ammunition cartridge. What is the distance between the red laser dots again?
2.5 inches. Pretty big ammunition cartridge.
On another note, I am aware of some investigations into anomalies on the Martian surface that used fractal analysis to identify unusual, potentially non-natural objects. Any chance that such an approach could be applied here?
Who is looking for non-natural objects on Mars? Sounds a bit "out there." Do you have a link to a reputable source?
-
This is the Hail Mary device. Elegant no?
Just a camera encased in a split piece of rubber housing to protect it. The duct-tape holds the GoPro that flooded.
-
This round shape seems to be embedded in coral. It appears in several images. It's quite close - within a few feet - of "Can 2."
It could be a rusted man-made object or it could be a natural feature but I can't find anything similar in any of the other images.
Hi Rick & team,
Photo 565 shows two anomalies you may already be scrutinizing; which I have 'boxed'.
The first one is a light-coloured right-angle flat piece adjacent to the round anomaly.
The second a smaller round anomaly at about "4:30" "clock-face" direction.
Any thoughts?.
Contact email on pic.
-
Probably should get the Kiribati Parks Dept. to put up some "No Littering" signs before the next wave of cruise ship explorers come ashore!!
-
Who is looking for non-natural objects on Mars? Sounds a bit "out there." Do you have a link to a reputable source?
I'll leave any judgements on the Mars work aside as they would be off-topic for this forum. ;) Here is a link to a brief paper describing the technique:
http://carlotto.us/martianenigmas/Papers/JBIS1990.pdf (http://carlotto.us/martianenigmas/Papers/JBIS1990.pdf)
The idea is that the expected roughness of the planet surface (or in this case the ocean floor) can be estimated, and objects that do not fit can then be automatically identified. The computer could zip through hundreds of images and identify interesting candidates. I'm wondering if any of these algorithms are available somewhere...
-
I've looked at several of these photos and here is what I think these are?
346....Machete
350....Underwater video/lighting power adapter for ROV/AOV
355....A Smoking Gun...Possibly the Ring that sat on top of the Electra
-
Photo 565 shows two anomalies you may already be scrutinizing; which I have 'boxed'.
The first one is a light-coloured right-angle flat piece adjacent to the round anomaly.
Seemingly straight edges and right angles are surprisingly common in coral formations. It is of course possible that there are pieces of airplane debris whose shape has been partly disguised by accumulated sand or coral growth but the only way to check them out is by physical examination or with a metal detector.
The second a smaller round anomaly at about "4:30" "clock-face" direction.
Any thoughts?.
Those little round features are not uncommon. I don't know what they are (possibly former sea urchins?) but they're not man-made objects
-
I've looked at several of these photos and here is what I think these are?
346....Machete
The object is way too small to be a machete
350....Underwater video/lighting power adapter for ROV/AOV
That's the dive weight on a rope below the camera.
355....A Smoking Gun...Possibly the Ring that sat on top of the Electra
There is nothing in 355 except the rope and dive weight.
[/quote]
-
Ric
Picture 91 bottom right corner follow the black wire to poss aluminium object it is round in appearance has two clean cut holes in it and u can just make out were cable or pipe connects
-
Ric
Picture 91 bottom right corner follow the black wire to poss aluminium object it is round in appearance has two clean cut holes in it and u can just make out were cable or pipe connects
There is no Picture 91. The numbers go from 331 to 646.
-
Attached to cylindrical object????? If so, a wire spool,??, void of wire???, color appears to change from blue to silver near the end , as if the object was rotating inside a sleave or collar of some sort. Circled object resembles the end of an electrical cord, to me , but don't see any wire coming from it, so it would have to be nipped off, to be that.
-
Attached to cylindrical object?????
We are NOT going to start speculating about vague shapes in the coral. That way lies madness. First thing you know somebody will see a banjo. The first thing we need to determine about this object is whether it is consistent with some kind of natural marine flora or fauna.
-
We are NOT going to start speculating about vague shapes in the coral. That way lies madness.
What Ric said. Since this is not my area of expertise (if I tell you what that is I have to kill you), I shall leave it to those with better eyes than me, while I indulge in non-Niku pursuits: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mL7n5mEmXJo (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mL7n5mEmXJo)
LTM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 ECSP
-
Photo 565 shows two anomalies you may already be scrutinizing; which I have 'boxed'.
The first one is a light-coloured right-angle flat piece adjacent to the round anomaly.
Seemingly straight edges and right angles are surprisingly common in coral formations. It is of course possible that there are pieces of airplane debris whose shape has been partly disguised by accumulated sand or coral growth but the only way to check them out is by physical examination or with a metal detector.
The second a smaller round anomaly at about "4:30" "clock-face" direction.
Any thoughts?.
Those little round features are not uncommon. I don't know what they are (possibly former sea urchins?) but they're not man-made objects
Thanks Ric for your prompt valued replies, much appreciated. :)
-
Hi All
Sorry Ric that is what number my iphone showed it as, when i checked drop box it says number 474
For some reason my iphone shows a lot crisper image than wen viewed on pc, However it is still intresting
Thanks
-
Hi All
Sorry Ric that is what number my iphone showed it as, when i checked drop box it says number 474
For some reason my iphone shows a lot crisper image than wen viewed on pc, However it is still intresting
Thanks
Enhanced area of interest in regards to Richie's post - Looks to be a fish tail! (Stanley again?). And what looks to be the dive weight line running through center of image.
Greg
-
Looks to be a fish tail! (Stanley again?).
Not Stanley. Different fish with polkadot fins. He shows up in other photos.
And yes, that's the dive weight rope.
-
I can definitely see a rat with beady eyes and a tail in Richie's photo.
Seriously though, I got excited when I saw it because I made out a line consisting of a number of coral features with a furrow running parallel next to it. However, it looks to be a trick of the light.
I presume that once the mosaic is ready larger scale features will be easier to spot...
-
I presume that once the mosaic is ready larger scale features will be easier to spot...
The mosaic should give us a better idea of what the bottom topography looks like and where things are in relation to each other. The mosaic is coming along but it's a tedious process.
-
Image 345, top left corner cropped and enhanced. The large object in the corner may be the bigger fish that shows up in some of the photos immediately following this photo. I possibly see some of it's white stripes, as well as the tail in the back. Can't explain the rounded "bluish" tube object. The larger object looks like it may be casting a shadow right over the tube object.
-
Can't explain the rounded "bluish" tube object. The larger object looks like it may be casting a shadow right over the tube object.
There has been much discussion about what you call "the rounded "bluish" tube object" in 345. Some have suggested that it may be not a tube but a "channel section" as in aircraft stringer. It does seem to be under, and possibly attached to, the larger object which has an unusual straight edge.
-
It seems to me a tube might have a dark line(shadow or surface reflecting less) on the either side of a lighter line but there is a lighter line above the upper dark line.
-
Image 352 has a wider view of the same area in 345 where that strange object occurs. Here's 352 rotated to match 345's approx. angle. Also attached is 345 for reference. The coral was easy to match to each image to verify that it's the same general area being looked at. I believe it was the big fish sneaking in the top corner when the camera snapped the image in 345. The "channel section" shape in 345 isn't visible at all, as far as I can tell, in 352.
-
Hi All, first post... hello from Australia!
In photo 555 the rock in the middle drew my attention because of the strange fan shaped lines on it, then i also noticed a metallic looking spherical shape under the top right of the rock.
Edit: Image fixed. Sorry about that. ;D
-
Last one of the night. Donut shaped thing in 368 with what appears to be a hole in the center. Also appears in 369. Just making observations.
-
Adding onto 565, I've put a red box around what looks to me a possible cylinder-like shape running diagonally from top left to bottom right. I understand that it is probably just an alignment of natural edges...
-
Curious as to what photos might exist from the time between GPS points 39 and 40, as that seems to be when the camera passed in closest proximity to the anomaly "proper", no...?
-
Image 345, top left corner cropped and enhanced. The large object in the corner may be the bigger fish that shows up in some of the photos immediately following this photo. I possibly see some of it's white stripes, as well as the tail in the back. Can't explain the rounded "bluish" tube object. The larger object looks like it may be casting a shadow right over the tube object.
sure looks like a fish. But the fin looks pretty round. Almost like a heater element out of a hot water tank. Who knows what it could be. Maybe it is a fin.
-
Once again, whatever it is, it doesn't show up in image 346, per my earlier post with the image attached.
-
I'm a little surprised these fish don't have their own agents yet, demanding "appearance fees" and the like.
LTM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 CE
-
I agree with the heater element idea, craig. A little like the dust pan handles we used to make in metal shop made from 1/4 or 3/8 in. rod bent over on itself and attached under the pan with rivets. Greg's picture with the dashed yellow box showing the area of the object still shows something sticking out from the rounded thingy, but the picture is a different scale (smaller) and I can't bring it up to a decent size. Maybe someone could enhance it so the pixels are more smooth.
Where's my pictures of the flare and starter cartridge for comparing to can1 and 2??
-
Here's something for pic. 346 comparison: look familiar? Cigarette holders found on Amazon..
-
Reply #42 looks like a sprocket.
-
I have been on vacation this week so I am just coming back to the forum. In reference to the "tubes" that keep coming up in the photos. (I have yet to request the dropdown link so I haven't seen all of the photos) Maybe my sunburn is affecting my judgment but could they be broken off pitot tubes?
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lockheed_10_Electra_-_Science_Museum.jpg
Just a thought.
-
Small cylinder shape in the upper left hand corner of #566? :)
-
Small cylinder shape in the upper left hand corner of #566? :)
Yes. That's "Can 2". It's visible in several photos. See discussion earlier in this thread.
-
Small cylinder shape in the upper left hand corner of #566? :)
Yes. That's "Can 2". It's visible in several photos. See discussion earlier in this thread.
Quick on the draw Ric, was just about to edit my question stating that it may simply be another view of can 2!
-
Here's something for pic. 346 comparison: look familiar? Cigarette holders found on Amazon..
Could be, but somehow I don't see Fred using one of those. (Its a funny mental image though!)
-
Here's something for pic. 346 comparison: look familiar? Cigarette holders found on Amazon..
Could be, but somehow I don't see Fred using one of those. (Its a funny mental image though!)
These are sea urchin spines (on land). Look familiar?
-
Im coming into the middle of this after being away for a week so Im unfamiliar with the scale of the images.
-
Im coming into the middle of this after being away for a week so Im unfamiliar with the scale of the images.
You can sort of tell the size the sea urchin spines by the shells around them. They're small. A few inches.
-
"These are sea urchin spines (on land). Look familiar?"
Does sort of look like the "cigarette holder", Ric , but why would there be only one of them if it was a sea urchin spine?
-
"Could be, but somehow I don't see Fred using one of those. (Its a funny mental image though!)"
I'm not saying the cig. holder belongs to Fred, Krystal. It could be anybody's, if it is a cig. holder. (Anybody who happened to be boating in the vicinity may have dropped it; maybe somebody in a fishing boat, maybe somebody from the Fiji Princess, maybe FDR, who knows??)
-
Last round of photos that I gave a second look. I've circulated through all the hail mary images, and then repeated with most images rotated 180 degrees to get a fresh perspective. This is the rest of anything and everything that caught my untrained eye.
First three image attachments:
Image 394/394 cropped/395. Object or growth that stands out. Has a small weird groove at the center... or the groove could be reversed and just be a small bump in the center, giving the illusion of the shape around it. I have noticed in many other images that coral likes to take on semi-circle shapes and sometimes acts fractal-like. I've notice other donut like objects as well, similar to one of my previous posts. In 395, the same "object" has a slightly difference shape to it due to the camera angle. Sometimes I notice an object appears exciting in one image, and completely changes in the next image when the perspective shift shows it's just coral growth.
Last image attachment:
Image 384. Noticed possible shiny edge and another edge turning 90 deg. off of that, located on a boulder of coral growth.
On a last note, a large percentage of the hail mary images were taken relatively close to the reef floor, making it more likely that a massively large object like an intact Electra (relative to the scale of these images) to be out of frame.
-
Greg, I hope you don't mind me borrowing your photo. Im at work and limited to what I can do. What is that silver "peg" looking thing I have circled in yellow? Is it a bubble or something else?
*edited because I must be going blind.
-
In the photo last posted by Greg dsc00384. What position on the hail Mary map was that taken at.
What marine growth is that red stuff? Is that a growth that likes to grow on certain materials. Such as aluminum.
I do see the shiny long object. The edge looks like a shadow of a green viney growth. On
-
http://eatlas.org.au/content/crustose-coralline-algae-and-sedimentation
Could this be the red growth?
-
Greg, I hope you don't mind me borrowing your photo. Im at work and limited to what I can do. What is that silver "peg" looking thing I have circled in yellow? Is it a bubble or something else?
*edited because I must be going blind.
Out of focus dust, there's a whole bunch. The white line is probably some kind of sea life growing on the coral. I see that randomly in other photos.
In the photo last posted by Greg dsc00384. What position on the hail Mary map was that taken at.
What marine growth is that red stuff? Is that a growth that likes to grow on certain materials. Such as aluminum.
I do see the shiny long object. The edge looks like a shadow of a green viney growth. On
I don't believe the photos have yet been matched to the Skiff's GPS points on the map. The GPS points on the surface of the water don't necessarily correspond to the exact position the photos were taken. I don't believe there will be any way to know for sure if the line lowered with the camera was perfectly straight and not skewed slightly in one direction or another based on horizontal movement/drag and/or currents. Does anyone know a way to determine this? The dive weight is resting on the reef floor in many of the photos so wondering if that decreases the camera's resistance to offset from the drop point above.
EDIT:
Found this post on Ric's comment about the skiff in relation to the camera position on this thread https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1714.15.html:
Good news that the skiff was on target. The direction the line bends between the camera and weight might be a clue of the current direction, or any excess line attached to the weight. If that is evident.
There is obvious displacement of the line in many of the photos, as in Frame 401 below, but in others the line is slack as in Frame 435.
Ron Bernier, who was handling the line, says, "The camera did not remain perpendicular and at times the angle may have been 20˚ as the boat was positioning. At one point I pulled it up tens of meters before lowering it back to bottom in an effort to get it closer to being under the skiff. I was so focused on ‘feeling’ the bottom that I am not clear on how the skiff position matched up."
It's not clear whether the displacement of the line was due to current or the movement of the skiff. I wouldn't expect the current to change dramatically minute to minute so I suspect that the strain we see on the line was caused by the fact that the skiff was moving.
-
In this plot of the skiff track, each position where a GPS reading was recorded is numbered in sequence. The attached spreadsheet gives the recorded lat/long each point and the time each reading was taken.
The time each photo was taken can be found in the metadata for that image. Most photo management software will let you access the metadata.
In the attached plot I've put a yellow dot at the approximate position where photos were taken that show "Can 2." The number of the photo and the time are noted. The orange dot is the approximate position of the camera for the one photo (557) that shows "Can 1."
-
This is a mosaic of photos overlaid on the skiff track. The scale and rotation of the mosaic is guesswork based on the field of view in each of the images used in the mosaic.
-
Would it be accurate to say at this point, given the GPS/photo data, that the camera sled missed the sonar anomaly, and no photo coverage exists of the actual sonar target?
i.e. the main anomaly that casts the distinct sonar shadow still needs to be investigated.
I mean, the "cans" in the collage (which are "down-slope" from the anomaly, yes?) appear to be man-made objects and might or might represent debris associated with the main target...but no one will really know until/unless it's determined what the sonar target actually is...
-
Would it be accurate to say at this point, given the GPS/photo data, that the camera sled missed the sonar anomaly, and no photo coverage exists of the actual sonar target?
There was no "sled." At this point it is accurate to say that nothing has yet been seen in the photos that explains the anomaly seen in the 2012 sonar data. That could be because:
• The camera missed the anomaly.
• The camera photographed the anomaly but we don't recognize it.
• The camera passed over or through the anomaly location but whatever caused the anomaly is moved in the three years since the sonar survey.
• The camera passed over or through the anomaly location calculated by OIC but the anomaly position was wrong.
i.e. the main anomaly that casts the distinct sonar shadow still needs to be investigated.
We did investigate it. The investigation has not turned up anything that explains the anomaly. We don't know why. Further investigation is clearly needed.
I mean, the "cans" in the collage (which are "down-slope" from the anomaly, yes?) appear to be man-made objects and might or might represent debris associated with the main target...but no one will really know until/unless it's determined what the sonar target actually is...
The "cans" are the only objects which appear to be undoubtedly man-made. They appear to have a shiny metallic end. What material could possibly still be shiny after 78 years in salt water? The "cans" - whatever they are - seem to be fairly recent arrivals.
-
The "cans" - whatever they are - seem to be fairly recent arrivals.
[/quote]
Is there anyway of knowing if someone else, possibly a recreational sailor, has visited the island? If I were a sailor sailing in those waters, it would be tempting to stop by and visit for a day or two. The location is certainly well known by now.
The longish item in one of the pics sure seem "clean" possibly being recent.
Is/was there any metal detecting device on the rov? Is that even possible?
Jim
-
Is there anyway of knowing if someone else, possibly a recreational sailor, has visited the island?
Not if they didn't sign the Guestbook. :-)
Is/was there any metal detecting device on the rov? Is that even possible?
Yes, the technology exists. We actually wanted to have one on the ROV but the company that developed it couldn't move quickly enough. Another frustration.
-
I appreciate the difficulty in working with the mosaic , and the problems associated with determining the size of the objects in the photos, .....a real challange. I appreciate the effort.
Some observations, ...I note that the tubular object in the attachment below , seems to have a pyramid shape on the tip, much like a common nail , or spike. The cylindrical object, that has been described as being flattened on one end, (and if the circular objects I outlined in the attached image are attached ), it reminds me of one of those keys, used to open a spam /sardine can,... red outlining the curved portion , yellow outlining possible parts of the lid removed in the process.
-
attachment;
Has the size of this object been determined/ undetermined?
-
In image 394, go to the very right handside, then move 3/4 down, there's an object that looks similar to a stirrup shape with a central piece that is sticking out. I'm not great at the highlighting stuff on pictures.
Last round of photos that I gave a second look. I've circulated through all the hail mary images, and then repeated with most images rotated 180 degrees to get a fresh perspective. This is the rest of anything and everything that caught my untrained eye.
First three image attachments:
Image 394/394 cropped/395. Object or growth that stands out. Has a small weird groove at the center... or the groove could be reversed and just be a small bump in the center, giving the illusion of the shape around it. I have noticed in many other images that coral likes to take on semi-circle shapes and sometimes acts fractal-like. I've notice other donut like objects as well, similar to one of my previous posts. In 395, the same "object" has a slightly difference shape to it due to the camera angle. Sometimes I notice an object appears exciting in one image, and completely changes in the next image when the perspective shift shows it's just coral growth.
Last image attachment:
Image 384. Noticed possible shiny edge and another edge turning 90 deg. off of that, located on a boulder of coral growth.
On a last note, a large percentage of the hail mary images were taken relatively close to the reef floor, making it more likely that a massively large object like an intact Electra (relative to the scale of these images) to be out of frame.
-
Hi all
Image 634 at 2 o'clock in image there is a y shaped object that appears to be embedded upside down, what ever it's made of 2 pieces don't go to one, sorry can't post image but zoom in at 2 o'clock an ye will see the object.
My apologies if this has been brought up before
-
In image 394, go to the very right handside, then move 3/4 down, there's an object that looks similar to a stirrup shape with a central piece that is sticking out. I'm not great at the highlighting stuff on pictures.
Last round of photos that I gave a second look. I've circulated through all the hail mary images, and then repeated with most images rotated 180 degrees to get a fresh perspective. This is the rest of anything and everything that caught my untrained eye.
First three image attachments:
Image 394/394 cropped/395. Object or growth that stands out. Has a small weird groove at the center... or the groove could be reversed and just be a small bump in the center, giving the illusion of the shape around it. I have noticed in many other images that coral likes to take on semi-circle shapes and sometimes acts fractal-like. I've notice other donut like objects as well, similar to one of my previous posts. In 395, the same "object" has a slightly difference shape to it due to the camera angle. Sometimes I notice an object appears exciting in one image, and completely changes in the next image when the perspective shift shows it's just coral growth.
Last image attachment:
Image 384. Noticed possible shiny edge and another edge turning 90 deg. off of that, located on a boulder of coral growth.
On a last note, a large percentage of the hail mary images were taken relatively close to the reef floor, making it more likely that a massively large object like an intact Electra (relative to the scale of these images) to be out of frame.
I just see coral, including in 395 where the right hand side of 394 is clearer.
-
Hi all
Image 634 at 2 o'clock in image there is a y shaped object that appears to be embedded upside down, what ever it's made of 2 pieces don't go to one, sorry can't post image but zoom in at 2 o'clock an ye will see the object.
My apologies if this has been brought up before
Looks like one of those sea urchin spines.
-
We did investigate it. The investigation has not turned up anything that explains the anomaly. We don't know why. Further investigation is clearly needed.
I guess I'm just having another one of my dense days. What additional investigation can be brought to bear on the Hail Mary photos that we haven't already used? Because those few photo's all we're going to get for the immediate future, unless someone is sitting on some wonderfully generous news.
LTM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 CE
-
We did investigate it. The investigation has not turned up anything that explains the anomaly. We don't know why. Further investigation is clearly needed.
I guess I'm just having another one of my dense days. What additional investigation can be brought to bear on the Hail Mary photos that we haven't already used? Because those few photo's all we're going to get for the immediate future, unless someone is sitting on some wonderfully generous news.
LTM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 CE
Further investigation... probably as in clear HD VIDEO using a ROV/manned submersible that precisely covers the GPS coordinates of where the anomaly was measured in 2012. Video will provide better judgment on the perspective of what we're seeing. The inherent uncertainty of the hail mary attempt had a high probably of leading to further investigation.
-
Greg
It is very clear, all you need to do is expand the picture, it is as I described.
Richie actually got the picture number wrong, he was referring to 394 as well, not 694.
I can see it, he can see it.
In image 394, go to the very right handside, then move 3/4 down, there's an object that looks similar to a stirrup shape with a central piece that is sticking out. I'm not great at the highlighting stuff on pictures.
Last round of photos that I gave a second look. I've circulated through all the hail mary images, and then repeated with most images rotated 180 degrees to get a fresh perspective. This is the rest of anything and everything that caught my untrained eye.
First three image attachments:
Image 394/394 cropped/395. Object or growth that stands out. Has a small weird groove at the center... or the groove could be reversed and just be a small bump in the center, giving the illusion of the shape around it. I have noticed in many other images that coral likes to take on semi-circle shapes and sometimes acts fractal-like. I've notice other donut like objects as well, similar to one of my previous posts. In 395, the same "object" has a slightly difference shape to it due to the camera angle. Sometimes I notice an object appears exciting in one image, and completely changes in the next image when the perspective shift shows it's just coral growth.
Last image attachment:
Image 384. Noticed possible shiny edge and another edge turning 90 deg. off of that, located on a boulder of coral growth.
On a last note, a large percentage of the hail mary images were taken relatively close to the reef floor, making it more likely that a massively large object like an intact Electra (relative to the scale of these images) to be out of frame.
I just see coral, including in 395 where the right hand side of 394 is clearer.
-
Sorry, don't see what you're describing. How do you know Richie was referring to 394, when he said 634, and you said he accidentally referred to 694?? I'm confused. Why wouldn't I have expanded the picture?
Narrow it down for me...Is it in one of the quadrants highlighted below?
-
attachment;
-
attachment;
I'll go with small fish on this one... Remember the scale is 2.5" between the two red laser dots.
-
I agree,..the closer view really helped.
-
According to the in-progress image plot of the hail mary GPS map that Ric posted on page 5 of this thread, if the camera actually passed over, or very near, the anomaly, I'm estimating that images ~570 through ~600 +/- are on the line of the anomaly between the points 38, 39, and 40 on the map. Something did draw my attention in images 573 through 577. I have no interest in labeling objects, just pointing out curiosities.
Here's what I noticed, best seen in image 574 and 577. I noticed a strange curve, possible shadow lines, and darkness, but that's all. Could be coral for all I know. Image 577 is rotated 90 deg. clockwise from image 574.
-
Sorry guys for some reason the image is labeled DSC00634 however in the address bar it says DSC00638
Anyway here is the image with line arrow pointing to what ever it is sticking out ground
-
Does anybody know or have a link to what the push/pull control cable knobs looked like on an Electra?
-
Hi Greg
Draw another box of the same size on the left handside of box No.1, the object that Richie and I described can be found in the new box, just zoom in. It is very clear indeed! There is no confusion at all, the object he described can only be found in 394.
Although Richie now states:- 'Sorry guys for some reason the image is labeled DSC00634 however in the address bar it says DSC00638
Anyway here is the image with line arrow pointing to what ever it is sticking out ground'
Sorry, don't see what you're describing. How do you know Richie was referring to 394, when he said 634, and you said he accidentally referred to 694?? I'm confused. Why wouldn't I have expanded the picture?
Narrow it down for me...Is it in one of the quadrants highlighted below?
-
Looks like a horn caddis, from a fisherman's and zoologist's point of view. But of course it's not :)
It's great that we're doing the micro stuff, and I hope that leads to something, but I get the feeling we're missing the macro...
-
Ric, we’ve gotten to six pages of Forum member comments but I don’t think anyone on the forum has suggested that there is anything that looks particularly promising in terms of possible linkage to the Electra. I imagine you've examined these photos, and perhaps others have too (EPAC members?). Has that analysis been completed yet? Is there an interesting story to tell about objects in any of these pictures that we haven’t heard yet? Has anything 'Glickman-worthy (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8FjmbRParcc)' been identified? At what point do you see being able to provide some sort of summary statement about the Hail Mary photos?
Thanks…
-
In image #394, if the dots are 2.5" apart then here's some straight object 7.5 inches long. Maybe it's a drinking straw.
Can't wait to see the contour of the anomaly once the mosaic is complete.
-
Smooth, metallic nipple in #403.
Maybe it's a jelly?
-
I'd bet a lot of money on that being the inside of one half of a bi valve mollusk shell. In fact the other half could well be to the right of it in the image.
I have to agree with you on the identification, though I can't find the other half.
-
Who cares about the other half?! We're looking for a frickin plane here!
-
Keep at it Greg! There's got to be a plane here somewhere!
-
Oh I've gone through the images many times over, and continue to spot things I haven't noticed before. Nothing that's worthy of posting on the forum,.. yet.... I'm not going to point to out of focus bubbles or sea shells (aka metallic nipples) and ask "what's that?... no you're pointing to the wrong object, but wait that looks interesting too, like a stirrup shape..." ZOOM in and use your reasoning skills to judge before posting. IMO.
Images 568 through 595 intrigue me the most, but I can't quite say why. There's more to see in terms of topography, possibly because they fall within the line, on the new 2015 GPS plot map, that the supposed anomaly was established on the 2012 sonar map. But I still can't attribute these features to the anomaly since I don't know if the camera actually matched up to the GPS coordinates taken from the SURFACE of the water. I also can't discern the 3d dimensional qualities of these features (height/depth) since the images provide only so much 2d information. It's hard to say, at Niku, how much coral can grow on (and obscure) a relatively intact man-made object that's been sitting underwater at 600ft for 75+ years. Could it be totally encrusted over by now??
-
You've got the right idea, Greg. In answer to your last question, if it would be totally encrusted over, I think it can be, but not level with the surrounding terrain. The deeper it is the more junk would have fallen on it, I suppose. We may never know!
-
Go look at images of WWII sunken aircraft and also look at side scan sonar images of aircraft. Those planes have been under the Pacific Ocean nearly the same length of time as the Electra. I don't see why it wouldn't look nearly the same. Those aircraft are easily recognizable and are not completely covered over in coral. They jump out in the side scan images. I would even say ( not to be negative) that the images of the " anomaly" are nowhere near as obvious that it's an aircraft. But I'm still hopeful.
-
Dang dang dang. I don't think there is anything in the photos I've seen. I also don't think the anomaly is the fuselage. At least not one long piece. I believe the stories of pieces of fuselage on the far shore of the lagoon. I hate that it is so hard to find. To prove tighars hypothesis. Dang dang dang.
This just means try again is all.
Da#!$@!
Keep going gentlemen.
-
Morning Guys...Hey was looking at some of these photos this evening and noticed two things. Please give me your insight...thanks!!! The first picture I believe circled is an old fashioned key! The second image is what I believe to be a tire!!!
-
Go look at images of WWII sunken aircraft and also look at side scan sonar images of aircraft. Those planes have been under the Pacific Ocean nearly the same length of time as the Electra. I don't see why it wouldn't look nearly the same. Those aircraft are easily recognizable and are not completely covered over in coral. They jump out in the side scan images. I would even say ( not to be negative) that the images of the " anomaly" are nowhere near as obvious that it's an aircraft. But I'm still hopeful.
I believe you've touched the heart of the thing, Mark.
The bulk of evidence that can be seen as to known sunken wrecks and by what my engineering friends seem to think, there's little reason to believe that the Electra would lie broken up and scattered in a 'debris field' of tiny parts. There's also ample evidence as you speak of that such relics are not typically concreted over or covered with growth. It does seem reasonable that the Electra would likely be quite recognizable - and it does seem to me by the examples you cite that sonar data should likely be more definitive and not leave such an amorphous signature as this 'anomaly' were that the Electra - but what do I know?
-
I don't believe you can compare one wreck site to another without also considering the environmental conditions of the sites. I believe the depth, water temperature, even if it is blocked from the prevailing currents by an island should all play a roll in the amount of marine growth. Consider the flaperon that is potentially part of MH370. They are considering the type of marine growth on it to determine what part of the ocean it came from.
I am involved in academic research but this is not my field, so this is just my opinion.
-
There should be a pretty good reference for the type and amount of marine growth on metal over 70 or 80 years on that reef from the materials of the Norwich City just a couple of hundred metres away. I think the most of the parts of the NC were probably more susceptible to corrosion than the aluminum of the Electra would be but otherwise they should have have similar levels of covering with or coral or sediment.
-
There should be a pretty good reference for the type and amount of marine growth on metal over 70 or 80 years on that reef from the materials of the Norwich City just a couple of hundred metres away. I think the most of the parts of the NC were probably more susceptible to corrosion than the aluminum of the Electra would be but otherwise they should have have similar levels of covering with or coral or sediment.
You'd have to have some map of what parts of the NC fell off and when they fell off to use it as a reliable guide.
They didn't exit the ship and the reef all at once.
But, with that caveat, yes, it might be a good model.
-
Looking at the various pictures from the latest exploring, it looks like some objects are newer or later placed than others. If there was a way to take a digger tool for the divers next trip to more closely examine the objects, wouldn't that be a possibility, without constituting a "salvage operation" that would cause some political complications? Some smaller items could easily be handled for transportation to a testing lab or whatever to get some expert answers on age and material composition, etc. Tighar has been here before, and we can make things up more or go back to some earlier hypothesis for similar findings, but the island may not be there forever! I feel some sense of urgency to find real answers now!
-
Those planes have been under the Pacific Ocean nearly the same length of time as the Electra. I don't see why it wouldn't look nearly the same. Those aircraft are easily recognizable and are not completely covered over in coral.
It could be due to differences in circumstances as to how the two examples of aircraft came to rest. If the plane came straight down into the water and say into the shallows around a harbor, it's resting above the lining of the ocean floor below it. But in the Electra I think the prevailing theory is that it slid down a slope, very likely dragging a slide of lining down over it, partially or completely burying itself in silt and pieces of coral. If that's the case, then maybe what happened was the corals grew in and there's just -- who knows -- a foot or so of coral regrowth and compressed silt encrusting the fuselage, maybe built up more along one side (toward the top of the slope it fell from) than the other (towards the deep).
[Edit: I say, hoping that's what happened, as a possible good-case scenario. Worst case scenario in my mind: the anomaly is a depression representing where the Electra did sit for some time.]
-
Near the blue and gray object in 346 is what appears to be a curved piece of wire reminiscent of the famous curved wire in the 2010 "wire & rope " ROV video.
Any way to analyze the circumference of the two to see if they are the same. You may not have accurate scaling.
-
This is a mosaic of photos overlaid on the skiff track. The scale and rotation of the mosaic is guesswork based on the field of view in each of the images used in the mosaic.
I keep looking at # 559 in the middle and the rock towards the lower left appears to be the same rock that it almost starts to overlap just to its left, in the merged photo. I underlined this suspect rock in yellow.
There's a shelf of hard material stretching toward the top away from the one on the left; but not the one on the right. What's there however is the anchor, appearing to be making a trail of sand. It's possible that these (underlined in yellow) are the same rock from different angles.
Sorry if this isn't very helpful or I'm just missing part of the process; I've never attempted to rebuild a scene like this and wouldn't know where to start. I wish I had the right kind of software to attempt to merge photos like that, it looks very smooth.
-
"Can 2" reminds me of an ammunition cartridge. What is the distance between the red laser dots again?
2.5 inches. Pretty big ammunition cartridge.
Looks like a battery. You mentioned about the size of a D...may be exactly what it is.
On another note, I am aware of some investigations into anomalies on the Martian surface that used fractal analysis to identify unusual, potentially non-natural objects. Any chance that such an approach could be applied here?
Who is looking for non-natural objects on Mars? Sounds a bit "out there." Do you have a link to a reputable source?
-
Attached to cylindrical object????? If so, a wire spool,??, void of wire???, color appears to change from blue to silver near the end , as if the object was rotating inside a sleave or collar of some sort. Circled object resembles the end of an electrical cord, to me , but don't see any wire coming from it, so it would have to be nipped off, to be that.
Looks like a pencil or pen...aluminum eraser top.
-
I presume that once the mosaic is ready larger scale features will be easier to spot...
The mosaic should give us a better idea of what the bottom topography looks like and where things are in relation to each other. The mosaic is coming along but it's a tedious process.
That will be great! That was eye opening when they did that with the Titanic.
-
Did the Electra float off or get dragged off the reef in a violent action. Did it get pounded back onto the reef edge during any kind of wave action. These are the question that would determine if it was in pieces or in a large piece. We only have minor clues. The bevington photo. The stories of fuselage in the lagoon shore areas. And the seven sites. As well as the Gallagher bones / extant box documentation.
Not to mention 22v1. How do we figure out how many pieces we are going to see or find?
-
Probably by seeing or finding pieces.
-
I believe there are more "things" visible in #394 upper right corner possibly tail wheel partially covered with corral
-
I believe there are more "things" visible in #394 upper right corner possibly tail wheel partially covered with corral
...or it could be a banjo.
We've had a lot of eyeballs on these photos - expert and amateur - and it is apparent that there's nothing there that explains the anomaly even though we had pretty good coverage in the area where the anomaly is supposed to be. The lat/long coordinates provided to us by Ocean Imaging Consultants (OIC) were based on AUV position data provided by Phoenix International, the contractor who ran the sonar-equipped AUV. An exhaustive review of Phoenix navigational procedures and performance over the last few weeks lead to the inescapable conclusion that the AUV position data are unreliable and can be off by dozens of meters. The most logical and likely explanation for the absence of useful information in the photos is that the Hail Mary operation was looking in the wrong place.
Many TIGHAR members have requested links to the dropbox containing the photos and it's only fair to wait to see if anyone finds anything the rest of us have missed but at this point it looks like Hail Mary, as creative and well-executed as it was under the circumstances, was a bust.
-
Thanks Ric for that disappointing and difficult, but forthright and honest answer. Your diligence and perseverance in the operation of this exploration is greatly appreciated, no matter what the outcome. Unpredictable circumstances sometimes don't allow our desired result.
-
I rather hope we haven't paid Phoenix International anything; they're not looking very good at all.
Have we?
LTM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189CE
-
I rather hope we haven't paid Phoenix International anything; they're not looking very good at all.
Have we?
Only $860,000 - up front, before the 2012 expedition.
They started not looking very good as soon as we got to Niku. Their performance was abysmal and their failures have been devastating to TIGHAR and to the search for the airplane. How it all came about is a story that needs to be told. I'll do that as a separate topic when I have time.
-
I rather hope we haven't paid Phoenix International anything; they're not looking very good at all.
Have we?
Only $860,000 - up front, before the 2012 expedition.
They started not looking very good as soon as we got to Niku. Their performance was abysmal and their failures have been devastating to TIGHAR and to the search for the airplane. How it all came about is a story that needs to be told. I'll do that as a separate topic when I have time.
Ric,
That implies confidence problems with the 'anomaly' itself, if I follow. We know there were data compression issues and skipped pings with some of that older data (please correct me if I've gotten that conflated with some other detail of the 2012 search) and that 'sizing' of the 'image' (or 'shadow') was questionable until sorted out by another source. It still seems a bit shaky to me, frankly.
Is TIGHAR re-evaluating the reliability of the anomaly imagery itself because of all this?
Don't get me wrong - you know I'm a 'look wide and deep' guy at this point anyway, but that doesn't mean 'no confidence' in 'Niku, somewhere (as in deeper and further out, maybe even further 'around' the island)', and while I wouldn't quarrel with an 'look at it as can' (and the old 'debris field') if one gets back for a macro-scopic expedition, I wonder more than ever how wise any further singular pursuit of the anomaly really would be at this point.
I also realize I'm a pain in the ass for long asserting the 'wider / deeper' idea - widely and deeply at that - so I fully understand any salt grains falling my way. But this question now seems more crucial than ever - how much can we rely on any of this 'anomaly' business from P.I.?
I do agree that what has happened out there with this ROV business has unquestionably been devastating and I can surely understand the deepest frustrations in that. All I can say is this is a huge business and you have to vet the bloody hell out of anyone you want to use, long and hard. With all due respect, it being a big, high-risk effort, patience may be the irreplaceable virtue to get it right: what appeared to be intended as a rather 'doable surgical strike' seems to have turned into more of a near-Minie' ball hit to the gut.
I know I don't need to point out how long and hard one has to work to get 'big guns' on the job, if it can be done. This thing's clearly an awfully tough nut to crack, and I well realize the temptation to go after incremental shots at solving it - but it seems we have a plate full of lessons to take to heart about all that by now.
I hope Phoenix International will also learn from your critical review of their performance - but it would take a lot for me to ever want to consider them again were I you.
-
I have to say that for $860,000 I'll be happy to get a disposable underwater camera and get better pictures for you! You know what, just for TIGHAR, I'll even gear up with all my pro underwater cameras and HD video equipment and get pictures of some really nice groupers too.
Yea, it's snarky, but that is such a massive amount of money for such miserable results that it boggles the mind.
-
That implies confidence problems with the 'anomaly' itself, if I follow. We know there were data compression issues and skipped pings with some of that older data (please correct me if I've gotten that conflated with some other detail of the 2012 search) and that 'sizing' of the 'image' (or 'shadow') was questionable until sorted out by another source. It still seems a bit shaky to me, frankly.
I see no reason to doubt Ocean Imaging Consultants' representation and sizing of the sonar anomaly. They were simply post-processing the raw data. They didn't have a dog in the fight. It's the position data that are questionable because we know there were problems with the way Phoenix set up the navigation system. The interpretation of the anomaly is a separate issue entirely. OIC offered no opinion on what the anomaly might be. We asked several people who have expertise in sonar interpretation and, predictably, we got a variety of opinions from "definitely a man-made object" to "probably geology." I've said from the start that, in my opinion, the chances that the anomaly is the airplane are no better than 50/50.
Is TIGHAR re-evaluating the reliability of the anomaly imagery itself because of all this?
My opinion of the anomaly hasn't changed. I think it should be investigated but I don't think the chances that it's the airplane are better than 50/50.
Don't get me wrong - you know I'm a 'look wide and deep' guy at this point anyway, but that doesn't mean 'no confidence' in 'Niku, somewhere (as in deeper and further out, maybe even further 'around' the island)', and while I wouldn't quarrel with an 'look at it as can' (and the old 'debris field') if one gets back for a macro-scopic expedition, I wonder more than ever how wise any further singular pursuit of the anomaly really would be at this point.
How crazy would I have to be to not want to look wide and deep?
I know I don't need to point out how long and hard one has to work to get 'big guns' on the job, if it can be done. This thing's clearly an awfully tough nut to crack, and I well realize the temptation to go after incremental shots at solving it - but it seems we have a plate full of lessons to take to heart about all that by now.
Tell me something I don't know.
I hope Phoenix International will also learn from your critical review of their performance - but it would take a lot for me to ever want to consider them again were I you.
It goes way beyond that. We feel that Phoenix is liable for their nonperformance. We want our money back.
-
That's certainly disappointing news, but it is not all bad. That means that both the debris field and the anomaly are likely still there, just not in the locations that we thought. Is OIC able to correct any of the location data? Is that even possible? I was also curious about the possiblity of having the entire sonar map processed by OIC, given the huge difference between the pre- and post-processed anomaly images. Could that lead to new targets, or revisiting previous targets such as the "wing target"? (If I remember right, there was some uncertainty as to if the "wing" was actually located.) What would the cost be for something like that?
-
It goes way beyond that. We feel that Phoenix is liable for their nonperformance. We want our money back.
Don't forget that lives were put at risk searching for the debris field. That was not your average recreational dive.
-
Thanks, Ric.
I appreciate your "50/50" analysis - and respect that it's difficult to assign hard values to these things, at best. I've been shown arguments that 'airplanes' and similar objects show themselves more clearly when 'pinged' and have my own reservations - but also realize that an 'anomaly' is just that - and that it showed itself for some reason, true.
"Tell me something I don't know." - well, as I said... ;)
I think you are very right to hold Phoenix fully responsible as well; given the nature of their sea-going business, they must (or absolutely should) know all too well the stake they hold for performance in these expeditions. Good start on the 'lessons learned' in applying these things aggressively, IMO.
-
That means that both the debris field and the anomaly are likely still there, just not in the locations that we thought.
Yes.
Is OIC able to correct any of the location data? Is that even possible?
Probably not.
I was also curious about the possiblity of having the entire sonar map processed by OIC, given the huge difference between the pre- and post-processed anomaly images. Could that lead to new targets, or revisiting previous targets such as the "wing target"? (If I remember right, there was some uncertainty as to if the "wing" was actually located.) What would the cost be for something like that?
Good question. It's something we might want to pursue.
-
I think you are very right to hold Phoenix fully responsible as well; given the nature of their sea-going business, they must (or absolutely should) know all too well the stake they hold for performance in these expeditions.
Consider this. Phoenix was the initial contractor on the MH370 search using the exact same piece of equipment - Bluefin 21 AUV - that performed so poorly on the TIGHAR expedition. Now that we know for certain that the 777 went in the water, how certain can we be that it wasn't within the area Phoenix searched?
-
Consider this. Phoenix was the initial contractor on the MH370 search using the exact same piece of equipment - Bluefin 21 AUV - that performed so poorly on the TIGHAR expedition. Now that we know for certain that the 777 went in the water, how certain can we be that it wasn't within the area Phoenix searched?
One would hope that they would at least be capable of locating a large, likely intact airliner on a sandy ocean bottom, which is almost the complete opposite of the Niku environment. I'm even going as far as to be willing to chalk up their failure to bad luck/evil island spirits/AE's ghost/whatever the reason is for the difficulties encountered around that place. But then again I have never seen them in action, much less worked with them, and it sounds like their problems go deeper than that.
-
Dozens of yards make a huge difference in terms of getting back to the anomaly or debris field area at Niku, but should not so much in an open ocean floor search for the major chunk(s) of a 777.
That leads me to wonder if Phoenix truly understood the criticality of TIGHAR's need for precision, and whether their error is actually within the bounds of reasonable tolerance for open sea floor searching according to more common terms they may deal with. Their site information (http://www.phnx-international.com/auv-equipment.html) says:
An onboard Inertial Navigation System, Doppler Velocity Log, Ring Laser Gyro, and depth sensor combined with an UltraShort Baseline (USBL) System produce highly accurate, repeatable and reliable navigation and positioning of the vehicle.
Which implies more accuracy than my supposition above would expect, as I read it.
This is all educational as to the intricacy of processes involved in qualifying equipment and suppliers and getting an effective search done. It is also very sobering news about what must happen to make any sort of 'surgical hit' occur with true confidence: dozens of yards in tolerance is a no-go.
There may not be a true means of doing so precise a search after all if 'Bluefin' cannot do better - and other brands can't outperform: 'deeper and wider' may have to embrace 'much wider' in such cases, to ensure that the desired areas are re-captured.
Do others than Phoenix demonstrate a more precise technology for subsea placement? I wonder about benchmarking capabilities.
-
That leads me to wonder if Phoenix truly understood the criticality of TIGHAR's need for precision,
Phoenix understood. They did not deliver the accuracy they promised.
This is all educational as to the intricacy of processes involved in qualifying equipment and suppliers and getting an effective search done. It is also very sobering news about what must happen to make any sort of 'surgical hit' occur with true confidence: dozens of yards in tolerance is a no-go.
"Surgical hits" are what ROVs are best at.
The question is whether we're talking about re-doing the sonar survey or using an ROV to check out the targets detected in the sonar data Phoenix collected in 2012 even if the position of the target is off by dozens of meters.
The 2012 expedition had two types of vehicle aboard - an AUV equipped with side-scan sonar to do the sonar survey, and an ROV equipped with cameras to check out targets. Properly calibrated and deployed, both technologies should deliver position accuracy within a few meters. Re-doing the sonar survey AND checking out targets with an ROV means duplicating the 2012 expedition but with a competent contractor. As noted, Phoenix charged us $860,000 for what they did in 2012.
-
Well, since Phoenix kind of got TIGHAR into a 'can't find her backside with both hands' situation on this thing (may as well laugh as cry) maybe the return of that $860K would be a good start toward a redux... which might be a partial foundation for a more sweeping effort (broader and deeper...)?
Just a thought. More brain gas sez 'really broader and deeper' needed... but we already talked about that, I know.
-
Probably by seeing or finding pieces.
Sorry everyone including you Gary. I didn't finish before I posted. Totally my fault. My question should have said how would we know if it was in large piece of pieces. Or totally shredded into small pieces.
Sorry for my incomplete post.
-
As far as Phoenix and cost. When I first saw it. I thought I saw 860.00 not 860k. If they botched a job they were paid for they are liable for the botch I think.
How many real competent and willing contractors are there? Well forget that.
Eyes on I think is what's really needed. However it's done. Now that we have sonar. Its got to be pretty close. Close enough to find.
Who knows what direction the camera was pointed.
-
Probably by seeing or finding pieces.
Sorry everyone including you Gary. I didn't finish before I posted. Totally my fault. My question should have said how would we know if it was in large piece of pieces. Or totally shredded into small pieces.
Sorry for my incomplete post.
Wasn't incomplete... I knew what you were saying. The only way to know, as my original response stated, is to actually find abundant pieces (small or large) to know how the Electra ended up. We can only guess before that. The name's Greg!
-
Greg sorry. Meaning how do we tell what were looking for. What we find is different than what were looking for.
-
Just lay it aside Craig. Tomorrow is another day!
-
Well, since Phoenix kind of got TIGHAR into a 'can't find her backside with both hands' situation on this thing (may as well laugh as cry) maybe the return of that $860K would be a good start toward a redux... which might be a partial foundation for a more sweeping effort (broader and deeper...)?
Depends on the language in the services contract. Were any results guaranteed? Probably not.
-
No results were guaranteed but they failed to deliver the professional services contracted for.
-
At the very least there is a reasonable expectation of professional results, even if those results end up being nothing. For any amount of money, certainly for just south of $1M, you don't expect for full equipment failure without reasonable backup equipment nor do you expect that the coordinates of the search are any other than correct. For a total system failure there is no excuse. For having submitted the sonar results as a single piece - thus providing incorrect data - and not correcting their results to include the dead spots of the sonar data again shows incompetence or lack of understanding of their job.
I would be surprised if you got a 100% refund but based on the data gathered and the performance of the company I would expect a significant portion of it.
-
Ric,
Does TIGHAR have an escrow account set up to deposit all the refund money into or does the money (if any) go into the general operating fund?
Ted
-
Is it not to late to try and get any monies back of Phoenix? Or even if not surely the initial legal cost would be prohibitive what with the recent Tim Mellon cases es and the possible IRS investigation?
The only way TIGHAR would bring legal action against Phoenix is if we could find a law firm licensed in Virginia who would take on the case pro bono or on a contingency basis - but that has nothing to do with the Mellon lawsuit or his equally groundless complaint to the IRS.
-
Does TIGHAR have an escrow account set up to deposit all the refund money into or does the money (if any) go into the general operating fund?
Were TIGHAR able to recover funds from Phoenix the money would be used as directed by the TIGHAR board of directors.
-
It's not a good idea to speculate about possible litigation in a public forum. Let's stay on topic. The topic is the Hail Mary Analysis and I'm not sure there is much more to say.
-
Is it not to late to try and get any monies back of Phoenix? Or even if not surely the initial legal cost would be prohibitive what with the recent Tim Mellon cases es and the possible IRS investigation?
The only way TIGHAR would bring legal action against Phoenix is if we could find a law firm licensed in Virginia who would take on the case pro bono or on a contingency basis - but that has nothing to do with the Mellon lawsuit or his equally groundless complaint to the IRS.
Phoenix is headquartered in Maryland, not Virginia, Ric.
Jeff P.
-
Phoenix is headquartered in Maryland, not Virginia, Ric.
They're licensed as a Virginia corporation.
-
The ingenuity of the improvised "Hail Mary" effort was striking. Would there be a way to incorporate this low-tech approach into a larger planned apparatus? What I have in mind is a framework maybe twenty feet across with several fixed cameras mounted and pointing to cover a fair swath of underwater terrain. The purpose would to "sweep" the area -- not a remote vehicle darting between the boulders with its pinpoint beam of light, but a broad mower approach looking for fairly sizable artifacts. The frame could be constructed to be "deeper" at one end, to roughly match the slope. The frame would be towed by a large vessell or its auxillary watercraft. The frame could be shipped in components and easily assembled on site. Progress and mapping could be matched with GPS positioning. In other words, a "one-off" apparatus designed specifically for the conditions of Niku and the sole mission of covering lots of terrain.
Scott
#3292
-
The ingenuity of the improvised "Hail Mary" effort was striking.
Agreed.
Kudos to the MacGyvers who did their level best to find the anomaly!
-
The ingenuity of the improvised "Hail Mary" effort was striking. Would there be a way to incorporate this low-tech approach into a larger planned apparatus?
It's an interesting idea. Thanks.
-
I'm sure you have seen some impressive images using an array of gopro cameras. something like this but pointing "outside" of apparatus?:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKtAuflyc5w (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKtAuflyc5w)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ToLg3IjfywU (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ToLg3IjfywU)
-
The greater the horizontal aspect of the device is, the more chance of it getting snagged. There may be less control too.
-
We've had a lot of eyeballs on these photos - expert and amateur - and it is apparent that there's nothing there that explains the anomaly even though we had pretty good coverage in the area where the anomaly is supposed to be. The lat/long coordinates provided to us by Ocean Imaging Consultants (OIC) were based on AUV position data provided by Phoenix International, the contractor who ran the sonar-equipped AUV. An exhaustive review of Phoenix navigational procedures and performance over the last few weeks lead to the inescapable conclusion that the AUV position data are unreliable and can be off by dozens of meters. The most logical and likely explanation for the absence of useful information in the photos is that the Hail Mary operation was looking in the wrong place.
Ric,
Your post quoted above says your conclusion that the Hail Mary imaging attempt missed the side-scan sonar "anomaly" is based on your review of the procedures used by and the navigational performance achieved by Phoenix during Niku VII in 2012.
You have also stated in earlier posts that nothing observed in the Hail Mary images appears to indicate you were imaging portions of the sonar anomaly.
Several questions:
(1) Can you give specifics on the details of your analysis of the 2012 navigation data and prodecures -- what exactly you looked at, what errors you saw, what flaws you concluded existed in the procedures used by Phoenix?
(2) Can you give specifics on what observations you looking for in the Hail Mary images that would have led you to conclude you did actually image the sonar anomaly? (Or, conversely, what did you not see in the images which supported your conclusion that you did not image the anomaly?)
Thanks,
Jeff P.
Modified to fix misplacement of [/quote]
-
Does TIGHAR have an escrow account set up to deposit all the refund money into or does the money (if any) go into the general operating fund?
Were TIGHAR able to recover funds from Phoenix the money would be used as directed by the TIGHAR board of directors.
I agree it isn't good to speculate about such actions here.
That said, Ted's point is awfully important: your donors also feel that pinch and no doubt would expect a lot from your board as to it's discretion on that because those monies were given for a particular purpose that donors would expect to see carried through. Using such funds otherwise, if recovered, might not be of strong credit to the board. 'Escrow' was a good point: 'funds intended for a specific purpose being held for same' I think is at the core of that thought.
Just sayin'.
-
(1) Can you give specifics on the details of your analysis of the 2012 navigation data and prodecures -- what exactly you looked at, what errors you saw, what flaws you concluded existed in the procedures used by Phoenix?
I could post Bob Brandenburg's many emails describing the steps he went through in analyzing the 2012 navigation data but two things would result:
- Your eyes would quickly glaze-over. If you doubt me, let me ask whether you are familiar with the terms Straza tower, USBL, Winfrog, and Sonardyne.
- We would be tipping our hand about how we would make our case should we ever decide to bring a legal action against Phoenix.
(2) Can you give specifics on what observations you looking for in the Hail Mary images that would have led you to conclude you did actually image the sonar anomaly? (Or, conversely, what did you not see in the images which supported your conclusion that you did not image the anomaly?)
That one is easy. We didn't see a big ol' airplane nor did we see a big ol' ridge of coral that would cause a long and quite distinct sonar shadow. Everything in the Hail Mary imagery looks normally random and very much like other areas at the same depth in ROV video from 2012. In other words, there's nothing anomalous there to explain the anomaly.
-
I agree it isn't good to speculate about such actions here.
I glad you agree.
That said, Ted's point is awfully important: your donors also feel that pinch and no doubt would expect a lot from your board as to it's discretion on that because those monies were given for a particular purpose that donors would expect to see carried through. Using such funds otherwise, if recovered, might not be of strong credit to the board. 'Escrow' was a good point: 'funds intended for a specific purpose being held for same' I think is at the core of that thought.
Thank you for your thoughts.
-
No results were guaranteed but they failed to deliver the professional services contracted for.
Then they are liable for their nonfeasance. Virginia State Bar http://www.vsb.org/site/public/faqs (http://www.vsb.org/site/public/faqs)
-
Then they are liable for their nonfeasance. Virginia State Bar http://www.vsb.org/site/public/faqs (http://www.vsb.org/site/public/faqs)
I talked to the Virginia State Bar Association referral service some time ago hoping that they could point me to firms that have pro bono programs or accept cases on contingency terms. They don't have that kind of information.
-
My attorney brother once noted to me that lawyers and clients each have their preferred spelling of a crucial word:
Clients tend to spell it as 'principle', whereas attorneys us the form 'principal' -
As in, "if you want me to stand for your principles, then it will take principal for me to do so"...
-
Although we're not going to discuss the particulars of possible legal action against Phoenix on this forum, recent implied criticism of the TIGHAR board of directors prompts me to correct misconceptions about the history of this issue.
The TIGHAR board has been fully engaged in efforts to secure a refund from Phoenix since that company's abysmal performance first became evident. Upon the return of the Niku VII expedition TIGHAR sent Phoenix a letter demanding a refund. Phoenix did not respond. In early 2013 TIGHAR's attorney sent Phoenix a "Litigation Hold" letter advising them to preserve relevant documents because of pending possible legal action. Still no response. In late September 2013 we sent Phoenix a formal demand letter detailing the ways Phoenix had failed to perform. In early October we received a reply from Phoenix denying any failure. It was then clear that our only option was probably legal action and we began looking for a firm that would take on the case pro bono or on contingency.
From June 2013 until June 2015 we were, by necessity, occupied defending against the groundless Mellon lawsuit and subsequent appeal. Now that that nonsense has been laid to rest we can return to the question of whether and how we can hold Phoenix accountable for their many failures. The recent discovery that their navigation data are unreliable adds to the list and further strengthens a possible case - but we still need to find a suitable firm to carry that torch.
-
Ric,
In reading your reply I had two thoughts come to mind:
1- I'll bet back on day 1 of TIGHAR that you never imagined that you would ever have the complex issues that we do now!
2- the song lyric, "Momma said there'd be days like this!"
But- look at all of the practical experience you have gained! :-)
-
But- look at all of the practical experience you have gained! :-)
Let's say it has been an education.
-
Well, overall, the final result is that the Hail Mary pass seems to have been a failure. Has TIGHAR begun eyeing when it might return to the island for another mission?
-
Well, overall, the final result is that the Hail Mary pass seems to have been a failure. Has TIGHAR begun eyeing when it might return to the island for another mission?
Yes, of course. The answer to that is simple. "Not right away." First we have to decide what the mission should be. The next question is "What will it take to accomplish that mission?" Then, "What will it cost?"
Once we know what we want to do, how we want to do it, and how much it will cost, it then becomes a question of whether we can raise the money.
-
Any chances for the Discovery channel to put some funding forward again? It seems like when the landing gear photo was analyzed they took interest as now it was "possible" and therefor "fundable". I would think that the sonar image offers similar promise as well.
-
Any chances for the Discovery channel to put some funding forward again?
No. The TV documentary world has changed since 2012. There is no money to fund searches. The Discovery Channel doesn't even have a documentary production staff any more. All of the people we worked with are gone. Discovery now does mostly trashy "reality" shows.
And forget Nat'l Geographic. They are thoroughly disenchanted with Earhart having lost their shirt covering one of the big deep water searches near Howland. That's why we shot our own video and are producing our own film about the Niku VIII expedition.
-
Any chances for the Discovery channel to put some funding forward again?
No. The TV documentary world has changed since 2012. There is no money to fund searches. The Discovery Channel doesn't even have a documentary production staff any more. All of the people we worked with are gone. Discovery now does mostly trashy "reality" shows.
And forget Nat'l Geographic. They are thoroughly disenchanted with Earhart having lost their shirt covering one of the big deep water searches near Howland. That's why we shot our own video and are producing our own film about the Niku VIII expedition.
That's sad beyond words. I remember when Discovery was the go-to place for great documentaries but now it's all reality garbage like most other places. I suppose all I have to do is remember "Naked And Afraid" to realize the extent of worthless crap aired on Discovery these days. NatGeo is probably the better of the two with [most] of what they air, but if they already lost their shirt then I suppose that is understandable.
That being said, however, I would think that with so many independent cable channels out there there must be SOMEONE willing to throw money at the project just to get some airtime out of it. It might not be Discovery kind of money but probably more than most of us will every pony up for the effort. It would/could be a good P/R opportunity for an up-and-coming R.O.V. company looking to get some publicity and exposure against the likes of Nautilus and others. With my background in diving, perhaps I should create an ROV for the project and get on board for the exposure ;).
With all the losses in funding, between the lawsuit and the less-than-fruitful missions, how has this all impacted TIGHAR's other non AE projects?
-
Probably a good time to start a new thread.
-
Quote from: Craig A Shortreed on Today at 11:18:31 AM
With my background in diving, perhaps I should create an ROV for the project and get on board for the exposure ;).
Craig, Go for it! Walt Holm made a significant contribution with the kit built ROV he brought to Niku VIII. The kit version is $900 plus the laptop used to control it. Its limitations preclude that particular model from deep work but the lesson learned is the technologies and parts exist to create a custom ROV. There seems to be a community of folks designing and building their own ROVs. Is that route cost effective? The good news is you could thoroughly test it (and its backup twin) before the next expedition.
OpenROV YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SJhmbqvvW4)
-
Here's a 50-yard Hail Mary that will win no Heisman but someone had to try it. Attached is a diagram of a part of the fuel system for the Model 10 Electra. Photo #345 from the undersea imagery looks a bit like the curving u-shape of outboard or inboard tank vents from a (crushed?) 81-gallon fuel tank, situated in the wing area. The zoom version of the diagram has the area of interest highlighted with a blue square.
Source: Lockheed 10 1948 Maintenance Manual, p. 135.
Second choice would be a tuning fork for the banjo. Either way, image 345 is weird and doesn't exactly belong there. It is at least distinctive enough to invite speculation with a known aircraft part from the production version of the aircraft of interest. It'd be nice to retrieve it someday for a better look.
I've reviewed all the photos and that's the only thing interesting I see right now.
Joe Cerniglia
TIGHAR #3078ECR
-
Looks good, Joe! the vent tube may also be shown in the photo of Amelia in front of the tanks and fuel system of 16020. I can't find it at present.
-
Either way, image 345 is weird and doesn't exactly belong there. It is at least distinctive enough to invite speculation with a known aircraft part from the aircraft of interest.
I would urge you to decline that invitation. We are not going to engage in Mellonistic fantasies no matter how carefully couched with caveats.
-
The purpose of expedition data is to analyze it. I gave my best analysis using the best source material from Lockheed I thought prudent to do that, with the available data. If the analysis lacks quantifiable data from which independently verifiable conclusions can be drawn, then one simply has to accept the quality of the data is lacking. The quality of the analyst is not. I will do what I am able to help with ensuring the quality of the data brought back next time is better. That is all I can do. Meanwhile, your advice to decline any further such invitation is accepted, with what I am sure is the shared wish that more could be done.
I would politely point out, however, that this is a time to hang together..., as Ben Franklin put it.
Joe Cerniglia
TIGHAR #3078 ECR
-
With all the losses in funding, between the lawsuit and the less-than-fruitful missions, how has this all impacted TIGHAR's other non AE projects?
Only in the sense that dealing with the lawsuit and the technical challenges of underwater searches has left little time for other projects. The Devastator Project has been essentially in a holding pattern for the past fews years due to procedural and diplomatic complications and delays involving the U.S. Navy, Texas A&M University, and the Republic of the Marshall Islands. If recovering a TBD-1 from Jaluit lagoon was just an engineering problem we would have had the airplane out of there long ago. The Maid of Harlech has not been recovered primarily because nobody wants it.
TIGHAR's oldest project, the search for l'Oiseau Blanc (the White Bird) of Charles Nungesser and Francois Coli, has been dormant for several years but is about to reawaken. Watch for the next issue of TIGHAR Tracks.
For sure, the last three years have been difficult. How do you turn down the offer of an endorsement by the Secretaries of State and Transportation at a major event at the U.S. State Department, even if it means you will have to put together a complex, expensive underwater search on short notice a full year before you planned to do it? How do you turn down an unsolicited million dollar contribution even if it is offered by someone who has had no previous contact with the organization? In retrospect, we should have turned down both. Hard lessons learned.
-
With all the losses in funding, between the lawsuit and the less-than-fruitful missions, how has this all impacted TIGHAR's other non AE projects?
l'Oiseau Blanc (the White Bird) of Charles Nungesser and Francois Coli, has been dormant for several years but is about to reawaken. Watch for the next issue of TIGHAR Tracks.
Ooooh, very excited to see the news!
-
Hi all - new member here - this is my second post (first was in introduction section)
Talking about DIY ROV's, have you seen this one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7jC55WLdDbs
It has video, forward looking and side scan sonar, depth capable to 3000 feet, DIY cost of $5000. He doesn't have all the bugs worked out yet, but it looks really interesting. Maybe for the next expedition, if only for a backup?
-
Great news about the White Bird! Can't wait to see what's happening there. (I personally find the White Bird and her pilots more significant than A.E. Just my opinion.)
-
Great news about the White Bird! Can't wait to see what's happening there. (I personally find the White Bird and her pilots more significant than A.E. Just my opinion.)
It's an opinion that I share. L'Oiseau Blanc, in my view, is history's most important missing aircraft. Had Earhart completed her circumnavigation the world would probably be little different today except that we would be talking about something else. Had Nungesser and Coli arrived in New York to claim the Ortieg Prize (as Lindbergh expected they would) Slim would not have flown to Paris and all the things that happened because the unknown lone American Eagle succeeded where the the two French aces had so spectacularly failed would have happened differently. Lucky Lindy's triumph inspired a whole generation of young Americans to devote themselves to aviation. The torch of American ingenuity was ignited and before long leadership in aircraft and engine design and performance passed from Europe to the U.S.
Where the White Bird went down doesn't really matter in that sense. The important thing is that they didn't make it. TIGHAR's effort to solve the mystery of their disappearance, like the Earhart Project, is a vehicle for exploring and demonstrating techniques and technologies in historical investigation.
-
Is anyone persuing the analysis of Joe Cerniglia about the picture 345 showing possibly a vent tube for a fuel tank, as explained in his reading of a Lockheed Maintenance Manual? Uncanny how similar the shape, but I can't compare the scale.
-
I've always found the White Bird story very fascinating, I'm anxious to see what the newsletters is bringing to light. It sounds like a lot of progress was made early but petered out a bit. But, alas, I think this topic is dead, we have veered off of the Hail Mary pass quite a bit :).
-
Not until I get an answer, Craig. I think it's important to research this and determine as close as possible, whether this u-tube shaped thing in picture 345 is or is not a possible vent for a fuel tank!
-
By my calculation that object is about 2.2" long and just millimeters wide (if I recall the two red laser dots indicate 2"), is that big enough to actually be a vent for something? It could be the angle and the shadows, but it appears to be slightly wider on the left and almost looks like a hook shape on the other end - which also appears to be a bit lighter in color than the rest of the object. Not being an expert in airplane parts I wouldn't know if something of this shape and size could be anything of interest or not.
-
Only in the sense that dealing with the lawsuit and the technical challenges of underwater searches has left little time for other projects. The Devastator Project has been essentially in a holding pattern for the past fews years due to procedural and diplomatic complications and delays involving the U.S. Navy, Texas A&M University, and the Republic of the Marshall Islands. If recovering a TBD-1 from Jaluit lagoon was just an engineering problem we would have had the airplane out of there long ago.. The Maid of Harlech has not been recovered primarily because nobody wants it.
TIGHAR's oldest project, the search for l'Oiseau Blanc (the White Bird) of Charles Nungesser and Francois Coli, has been dormant for several years but is about to reawaken. Watch for the next issue of TIGHAR Tracks.
For sure, the last three years have been difficult.
Ric,
There is no question that there have been challenges, but you show amazing resiliency.
A former member has raised questions that have also actually occurred to me about other projects, especially the Devastaters. You mentioned 'holding pattern' above, but evidently some effort has gone into that behind the scenes -
TIGHAR's IRS 990 forms reveal the following expenditures on that project:
2011 $22,337
2012 42,906
2013 90,148
----------
Total $155,391
Because the expenditures have been substantial and grown, can you elaborate on "holding pattern"? You mention some substantial other fingers in that pie - was there a great deal of off-board effort invested as the filing suggests? I don't recall discussion of that in the forum, but do recall an announcement of a couple of years ago that there was some new prospect coming.
Thanks for sharing what you can on this, I'm sure it would be appreciated by those who contribute and share your hopes.
-
You mentioned 'holding pattern' above, but evidently some effort has gone into that behind the scenes
Yes, there was considerable "behind the scenes" activity in 2011-13. Nothing much since then.
Since its inception in 2003, the Devastator Project has been sponsored almost exclusively by grants from the family foundation of one of TIGHAR's board members. At his request we have not publicized activity on that project beyond the material that is on the TIGHAR website (http://tighar.org/Projects/Devastator/tosave.htm) nor have we solicited additional funding from the TIGHAR membership. It's a complex and difficult project from an engineering standpoint and a delicate one from a political and diplomatic perspective. Airing the details publicly would be detrimental to the project's prospects for success and contrary to the wishes of its sponsor.
-
Thank you, Ric.
-
Not until I get an answer, Craig. I think it's important to research this and determine as close as possible, whether this u-tube shaped thing in picture 345 is or is not a possible vent for a fuel tank!
There is nothing to research. There's just not enough information. It's not even clear that it's a "U-shaped thing."
-
This cropped area of image 416 had a combination of small geometric shapes and reflections close together. Other images of the same area show nothing similar and no reflections.
Image 545 is the only image I see so far that has an object that appears to be man made, and that appears to have been on the bottom for a while.
Regarding the object in image 545 345: Sand collecting on parallel edges could make them appear to be more rounded shapes. The end may also have sand collecting on it and part of it could be buried.
-
This cropped area of image 416 had a combination of small geometric shapes and reflections close together.
I'm not convinced those are reflections. Small round shapes, apparently left by sea urchins, are not uncommon.
Image 545 is the only image I see so far that has an object that appears to be man made, and that appears to have been on the bottom for a while.
I think you mean 345. "Can 2" is almost certainly man-made and shows up in several images, but it seems like it has to be a fairy recent arrival.
Regarding the object in image 545: Sand collecting on parallel edges could make them appear to be more rounded shapes. The end may also have sand collecting on it and part of it could be buried.
Again, 345. There's just not enough to go on and nothing we've seen explains the anomaly.
-
randy conrad's post on page 7 of the hail mary analysis on the possum jpg with what he thinks is a tire really does look like a tire being held above seabed by a strut that's in the seabed
-
randy conrad's post on page 7 of the hail mary analysis on the possum jpg with what he thinks is a tire really does look like a tire being held above seabed by a strut that's in the seabed
I see nothing but black. Randy doesn't say what image it is.
-
randy conrad's post on page 7 of the hail mary analysis on the possum jpg with what he thinks is a tire really does look like a tire being held above seabed by a strut that's in the seabed
A tire that can fit in the palm of your hand. Look at the red laser dots. The scale is 2.5" between them. That's a small tire.
-
Great news about the White Bird! Can't wait to see what's happening there. (I personally find the White Bird and her pilots more significant than A.E. Just my opinion.)
Could not find any news. ??? Is there any link available?
-
Great news about the White Bird! Can't wait to see what's happening there. (I personally find the White Bird and her pilots more significant than A.E. Just my opinion.)
Could not find any news. ??? Is there any link available?
The "news" Dale was referring to is the news that we're going to re-open the investigation. There are some recent developments that I'll write up for the new issue of TIGHAR Tracks to be published next month.
-
Thank you, Ric!
-
the possmm jpg. from Randy Conrads post on page 7 of hail mary page the image of the "tire" he has it circled in red, you can barely see it unless looking at image directly in front and slightly downward it also appears to be several feet behind the laser dots and on a slope so unless the red laser dots are right next to"tire" a size analysis would be just guese work
-
Sorry guys for some reason the image is labeled DSC00634 however in the address bar it says DSC00638
Anyway here is the image with line arrow pointing to what ever it is sticking out ground
Ric....Hi! Hadn't been on here for several days, but noticed Frank's comments about the pic post I made about the tire. This picture actually came from Richie's comments about something sticking out of the ground! Anyway, wandering with what I saw might be the location that we saw a potential landing gear from. As for Greg's comments about not being of size...he may or may not be right, but we have to remember this was a drop picture taken and not from an rov at a distance. Anyway, wanted to bring you to speed on this. Also, the last time Jeff Glickman posted photos of the last major underwater search, the colors of the filters were changed and it brought out alot of features we normally wouldn't see on a blue image per say. I think changing the filters might enhance several of your photos and brighten the outside edges (like the potential tire photo). If its possible. Just wondering!!!!
-
I based my findings not only by its shape, but of this photo from a past ROV search!
-
I believe at this point, we have 2or three choices if we are to continue the search for Amelia, and to follow up on the theory she landed on Niku:
1. Plan for another search identical to the NIKU VIII to investigate the anomaly in detail, only correct the mistakes made and use the lessons learned to arrive at a more conclusive result. Contract with a reputable ROV outfit with a proven track record of success, and include more contingencies such as more and better spare parts, including a complete replacement for the ROV and its ancillary equipment, which will be fully tested to ensure everything will work as expected under conditions similar to those at NIKU. Insist on an iron-clad contract with provisions for proper warrantees and guarantees of performance. Do not leave California, Hawaii, Fiji, or wherever before all the above is in order and in hand. I know a lot of this was supposed to be done for NIKU VIII, but the hard facts are indicating it wasn't.
2. Plan for a completely new expedition with a new goal and new targets to be fully inspected, using some new equipment, such as deeper limit ROV's to search farther out from the island and deeper. Contract with experts in the field of the equipments' operation who have experience and success for the limits in which they will be operating. Plan to accomplish the goals as set by TIGHAR, and not by time limits or schedules related to ease of procurement of the equipment. i.e., don't go until TIGHAR's plan is satisfied, including contracts with sponsors.
There is some misplaced discussion in the other "bones" thread that is also valuable, including Greg Daspit's post regarding starting points and considerations for a "wider and deeper" exploration. There is still much more to be investigated at Niku and whether results obtained help to prove or disprove the theory of a landing, I believe there are some definitive answers we haven't found yet.
-
In retrospect, NIKU VIII was disappointing, but shouldn't be considered a total failure: Tighar certainly learned something, and perhaps more than other earlier expeditions, in that we know more now about what shouldn't be done on the next expedition.
-
There is some misplaced discussion in the other "bones" thread that is also valuable, including Greg Daspit's post regarding starting points and considerations for a "wider and deeper" exploration. There is still much more to be investigated at Niku and whether results obtained help to prove or disprove the theory of a landing, I believe there are some definitive answers we haven't found yet.
I think the starting points have been logical on the previous expeditions including VIII. Including decisions to prioritize searching the ledges and catchment areas in Niku VII.
I think people will have a different opinion of what the search limits should be based on their valuation of the evidence. One might assign a lot of weight to the Radio signals but none to the Bevington Object and may want to search all sides of the island. Some may put more weight in a non-predominate current and search more north.
I think as a starting point you have to start with what is the most logical and work out and down from there. There is obvious logic in starting from the top of a slope and working down if you don’t want to re-search areas for something that may have slid downhill in between searches( which may be years no matter what the plan is). And there is logic for searching based on predominate currents first. Although, searching more north might also include the consideration that the Bevington object might have moved. In any event, it seems to me that starting at the top, prioritizing where to start, and eliminating the most logical areas first will lead to a search that becomes “wider and “deeper” from there, if it has to. This thinking may apply more to an ROV and Sub search since a wider Sonar search might cover a lot of area quickly compared to the ROV or Sub.
Bob, I thought you might find this Coast Guard history article (http://www.uscg.mil/history/stations/loran_volume_2.pdf) interesting. It has some good pictures of scary LCM landing operations at various islands. Gardner Island works starts on page 89.
Page 93 mentions transferring cargo from the Spicewood to landing barges “at the extreme Northwestern tip of the island” but because of the distance from the landing combined with a “four and one half-mile haul to the site” they moved landings to the southeastern tip. I am surprised that they tried to land near the NW tip but the description does not mention any accident that could be a source for debris or the anomaly. (Edit: I might be reading where the loading of the barges was and a where the initial landing attempt was wrong?)
-
On page 5 of the hail mary analysis, post by Greg Ladjimi reply #61 picture DSC00394 full image just above and too the right of object with red circle is a tube partially covered by coral and or seabed, you can see the shadow on inside of tube from camera light, also slightly above circled image looks like a object and another one just to the left and slightly above which looks like a upside down mushroom
-
Ric,
Is there anything in the “Hail Mary “ pictures that advances the Niku theory?
Ted Campbell
-
Ric,
Is there anything in the “Hail Mary “ pictures that advances the Niku theory?
Ted Campbell
I believe Ric already answered that in his post on page 9 of this thread:
I believe there are more "things" visible in #394 upper right corner possibly tail wheel partially covered with corral
...or it could be a banjo.
We've had a lot of eyeballs on these photos - expert and amateur - and it is apparent that there's nothing there that explains the anomaly even though we had pretty good coverage in the area where the anomaly is supposed to be. The lat/long coordinates provided to us by Ocean Imaging Consultants (OIC) were based on AUV position data provided by Phoenix International, the contractor who ran the sonar-equipped AUV. An exhaustive review of Phoenix navigational procedures and performance over the last few weeks lead to the inescapable conclusion that the AUV position data are unreliable and can be off by dozens of meters. The most logical and likely explanation for the absence of useful information in the photos is that the Hail Mary operation was looking in the wrong place.
Many TIGHAR members have requested links to the dropbox containing the photos and it's only fair to wait to see if anyone finds anything the rest of us have missed but at this point it looks like Hail Mary, as creative and well-executed as it was under the circumstances, was a bust.
I'll probably get in trouble for asking this. But. When viewing the hail-mary photos on a high res monitor at 100-200%, a lot of metal with tiny holes in it can be seen. I would guess it is aluminum getting pitted. Does anyone know about this?
thanks
L
My apologies. this message was posted in another thread (What's next) when I meant it to go here. - L
Can you at least give an example? Ric's quote from above goes for this too... nothing apparent has been seen in any of the hail mary images. Some man-made objects here and there but nothing extraordinary.
-
I believe outer layer forms aluminum oxide which prevents inner aluminum from corroding, and or disintegration
-
I found this useful as an explanation. http://www.totalmateria.com/page.aspx?ID=CheckArticle&site=ktn&NM=187 In my experience aluminium corrodes badly when exposed to Florida ground water which smells of sulphur dioxide. I think the pitting corrosion and crevice corrosion mentioned in the article are likely more germane to aircraft corrosion in salt water.
Neff
-
Just a question: I,m looking for the sonar scans from near the 7 site. In the Niku II report I believe it was noted that 4 objects were seen on the sonar scan, but we're too small to be an airplane, but could possibly be pieces of the aircraft. This is only related to the Hail Mary as it is also following up on the sonar "anomaly". Was there ever further analysis of those 4 objects on the eastern reef. That is my guess as to the landing location. Can anyone direct me to a discussion more related to those objects. Thanks.
-
Just a question: I,m looking for the sonar scans from near the 7 site.
Oceaneering Int'l stored the sonar scans on magnetic tape. After the expedition we gave the tapes to a TIGHAR member who was an expert in sonar image interpretation. He never got around to analyzing the tapes. after a couple years we asked him to send the tapes back but he had moved in the meantime and he was unable to find the tapes.
In the Niku II report I believe it was noted that 4 objects were seen on the sonar scan, but we're too small to be an airplane, but could possibly be pieces of the aircraft.
The number of objects is not mentioned in the report. I don't remember how many there were.
Was there ever further analysis of those 4 objects on the eastern reef.
No, and I'm not sure how many there were. See above.
That is my guess as to the landing location.
We considered that possibility but the reef in that location is too rough to land on.
Can anyone direct me to a discussion more related to those objects.
I don't think we ever discussed them further. Since then there we've found much more evidence that the plane landed on the western reef.
-
Good thought, Mark. The plane may have landed on the west side, but parts and solid evidence of it landing anywhere could have been moved to the east side or any where due to wind, storm, heavy surf or human. I hope someone can shed some light on this.
-
The plane may have landed on the west side, but parts and solid evidence of it landing anywhere could have been moved to the east side or any where due to wind, storm, heavy surf or human.
That's actually not true except for the human part. Humans can move anything anywhere, but natural forces cannot. Distribution patterns from wind, storm and heavy surf are well defined at Niku. The best model is Norwich City.
-
And wasn't some of the debris from Norwich City discovered in the lagoon? How did that get there?
-
Ric, Thanks for going over my points and even answering some other questions I had such as the reef condition on the SE side. It's shocking to hear that the scan tapes were lost and that the "several" ( not 4 ) hits were never investigated. But if the reef was deemed too rough ( and you have been there) then my theory gets weaker. My logic begins with the Lambretch photo looking directly at the castaway camp and signs of recent habitation noted in the report. So I think this was their camp during the first 6 days prior to the overflight. I would think they would camp near the plane, so they would have landed on the eastern reef. It looks inviting when approaching on the LOP and the Norwich City area may have had debris visible on the reef. Even the Bevington object may have already existed and acted as a deterrent to landing there. Ha...too long of a post. Thanks for listening to my rambling.
-
As for the Hail Mary, it seems the thread is running out of steam......so let me confess that I think the Hail Mary was successful, it just didn't show the Electra. Maybe it showed exactly what is there, nothing. That image data is consistent with all the other attempts to search that area of reef. Divers,ROV, Sonar.....and not a scrap. So when I do an experiment my worst enemy is to not believe the result because it didn't come out the way I wanted. I have to accept the true result. The Bevington object led to the anomaly and that led to a banjo. So maybe the BO isn't a wheel at all and maybe Earhart and Noonan didn't land near the Norwich City. The castaway camp was always a paradox as to why they would land near the NC and then make a camp at the opposite end of the island within the days before the Lambrecht photo. So I'm personally convinced they landed on the eastern reef, no matter that it is "too rough". They didn't know that and may have decided on the approach to Gardner that the eastern reef looked better for a straight in approach and after flying low along the reef finally had to pick a spot and go for it. And so they ended up near the seven site waiting for rescue.
-
As for the Hail Mary, it seems the thread is running out of steam......so let me confess that I think the Hail Mary was successful, it just didn't show the Electra. Maybe it showed exactly what is there, nothing.
That's correct, and that's the problem. The sonar anomaly clearly indicates that there is, or at least was, a rather large "something" there. But the Hail Mary photos don't show anything there. So, either whatever was there in 2012 has moved or the Hail Mary operation had the wrong "there." We have now analyzed the positioning data used to determine the lat/long of the anomaly and find that it is deeply flawed. We were Hailing Mary in the wrong place.
That image data is consistent with all the other attempts to search that area of reef. Divers,ROV, Sonar.....and not a scrap.
It is true that divers, ROV, and sonar have not turned up a scrap of identifiable Electra wreckage. It is also true that the reef slope below 130 feet has not been thoroughly searched and the anomaly has not been investigated.
I have to accept the true result. The Bevington object led to the anomaly and that led to a banjo.
Say wha????
The castaway camp was always a paradox as to why they would land near the NC and then make a camp at the opposite end of the island within the days before the Lambrecht photo.
There is no paradox. There is no evidence of human activity at the Seven Site in the Lambrecht photo. There is a possible indication trails at the Seven Site in the 1938 NZ photos.
So I'm personally convinced they landed on the eastern reef, no matter that it is "too rough". They didn't know that and may have decided on the approach to Gardner that the eastern reef looked better for a straight in approach and after flying low along the reef finally had to pick a spot and go for it. And so they ended up near the seven site waiting for rescue.
How do you explain the post-loss radio signals?
-
Ric, I always have to respect those like you who have really researched nearly every aspect of this mystery and my opinions are only that, just opinions. I'm not trying to disagree with the evidence trail Tighar has uncovered, in fact, I've believed that evidence and Jeff Glickman's enhanced images of the BO. I don't see how a reef landing on the eastern side precludes the distress calls, because I believe they are real and the evidence points to them being real. I'm just not convinced that they landed near the Norwich City, but may have walked there to find items to help their survival. Betty's entry about "something that sounds like NY" is to me some of the most powerful evidence as it couldn't be faked. I'm really in your camp. Item 2-2-V-1 is nearly conclusive. I only thought that the Lambrecht photo with the report of recent habitation was identifying that location where the bones were found later. My comment about the banjo (I'm smiling here Ric) only meant that the BO was always interpreted evidence, and could be mistaken. I thought it led to the reef sonar scan which led to the anomaly. But people have interpreted blurry images as " looking like" objects, until someone joked to me about someone seeing a banjo (huh?). So with no malice of intent, I only note that some of the evidence is very interpretive and "could be" mistaken. All of which is only my opinion, not meant to undermine the heroic effort to get the Hail Mary images. And much kudos to the guy with the home built ROV. I'm just trying to explain the lack of finding anything and just accepting that the images didn't reveal anything and what does it mean? It "might" mean the plane isn't there.
I'm certain they landed on Gardner, just not sure where. Just discussing, not disagreeing. I'm sorry I'm not a sophisticated blogger, this is the only forum where I've ever commented and maybe I'm not coming off well. So thanks for your personal replies, actually I didn't expect to get replies directly from you. So I'm really impressed.
-
Ric, do you know how far off the positioning data is? Is it feet, yards, other side of the island? I can only imagine how frustrating it has to be to have gotten virtually nothing for what was paid for.
-
The positioning data can be several meters off and it's not constant so it's not possible to make a standard correction.
-
So what it boils down to is that we don't know what the anomaly is, or if it's there, because there are probably no pictures of that particular spot. A straight down shot of ocean floor ten feet away from it is likely to show nothing, just as a test hole on land can miss a major discovery by two inches and you never know it's there. Seems to me the only way you'll really ever know for sure what's there is to have a submersible that will allow human eyes on target in real time. We can dream, can't we?!!
-
Seems to me the only way you'll really ever know for sure what's there is to have a submersible that will allow human eyes on target in real time. We can dream, can't we?!!
A functioning ROV should be able to explore the area within, say, 50 meters of the anomaly's reported position but to do a really thorough job of teaching the entire reef slope I'm convinced that a manned submersible is the best choice. Yes, we can dream.
-
Here's some interesting subs to consider for the dream list:
The "flying" sub
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11198906
Owner built. Tourist sub in Honduras. 2660' attained.
www.stanleysubmarines.com/
Following two videos of Stanley sub.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0wF-HALk0w
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmeZEYaWImM
Ten Subs you might want. Several might be useful.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tP8yY1qym9I
-
All really cool subs, but remember TIGHAR has to afford 2 in case one fails!
-
Ric,
Would finding the wreckage now put TIGHAR in any realistic jeopardy from Mellon and such? Any legal input worth noting on this possibility?
I can't imagine any way that finding the wreckage would put us in legal jeopardy with anyone.
-
I think finding wreckage would strengthen tighars case.
-
I think finding wreckage would strengthen tighars case.
You what's sad? I can't figure out whether you're serious or being sarcastic.
-
I'm in favor of tighar theory 100 percent. Proving it would be the greatest thing in the world.
-
I think finding wreckage would strengthen tighars case.
Finding the wreckage of the Electra would not strengthen TIGHAR's case. It would absolutely prove it.
-
I meant more or larger chunks of it.
-
Has any more analysis been done on the "Cook Photo" which was discussed in some detail earlier in the "General Discussion" of about 2013 vintage?
-
Has any more analysis been done on the "Cook Photo" which was discussed in some detail earlier in the "General Discussion" of about 2013 vintage?
Whatever it is (if anything) nobody can find it. Craig Cook whoo took the photo in 2009 tried to find it when he returned to Niku with the New England Aquarium in 2012. No luck.
This year the Niku VIII dive team did a thorough search of the whole western reef slope down to 130 feet. No luck.