TIGHAR
Amelia Earhart Search Forum => General discussion => Topic started by: Byron Ake on September 22, 2015, 12:50:04 PM
-
Ever since the discovery of a flaperon from Malaysia Airlines flight 370, I have been rethinking the Bevington object. Specifically, this question: what if the Bevington object was not stuck to the reef? What if it was not anchored to a large piece of the plane, but instead was being kicked around by the waves at the edge of the reef? This could explain why the object was never investigated by Bevington's party. A piece of garbage from the ocean (especially a tire) bobbing in the surf would invoke a lot less curiosity than an unusually shiny piece of shipwreck debris stuck in the reef. The flaperon stayed above water because it was sealed to keep out moisture that could turn to ice in flight, according to the news articles. The landing gear had a large, buoyant tire that would keep pulling it toward the surface after it sank with the rest of the plane, only popping up later while Bevington and his party were there.
We only have one poor quality picture of the object. Is there anything in that picture that would suggest that the object is stuck to the reef, or vise versa? Emily Sikuli (http://tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/1999Vol_15/carpenters.pdf)describes some plane wreckage around that area, but what she describes sounds nothing like the Bevington object.
-
what if the Bevington object was not stuck to the reef? What if it was not anchored to a large piece of the plane, but instead was being kicked around by the waves at the edge of the reef?
What you suggest is not impossible but we don't think it was anchored to a large piece of the plane. We imagine that the landing gear assembly tore loose from the aircraft in much the same way a landing gear assembly tore loose from the plane during the Luke Field groundloop. If the wreckage of the assembly was, as you say, "bobbing in the surf" buoyed by the tire I would not expect to see the heavy fork and worm gear showing above the surface.
-
Hmm that is true. Looking at the photo again, the fork is clearly visible above the water line, so perhaps it wasnt exactly "bobbing in the surf."
When do you think the landing gear separated from the aircraft? Before or after the plane went into the sea?
-
Let's also not forget that the BO appears to also be visible in one of the high-res aerial shots (from a different date), implying that it was "stuck in place" (at least for a time)...
-
Let's also not forget that the BO appears to also be visible in one of the high-res aerial shots (from a different date), implying that it was "stuck in place" (at least for a time)...
Are you referring to one of the 1938 aerial photos?
(Can't link to it right now, I'm on my phone)
-
When do you think the landing gear separated from the aircraft? Before or after the plane went into the sea?
Airplane is parked on reef.
Water/surf level on reef at high tide gets high enough to float aircraft briefly and set it back down putting sideload on gear similar to groundless.
Gear fails, as it did in Hawaii.
Aircraft, now on its belly, is more vulnerable to wave action.
Surf pushes aircraft toward reef edge.
One mangled gear assembly gets stuck in a groove and separates from the airframe.
Wreckage of gear assembly remains stuck for at least three months.
The rest of the airplane goes into the ocean and ......?????
-
Let's also not forget that the BO appears to also be visible in one of the high-res aerial shots (from a different date), implying that it was "stuck in place" (at least for a time)...
That might have been someone's opinion but I don't think we ever confirmed that there is something in the Dec. 1, 1938 photos that is in the same place the Bevington Object was in October, 1937. I would be surprised if there was something still there when the New Zealand survey was there and didn't get noticed.
-
If the wreckage of the assembly was, as you say, "bobbing in the surf" buoyed by the tire I would not expect to see the heavy fork and worm gear showing above the surface.
Not trying to parse words, but we don't definitely know that landing gear components are what is showing in the enlargements of the photo that Jeff Glickman has looked at, do we? I remember him saying that he agreed that might indeed be what those fuzzy shapes are. But that's a long ways away from an absolute.
LTM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 EC
-
Here is my interpretation of the evidence:
Airplane parked on reef.
Tide/surf take plane and drag it across reef, damaging landing gear.
Plane falls into ocean and sinks mostly intact.
Plane settles, possibly inverted, on reef slope.
Lamb. search and aerial photos show nothing unusual.
Three months pass, oleo strut finally gives, tire and gear float to surface to be washed up on edge of reef and are accidentally photographed by Bevington.
Plane remains undisturbed on reef slope, shallow enough to have pieces torn from it as recently as 1991 (2-2-V-1.)
Pieces washed ashore are found and used by natives, starting the rumor of the wrecked plane (misc. aluminum pieces, decorative inlays, anecdotal reports of plane parts) despite no reports by westerners of a wrecked aircraft.
Please poke holes in my interpretation so I can come up with something better :-D
-
The reason I bring this up is if the Bevington object is not where the Electra was parked, but instead was part of the debris field, that would push the search area northward. The area off of the object has been explored by divers and robots but nothing conclusive has yet been found.
What is the reef and surf like on the northern tip of the island? Would a desperate Earhart force the plane up that way to protect it from the rising tide?
-
Not trying to parse words, but we don't definitely know that landing gear components are what is showing in the enlargements of the photo that Jeff Glickman has looked at, do we? I remember him saying that he agreed that might indeed be what those fuzzy shapes are. But that's a long ways away from an absolute.
How could we possibly definitely know that the Bevington Object is the wreckage of a Lockheed Electra landing gear assembly? Glickman and three independent U.S. Government photo analysts agree that the photo shows a manmade object with at least three distinct separate components that match the shape and dimensions of the tire, worm gear, and fork of Lockheed Installation 40650 and which appears to have failed in the same way that the right main gear assembly failed on NR16020 in the Luke Field groundloop. Identification through photo interpretation doesn't get much better than that but we still refer to it as the "Bevington Object", not "Installation 40650."
-
Please poke holes in my interpretation so I can come up with something better :-D
I have a little trouble with the oleo strut letting go after some period of time rather than getting forcefully torn apart but there's nothing in scenario you describe that couldn't happen.
-
The area off of the object has been explored by divers and robots but nothing conclusive has yet been found.
What is the reef and surf like on the northern tip of the island?
The reef flat at the NW tip is strewn with huge coral boulders. The surf at the NW tip is the biggest of anywhere on the island.
During Niku VIII the dive team covered the reef slope north of the Bevington Object location all the way up to the NW tip.
-
Let's also not forget that the BO appears to also be visible in one of the high-res aerial shots (from a different date), implying that it was "stuck in place" (at least for a time)...
Are you referring to one of the 1938 aerial photos?
(Can't link to it right now, I'm on my phone)
Yes. On page 16 of the thread about the high res 1938 aerial photos, John Balderson pointed out an anomaly that sure looks like the BO - and corresponds to its location in the Bevington photo.
This would seem to support the case for the object having been reasonably stationary (at least for a certain amount of time).
In his July 29, 2013, 10:39:52 AM post, John wrote: "Ric, isn't this the Bevington object we're looking at in image "_DSC0339"? To me it appears to be an object sticking out of the water and not a blemish because of apparent shade at the same angle as the "Norwich City". I've attached a cropped version of the image with reference marks and a zoomed-in view of anomoly."
-
Friends, For MY money (ain't got much) the B.O. and the aggregate of post loss radio intercepts represents about 90% of the reasons that the plane was washed off the reef. (The aluminum artifact makes up the balance)
-
I must have missed the report that was produced nailing down the Bevington Object as the landing gear assembly. Pity, that.
LTM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 EC
-
I have a little trouble with the oleo strut letting go after some period of time rather than getting forcefully torn apart but there's nothing in scenario you describe that couldn't happen.
I'll admit that the sudden appearance of the landing gear on the reef during Bevington's stay would be miraculous, but not beyond the realm of possibility. I know almost nothing about oleo struts, but, assuming the tire was still filled, the landing gear was weakened, and the plane settled in a non-upright position, there would be a constant upward force pulling on that joint. Exactly how much force, I am not sure.
-
I must have missed the report that was produced nailing down the Bevington Object as the landing gear assembly. Pity, that.
Monty, I think I said that it not possible to "nail down" the Bevington Object as the landing gear assembly. That's why we call it the Bevington Object. I actually much prefer "Nessie" but both Glickman and the government guys insisted that we stop calling it that. They said, "Nessie" is a myth. This is real."
The report you're looking for is The Object Formerly Known As Nessie (http://tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/2013Vol_29/February_2013/The_Object_Formerly_Known_As_Nessie.pdf)
In discussing various hypotheses about how the object ended up where it was in October 1937 we make the assumption that it is what it appears to be.
-
There is also this video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iLxjEU1VJHA) where Jeff Glickman shows how the different areas of the Bevington photo could map to the components of the Electra's landing gear.
Jeff is appropriately cautious, saying "What I'll stress about this is that: there's an object on the reef; we can't definitely prove from this photograph what it is; however, one interpretation of it is at least consistent with four components that exist on a Lockheed Electra 10E."
-
Ric,
This latest interest in the “Bevington Object” has got me to thinking about the following questions/observations:
In Jeff Glickmans’s analysis can we infer the “gear” (if that is what it is) is either the left or right gear? For example if the worm gear was centered on the gear then we can’t make a determination of either left or right. How about the fork? How about the upper attachment points – there would certainly be a difference here.
Have we ever determined if the right engine had ground/water clearance to operate – the right engine had to run in order to provide electrical power to operate the radio – if the left wing was on the ground i.e. left gear failure upon landing/roll out?
Let’s think about the possibility of upon landing the left gear hits a hole and causes the plane to abruptly swing to the left and centrifugal force would cause any one in the co pilot seat to lurch toward the window/right side of the cockpit causing potentially serious head injury to FN ( take into account Betty's” notebook, etc.)
Not having been to Niku, but looking at photos/maps of the island I would try a landing in the direction of from the channel toward Norwich City rather then in the opposite direction thus putting the left gear closer to the sea. Thus adding to the ideas the left gear failed upon landing/or shortly there after, keeps right engine up reef/high tide, FN’s head injury, the “patch” up reef allowing break out or blow out with incoming water pressure e.g. surf surge, etc.
Finally, if the aircraft was on its left wing can the main cabin door be opened? If no, how do the occupants remove survival gear etc., through the patch?
I know the above is unprovable but can we describe a similar scenario to account for the many “if this happened” hypotheses?
Ted Campbell
-
My apologies. Sometimes my old brain can't keep up with all the minutia.
That said, it would be interesting, to me, to see The Object Formerly Known as Nessie appended with any e-mails, letters, etc., that went back and forth between TIGHAR, Glickman, and the State Department, so we have a better sense of the full range of all participant's thoughts, responses, etc.
LTM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 CE
-
I thought somebody established at one point that if either gear was off or bent that much, the propellers would hit the ground and therefor it didn't matter which side it was. Maybe I'm wrong.
-
In the report you reference above, Ric, "The Object Formerly Known as Nessie" The pictures and drawings show good views of the struts and gear. Was the gear steerable, swiveling around the verticle tube? It appears there may be a dust cap or bearing cover at the top where grease may be inserted during maintenance. Also, the tube appears to be made in at least two pieces, one fitting into the other where it came apart, and could have been locked in place with set screws or locking arrangement of some kind, which may or may not be a poor design, but it seems like a weak point in the assembly.
-
Also, if the center of gravity vertical centerline went through the cabin between the wings, the ground loop produced by skidding on the right wheel would have turned the plane to the right, unless some other force was at hand. Did she hit the left brake in order to compensate, thus creating a turning moment about the left wheel?
-
Also, the tube appears to be made in at least two pieces, one fitting into the other where it came apart, and could have been locked in place with set screws or locking arrangement of some kind, which may or may not be a poor design, but it seems like a weak point in the assembly.
It's called an "oleo strut." It's a standard type of shock-absorbing device used for aircraft landing gear.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oleo_strut
-
I know it's an Oleo Strut. The Wikipedia version in your post, Ric, is more sturdy looking, however, than Amelia's with more support to the lower half to keep it from twisting.
-
I know it's an Oleo Strut. The Wikipedia version in your post, Ric, is more sturdy looking, however, than Amelia's with more support to the lower half to keep it from twisting.
I think grooves were meant to resist twisting? See this example (https://tighar.org/Contract_Services/Kellogg/Kellogg05.html).
-
I would much rather land or takeoff in a plane with the knuckled strut of wiki's oleo than NC14935 shown, but the picture is not of a complete strut, I realize.
-
http://www.spaceshuttleguide.com/system/img117.jpg This is only one of many designs for landing gear.
-
Ignoring the previous two posts about "possibilities," when the final report about the Bevington Object is produced by Jeff Glickman, I think it would boost its credibility immeasurably if all of the background and supporting documentation were included as an appendice(s):
- E-mails between Ric and Jeff discussing the various possibilities and ways the photo could be parsed;
- E-mails between TIGHAR and the State Department about the identification;
- Any other communications with other parties regarding the photo, the analysis, etc.
- Photos of comparison objects used as part of the identification process, annotated as to how they were utilized.
I think you can see where I'm going with this. While no identification of a 70-odd year old photo can be said to be absolutely conclusive (except in rare instances), having this supporting documentation will allow disinterested third parties and Earhart mystery followers to do their own analysis and draw their own conclusions. Putting ALL of the available information out there for public review and discussion is a cornerstone of the scientific method. If someone else can't take your stuff and replicate the results, than those results will remain questionable until more information to confirm it becomes available. Picking and choosing what to present invalidates the entire process.
Or so it seems to me.
LTM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 EC
-
when the final report about the Bevington Object is produced by Jeff Glickman
As far as I know, Jeff Glickman is not planning to write a "final report" about the Bevington Object. I presented everything we know in The Object Formerly Known As Nessie (http://tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/2013Vol_29/February_2013/The_Object_Formerly_Known_As_Nessie.pdf). Jeff reviewed what I wrote before publication.
At the end of the paper I wrote:
"The statistical probability of an unknown object that is not the wreckage of Electra landing gear having all of the quantifiable characteristics present in the Bevington Object is vanishingly small. The fact that the object is in the area where abundant other evidence had already led us to conclude the aircraft was landed adds a further level of likelihood that the object in the photo is what it appears to be: a photo of wreckage from NR16020 on the reef at Gardner Island in October 1937."
That's as far as we can take it. If somebody wants to do their own analysis of the photo they are welcome to do so. It's in the collection of Eric Bevington's papers in Rhodes House Library at Oxford University in England. Jeff recommends a Nikon D800 camera with a Nikon AF-S DX Micro-NIKKOR 40mm f/2.8G lens and a Sigma EM-140
ring light. Any number of airlines offer service to Heathrow and Gatwick. The train to Oxford leaves from Paddington Station.
-
Thanks, Ric, I read the report after you reminded me of it earlier. It's a good overall review. That is part of the answer. My queries and concerns about being able to examine all of the the information used to make those conclusions remain.
LTM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 EC
-
I also enjoyed the read but agree that Monty's is an important point.
We've heard of probabilities being 'vanishingly small' before (earliest found reference here (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,554.msg7692.html#msg7692) pre-dating the well-known usage by a TIGHAR expert in the trial work) and I agree that it's an appealing statement in such cases, something the searcher would prefer to find for sure. But how is that quantified in a case such as an 'object' lying to the north of the shipwreck, especially given that -
"We've found that the underwater currents vary greatly in direction and speed from day to day and even hour to hour" (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1714.msg37681.html#msg37681)?
Consider also, from Niku VIII's preliminary report (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Niku8/niku8prelim/niku8prelimreport.html) -
"A thorough visual and metal detector search turned up no airplane debris but an inspection of shallow water debris from the shipwreck revealed relatively lightweight pieces of copper sheet that had not been swept away by storm activity. This discovery seems to argue against the theory that the Earhart aircraft was torn apart in the surf (if lightweight sheet metal from the ship survived in shallow water, so should lightweight metal from the plane) and supports the theory that the plane sank in deeper water more or less intact."
- which seems to underscore the need to weigh all points of evidence.
If lightweight ship's material is still scattered unscathed in the shallows where TIGHAR was hoping to find evidence of an airplane (or was there a search in ship's stuff predictable areas that turned up the copper - not clear), but if no similar airplane debris being there is enough to suggest that a shallows break-up should not have been the case, then there appears to be a contradiction to be considered: ripping a gear off the airplane in a reef landing or some subsequent churning looks to be a probable debris-releasing event. It just seems that if the airplane were crippled in that manner suggested by TIGHAR's reading on the B.O. (losing a gear, assuming we're not looking at a small portion of a submerged, intact airplane (too shallow there?)), then it might have followed that other shards might well have been released as it journied toward deeper waters partly on its belly and one wing, etc.
Ric has also asserted that "Distribution patterns from wind, storm and heavy surf are well defined at Niku. The best model is Norwich City (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1720.msg38179.html#msg38179)". While that is appreciated, short of firm evidence in-hand there seems to be a handful of contridictions to overcome - including that lightweight ship's material in areas where ship stuff wasn't expected (if I'm reading it right) throws a fly in the ointment. Could not have some piece of ship's material have drifted to that spot where the B.O. is seen in those few years between the shipwreck and Bevington's visit?
In sum, it just seems that all points should be carefully weighed if the case is to be narrowed. Otherwise the possibilities appear large, IMO.
-
Could not have some piece of ship's material have drifted to that spot where the B.O. is seen in those few years between the shipwreck and Bevington's visit?
Of course it could, but what makes the Bevington Object interesting is not so much its location as its physical constituent components that match the size and shape of Lockheed Installation 40650. Norwich City went aground in 1929 so its kind of hard to argue that it may have been carrying a shipment of landing gear components for an airplane that wasn't designed until 1933.
In sum, it just seems that all points should be carefully weighed if the case is to be narrowed.
I agree. We spent three years weighing every point we could find. The thing on the reef in the Bevington photo looks like the wreckage of an Electra landing gear. The right main gear of NR16020 separated from the airplane in the Luke Field wreck and came apart in the same way. You don't have to take Jeff Glickman's, or the State Department's, or my word for it. You can see it in the photo. I'd say that narrows the possibilities rather nicely.
-
A lot of data has been made available for TIGHAR members to study the Bevington photo including a Tiff file of the photo that Mr. Glickman took, and The Object Formerly Known as Nessie report, which included a lot of information such as Luke Field photos and the ground loop analysis. Engineering Drawings of the Landing Gear Assembly (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1079.msg28049.html#msg28049) were also made available. I did my own studies (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1127.msg24130.html#msg24130) of the data made available, with multiple component orientations, and agree that the object looks a lot like the landing gear after it failed in the Luke Field accident.
Regarding the landing gear:
The Luke Field Photos, the Kellogg Crash example and the Engineering drawing Ric posted show a round bar or tube that connects to the center pivot point of the cylinder. Examples of different Electras show two flat bars on each side of the cylinder. In the other examples, the worm gear has a different shape and is mounted lower on the cylinder. It seems to be a modification done before the worm gear was eliminated. Was this modification available by the time they repaired Earhart’s plane? (see attachment)
-
In discussing various hypotheses about how the object ended up where it was in October 1937 we make the assumption that it is what it appears to be.
And I guess that is where I circle back to the thoughts/documents/communications leading to that assumption, and laying all of it out there, so that any disinterested party can make their own judgment about what they are looking at.
The Bevington Object might be one of the landing gear from our favorite Electra. It might be something else manmade that hasn't been considered yet. Assuming it is what we all want it to be is not, I believe, going to lead to any final answers.
LTM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 EC
-
If the object is what it appears to be, it must have come off on the initial landing, as any pilot after setting it down would have turned to the beach, and a slow attempt at reaching the beach would not be sufficient force on the gear to rip it off, damage it maybe. Of course she should have done a wheels up in the lagoon, the radio was not that important at the time.
-
And I guess that is where I circle back to the thoughts/documents/communications leading to that assumption, and laying all of it out there, so that any disinterested party can make their own judgment about what they are looking at.
All of the all that we have IS out there. TIGHAR has been totally transparent throughout our entire investigation of the Bevington Object and I don't understand why you are implying that we would hold anything back.
-
Regarding the landing gear:
The Luke Field Photos, the Kellogg Crash example and the Engineering drawing Ric posted show a round bar or tube that connects to the center pivot point of the cylinder. Examples of different Electras show two flat bars on each side of the cylinder. In the other examples, the worm gear has a different shape and is mounted lower on the cylinder. It seems to be a modification done before the worm gear was eliminated. Was this modification available by the time they repaired Earhart’s plane? (see attachment)
Earhart's was the last Electra to be built with the old worm gear system. The "flat bar" modification clearly made for a much more robust structure. The parts shown lying on the floor in your attachment were from cn1052, the 10A at the New England Air Museum. 1052 obviously predated Earhart's 1055 so the "flat bar" modification to 1052 must have been done some time later. There is nothing in the repair orders for 1055 about modifying the landing gear.
-
If the object is what it appears to be, it must have come off on the initial landing, as any pilot after setting it down would have turned to the beach, and a slow attempt at reaching the beach would not be sufficient force on the gear to rip it off, damage it maybe. Of course she should have done a wheels up in the lagoon, the radio was not that important at the time.
I believe the thought is that the landing gear would have probably been ripped off as the airplane got manhandled by the surf in the increasingly high tides, not in the initial landing. This was discussed at length a while back and is well worth reading.
-
Having once wrapped an aluminum canoe around a lone beach-ball size rock in 16 inches of water, I have gained an enormous respect for the power of moving water. It took six people 15 minutes to get that canoe out.
I don't think the Electra was torn into tiny pieces on the reef. At high tide with the tail half-in the water (weighed down), the tail wheel unable to pivot, one landing gear in a depression, surf hitting the side, I believe the Electra would have buckled in the middle of the fuselage across the patched window and door. No aircraft is designed to take such pounding lateral forces on the fuselage. The Electra may have already sustained damage in this area from a hard landing at Miami in addition to structural compromises for the large window opening and additional damage from a reef landing at Gardner.
The torn rear of the fuselage would have been then been buoyed somewhat by the empty cabin fuel tanks. With waves from the right direction, the front half of the plane have would have been free to pivot, rolling on the free wheel and twisting the stuck gear right off the wing. The front half of the Electra could have continue to pivot, pushed by the waves, until it spun and rolled over the reef edge in a matter of minutes. The tail could have washed over the reef edge at a later date, but might have been hidden in the surf when Lamberecht searched over Gardner.
In addition to the Bevington Object (landing gear), that would have left the possible window patch V-2-2-1, the later islanders tales of an aircraft door, aircraft cables for fishing gear, some aluminum for craft projects, and the island collective memories of an aircraft wreck.
-
At high tide with the tail half-in the water (weighed down), the tail wheel unable to pivot, one landing gear in a depression, surf hitting the side, I believe the Electra would have buckled in the middle of the fuselage across the patched window and door. No aircraft is designed to take such pounding lateral forces on the fuselage. The Electra may have already sustained damage in this area from a hard landing at Miami in addition to structural compromises for the large window opening and additional damage from a reef landing at Gardner.
That's a really interesting theory that deserves closer scrutiny. The first question that occurs to me is whether the pattern of failure on the edges of the artifact fits the scenario you describe.
-
At high tide with the tail half-in the water (weighed down), the tail wheel unable to pivot, one landing gear in a depression, surf hitting the side, I believe the Electra would have buckled in the middle of the fuselage across the patched window and door. No aircraft is designed to take such pounding lateral forces on the fuselage. The Electra may have already sustained damage in this area from a hard landing at Miami in addition to structural compromises for the large window opening and additional damage from a reef landing at Gardner.
That's a really interesting theory that deserves closer scrutiny. The first question that occurs to me is whether the pattern of failure on the edges of the artifact fits the scenario you describe.
James' theory that the Electra fuselage folded in the middle due to a force in the middle (waves) being resisted by both ends of the structure seems unlikely to me - it requires the tail and landing gear to hold stationary while the wave bucked the middle of the fuselage. I think it is more likely that the tail, with its large vertical surfaces near the ground and that were perpendicular to wave action, would have pivoted with the waves even if it was weighed down with internal water.
Note that the force required to buckle a beam in the center that is "fixed" at both ends is much greater than the force required to buckle a cantilever beam. In this case James' concept is the beam fixed at both ends, and mine is the cantilever.
So if the front of the Electra resisted the sideways force of the waves (let's say because of a stuck landing gear) the tail could buckle as a result of the pounding of heavy surf.
Additionally:
1. There is no reason to think that the portion of the fuselage weakened by the installation of the window would have performed better in tension or compression - both seem equally likely to me. Since 2-2-V-1 clearly exhibits failure in tension, this strongly suggests that the buckling occurred with the starboard side of the aircraft on the outside of the fold. If the buckling force was provided by heavy surf hitting the tail from starboard and the tail was unrestrained, that means the Electra was facing south at the time, and quite possibly fixed in place by a stuck landing gear.
This conclusion - that the Electra was likely facing south on the reef - may be useful or merely entertaining...
2. The other source of sufficient force to "tear" the patch would be a hard landing (probably harder than the one in Miami), where the buckling would likely proceed vertically. I think that one effect of a hard landing would be a strong upward force on the rear of the fuselage, but others may know better.
If the fold pivot was along the top of the fuselage, tearing would occur as seen in 2-2-V-1. If the fold pivot was at the bottom of the fuselage, the patch would have been under compression and the patch would not look as it does. However, I would argue for a bottom fold pivot in this scenario - the bottom beam of the fuselage was stronger and the added window would have weakened the top half of the fuselage. In this case the patch would have been compressed and not look as it does.
So my #2 scenario seems unlikely, leaving us - I believe - with the Electra facing south and wave action as the force, as posited by James.
3. The "tearing" exhibited by 2-2-V-1 along the edge with the tab shows a strong directional bias - the tearing is much more exaggerated at the left end (with the tab facing upwards) than at the right. Does this tell us anything useful in regard to the above theory?
Cheers,
Jon
-
I just don't see it. If we hit the airplane with a big wave on the starboard side and the forward part of the plane is held immobile, the fuselage might fail at Station 293 5/8 but I don't see how that can leave the patch looking like 2-2-V-1.
First of all, 2-2-V-1 is bowed out, not in. As I see it, the bottom edge failed as a lateral tear, possibly simultaneously with the fractured aft edge. The next edge to fail had to be the top edge which was probably chopped out by human action. The last edge to fail had to be the forward edge because it failed from metal fatigue after having cycled back and forth against a rigid underlying vertical structure. In other words, it looks to me like 2-2V-1 was hit on the interior surface by a force (either human or water) strong enough to tear the sheet from the rivets along the bottom edge just like a piece of paper tearing along a perforation (1). That force or a similar force was sufficient to fracture the sheet along the aft edge (2.). Somebody then chopped the top edge free (3.). With three edges free, the piece could be worked back and forth until the metal failed from fatigue.
-
I just don't see it. If we hit the airplane with a big wave on the starboard side and the forward part of the plane is held immobile, the fuselage might fail at Station 293 5/8 but I don't see how that can leave the patch looking like 2-2-V-1.
First of all, 2-2-V-1 is bowed out, not in. As I see it, the bottom edge failed as a lateral tear, possibly simultaneously with the fractured aft edge. The next edge to fail had to be the top edge which was probably chopped out by human action. The last edge to fail had to be the forward edge because it failed from metal fatigue after having cycled back and forth against a rigid underlying vertical structure. In other words, it looks to me like 2-2V-1 was hit on the interior surface by a force (either human or water) strong enough to tear the sheet from the rivets along the bottom edge just like a piece of paper tearing along a perforation (1). That force or a similar force was sufficient to fracture the sheet along the aft edge (2.). Somebody then chopped the top edge free (3.). With three edges free, the piece could be worked back and forth until the metal failed from fatigue.
Thanks, Ric. I expect you are right - I agree that it is hard to reconcile the origins of the four edges with that scenario.
1. A couple of years ago you wrote that TIGHAR might commission a test to see what level of hydraulic force would be required to cause a similar tear in aluminum sheet. I assume that test has not been done because the result would not have contributed to the search. True?
2. Do you see a meaningful difference in the quality of the torn edge from right to left? To my eye the left end of the tear in your image seems to be the result of a more oblique torquing/pulling action (hence its "sawtooth" shape) than the right end, which is much straighter.
3. Has the "chopped" edge been closely examined to determine if there is any evidence of the tool that was used to cut it, either via toolmarks or trace? If, for example, there is trace that indicates a particular alloy of steel, and toolmarks for a particular shape/size of ax, this information might be useful in identifying the "chopper" and thus where it was done.
Thanks,
Jon
-
In discussing various hypotheses about how the object ended up where it was in October 1937 we make the assumption that it is what it appears to be.
And I guess that is where I circle back to the thoughts/documents/communications leading to that assumption, and laying all of it out there, so that any disinterested party can make their own judgment about what they are looking at.
Now that the TIGHAR Tracks is out (noble effort, by the way), what I am getting at is source material - the methods, calculations, communications, etc., that led to the conclusion that what is on Bevington's photo is in fact from our favorite Electra. To wit:
- Jeff Glickman calculated where the BO is by comparing period photos with more recent photos. OK, so - What methods did he use, which photos, retrieved from where, what archive, what website, which specific photos, what data points were used for the triangulation, why were those chosen, exact methods and calculations used to determine the relative positions, exact methods used to determine the size of the BO in the Bevington photo, etc.;
- The State Department, all e-mails and other communications with TIGHAR regarding the status of the BO, what the State Department people said, what they based their opinions on, what methods they used to form those opinions, documents exchanged between TIGHAR and State about the BO;
- Rationale for why the alignment of the various pieces in the BO was chosen by TIGHAR, what pieces of the aircraft, why those, other examples consulted for comparison, etc.
- All communications regarding what else the BO might be, why it might be something else, why it might not be something else, rationales, etc.
In short, appendices and footnotes, like scientists do things all the time. All the evidence, all the thoughts, all the supporting data, all the methods. If it can't be replicated by someone else, using the same methods and data sets, then it isn't really science.
It is unwise to assume that what is in the Bevington photo is a piece of the Electra, just because we all want it to be. I want that blurry smudge to be part of the Electra's main landing gear. So do a lot of other people. But right now, to me, we don't have anything definitive because no one else can ask the same questions and see what kinds of answers they come up with.
LTM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No . 2189 EC
-
Now that the TIGHAR Tracks is out (noble effort, by the way), what I am getting at is source material - the methods, calculations, communications, etc., that led to the conclusion that what is on Bevington's photo is in fact from our favorite Electra.
There was never a conclusion that the Bevington Object is in fact from the Electra. That's a strawman that our critics have invented and delight in burning.
-
Clarification of this open-minded position is good. Apparently then TIGHAR's open to other possibilities - such as that it could be any number of things, including perhaps the end-on view of a launch from Bevington's group headed to or from the reef (as was suggested by one reader here some years ago).
It was always an exciting prospect to me, but I have to admit there are 'elements' of things suggesting the launch, too. Maybe it's TIGHAR optimism about 'for purposes of our investigation we'll proceed as if it is what we hope it is' (words to that effect) that get people so wrenched up. I myself have labored under a belief that TIGHAR held it to be the gear with a high degree of certainty. Thanks for clarifying that.
-
Clarification of this open-minded position is good. Apparently then TIGHAR's open to other possibilities - such as that it could be any number of things, including perhaps the end-on view of a launch from Bevington's group headed to or from the reef (as was suggested by one reader here some years ago).
Okay, let's test that hypothesis.
It was always an exciting prospect to me, but I have to admit there are 'elements' of things suggesting the launch, too.
We know what the wreckage of Electra landing gear looks like. We have good photos from the Luke Field accident. What did the launch or launches used by the Maude/Bevington expedition look like and what elements of their structure are identifiable in the Bevington photo? Does a launch going to or from the reef make sense in the known context of the expedition?
Maybe it's TIGHAR optimism about 'for purposes of our investigation we'll proceed as if it is what we hope it is' (words to that effect) that get people so wrenched up. I myself have labored under a belief that TIGHAR held it to be the gear with a high degree of certainty. Thanks for clarifying that.
That's a meaningless statement. Electra landing gear is the only thing that makes sense to me and to others who have far more expertise than I, so we think it's a great piece of evidence, but we're always willing to consider other possibilities. So let's take a hard look at the Launch Hypothesis based on whatever documented facts we can find.
-
Clarification of this open-minded position is good. Apparently then TIGHAR's open to other possibilities - such as that it could be any number of things, including perhaps the end-on view of a launch from Bevington's group headed to or from the reef (as was suggested by one reader here some years ago).
Okay, let's test that hypothesis.
Sure thing - it is just as testable as the gear is.
It was always an exciting prospect to me, but I have to admit there are 'elements' of things suggesting the launch, too.
We know what the wreckage of Electra landing gear looks like. We have good photos from the Luke Field accident. What did the launch or launches used by the Maude/Bevington expedition look like and what elements of their structure are identifiable in the Bevington photo? Does a launch going to or from the reef make sense in the known context of the expedition?
Happy to post a picture of some examples - including from Maude expedition when I can get to right computer if you would like. Yes, launch going to or from fits, actually. The gunnels of a launch going away from the camera looks much like symetrical elements that are in the image, and people in the launch look alot like elements seen there as well.
Maybe it's TIGHAR optimism about 'for purposes of our investigation we'll proceed as if it is what we hope it is' (words to that effect) that get people so wrenched up. I myself have labored under a belief that TIGHAR held it to be the gear with a high degree of certainty. Thanks for clarifying that.
That's a meaningless statement. Electra landing gear is the only thing that makes sense to me and to others who have far more expertise than I, so we think it's a great piece of evidence, but we're always willing to consider other possibilities. So let's take a hard look at the Launch Hypothesis based on whatever documented facts we can find.
[/quote]
I don't find it meaningless. I realize your intent to 'test the hypothesis' - but back to 'then test the launch idea' and why is the idea of a launch so beyond the pale? A launch being beyond reason is meaningless to me - a launch is far more likely to be present at that place and time than an L10 gear as far as I am concerned:
a - two launches are seen in one photo of Maude's bunch going ashore - Bevington in the forward one, another trailing in background behind his smiling face,
b - there was no landing channel at the time, Maude's crew was coming and going in the reef flat area - Bevington bore that out in journal,
c - seas in the 'B.O.' photo are relatively calm, not a bad day for landings there, or coming and going it appears.
Don't get me wrong: I'm one who was very excited about the photo and what I saw in D.C. But have to admit there are plenty of other possibilities, launch features can be discerned, and launches were in the area that day and place, Ric.
Thanks for posting and inviting this response.
-
See attached.
-
Whaaat? To post this image of the launch and imply/suggest (based the previous posts) that it might be the genesis of the Bevington Object reminds me of the days of seeing camels in the clouds.
-
I'm not going to say the BO could not be an expedition launch but. . . It bears remembering JG's analysis (triangulation) reported in the Feb 2013 Tighar Tracks (Vol 28, No 1) put the BO ". . .416 meters - about a quarter of a mile - north of the shipwreck and at the very edge of the reef flat." (my underlining) I think the BO picture clearly shows the object, whatever it is, is in the breaking or about to break surf line.
No one with any sense would have take one of the expedition's launches anywhere near the edge of the reef -- the surf is too dangerous and no there would be no real reason to do so. (If the expedition ship tied-up to the Norwich City's sternpost, they likely would have made their landings in it's lee, with little or no surf to worry about.)
I also think I remember reading somewhere or perhaps hearing it in the Bevington interview, that BO picture was taken from the expedition ship as they were leaving Gardner Island. All the launches would have been safely aboard by then.
-
a - two launches are seen in one photo of Maude's bunch going ashore - Bevington in the forward one, another trailing in background behind his smiling face,
As you can see from the attached full frame of the photo with handwritten notation in Bevington's scrapbook, that photo was taken at Canton Island, not Gardner. Bevington describes the occasion in his diary entry for Sunday, October 17th:
" At 4 p.m. we started off in Nimanoa's launch as it would be out of the question to walk around the island. We towed a ship's boat full of natives and reached the E. end by sun-down with Langdale."
In fairness, you couldn't have known this because I don't think we've published the full frame of the photo before and only the portion of Bevington's diary that relates to the Gardner visit (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Bevington_Diary.html) is on the TIGHAR website.
b - there was no landing channel at the time, Maude's crew was coming and going in the reef flat area - Bevington bore that out in journal,
Maude's crew were coming and going from the lee side of the Norwich City wreck. As Bevingon says in his diary entry for Wednesday, October 13th:
"There being no anchorage we tied up to the stern of the wreck, as the wind took us away from it. I boarded the wreck and found the hold to be teeming with mullet; they were so thick that more fish were visible than bottom. The natives easily speared them; lurking in corners were octopus, but of course not of the deep sea size. After breakfast I made an easy landing across the reef and walked across the shallow inner reef-lagoon."
In Bevington's diary entry for Saturday, October 9th, the day they departed for the Phoenix Group, he writes:
"We got out to Nimanoa by 8.15 a.m. when we took on two reef canoes for the Phoenix, and then had breakfast."
In his detailed entries for the three days they spent at Gardner (Oct. 13, 14, and 15) there is frequent mention of using the canoes but no mention of putting the launch or the "ship's boat" in the water. There was really no need. They camped ashore and the canoes were used to get around in the lagoon.
If you will read the diary you'll find that the only time Bevington had an opportunity to take the photo is when Nimanoa departed the island on the 15th.
"Maude and I saw to the construction of a flag staff and stone base, then we walked off to inspect the wells dug the day before for water movement, also to go into one or two points he hadn’t been able to check from the canoe. We got in by 11.30, both somewhat foot-sore – constant walking in the lagoon softens one’s feet. On return to camp, water reports were excellent, so we had a meal and pushed off to Nimanoa, having first raised the flag on the mast. It was grand to get aboard and get a fresh water wash, though water is rationed. The natives came on board with special woods they can’t get on their own islands, crabs, birds, and endless curios. As we sailed away they all talked endlessly; it was paradise to them, and the experience of their lives."
The lighting and shadows in the photo indicate it was taken in the early afternoon, which fits Bevington's diary.
c - seas in the 'B.O.' photo are relatively calm, not a bad day for landings there, or coming and going it appears.
You're suggesting that, as they were sailing away, they hove to and put a launch in the water and, for some reason, drove it up to a point on the reef edge over 400 meters north of where the ship had been moored.
Don't get me wrong: I'm one who was very excited about the photo and what I saw in D.C. But have to admit there are plenty of other possibilities, launch features can be discerned, and launches were in the area that day and place, Ric.
Actually no, there is no evidence that launches were in the water at Gardner and your characterization of where the expedition members went ashore is dead wrong. If you can discern launch features in the photo I invite you to provide an illustration, with or without banjo.
-
In his detailed entries for the three days they spent at Gardner (Oct. 13, 14, and 15) there is frequent mention of using the canoes but no mention of putting the launch or the "ship's boat" in the water. There was really no need. They camped ashore and the canoes were used to get around in the lagoon.
If you will read the diary you'll find that the only time Bevington had an opportunity to take the photo is when Nimanoa departed the island on the 15th.
"Maude and I saw to the construction of a flag staff and stone base, then we walked off to inspect the wells dug the day before for water movement, also to go into one or two points he hadn’t been able to check from the canoe. We got in by 11.30, both somewhat foot-sore – constant walking in the lagoon softens one’s feet. On return to camp, water reports were excellent, so we had a meal and pushed off to Nimanoa, having first raised the flag on the mast. It was grand to get aboard and get a fresh water wash, though water is rationed. The natives came on board with special woods they can’t get on their own islands, crabs, birds, and endless curios. As we sailed away they all talked endlessly; it was paradise to them, and the experience of their lives."
The lighting and shadows in the photo indicate it was taken in the early afternoon, which fits Bevington's diary.
Actually no, there is no evidence that launches were in the water at Gardner and your characterization of where the expedition members went ashore is dead wrong. If you can discern launch features in the photo I invite you to provide an illustration, with or without banjo.
What shadows? I don't see any obvious shadows. Please point out in the Bevington photo what features you think are shadows.
Please point out in the Bevington photo what lighting features you are talking about and how they indicate a late afternoon time for the photo.
Jeff P.
-
What shadows? I don't see any obvious shadows. Please point out in the Bevington photo what features you think are shadows.
I'm not a photo analyst.
I don't even play one in my dreams.
But it seems to me that there are dark areas under the clouds that might indicate, to a TRAINED eye, where the sun might be.
Every wavelet seems to have a shadowy side.
When Jeff talked about the photo in ... hmm ... I forget ... DC? Philly? ... part of his analysis was to distinguish what was a shadow cast by the object and what seemed, by contrast, to be be an object sticking up out of the water.
-
What shadows? I don't see any obvious shadows. Please point out in the Bevington photo what features you think are shadows.
Marty is correct. There are lots of shadows in the Bevington photo - on the down-sun side of the waves, on the underside of the clouds, and even down-sun of the Bevington Object itself.
Please point out in the Bevington photo what lighting features you are talking about and how they indicate a late afternoon time for the photo.
They do not indicate a late afternoon time for the photo. As I wrote, they indicate an early afternoon time. The sun is high in the sky to the southwest. Shadows are short. The north-facing side of Norwich City is dark and the beach is in bright sun. The time is within an hour or two of local noon.
-
Further to the Launch Hypothesis:
Attached is a better copy of the photo of Nimanoa moored to Norwich City. A boat, presumably either the launch or the "ship's boat" is clearly visible still in the davits. The small dark object in the water may be a canoe. Of course, one or both boats may have been put in the water at some point during the three-day visit. With enough imagination we can have one of the boats go far to the north and in dangerously close to the reef edge for some reason at the same time Bevington just happened to be taking a photo of "Gardiner Island and the wreck" (sic) but there is no mention of such activity in either Bevington's or Maude's detailed descriptions of the expedition.
Probably the most compelling disqualifier of the Launch Hypothesis is the fact that the Bevington Object is way too small to be a launch. Unlike the 2010 ROV video that spawned so much nonsense, the Bevington photo comes with a scale. The dimensions of Norwich City and its distance from the object are known quantities permitting reliable scaling of the object. The Bevington Object is the size of an Electra landing gear, not a launch.
-
If you look at the aft portion of the sloping starboard deck on the NC you can see the shadow of the mast and crosstrees. This gives a near-perfect sun angle.
-
If you look at the aft portion of the sloping starboard deck on the NC you can see the shadow of the mast and crosstrees. This gives a near-perfect sun angle.
True, but to my eye it looks like the time of day is different from the Bevington photo. The sun is in the north and the starboard side of NC and the stern of Nimanaoa are in shadow.
-
Further to the Launch Hypothesis:
Attached is a better copy of the photo of Nimanoa moored to Norwich City...
I don’t claim that what I am pointing out is a boat, I’m simply noting it since it seems relevant to the current discussion. In the Nimanoa photo Ric posted earlier today I’ve circled (actually, ‘ovalled’) something that can be seen in the image next to the Nimanoa that looks similar to the launch/landing gear/whatever seen in the famous B.O. photo. I’ll leave it up to others to say what relevance this has to the boat/landing gear/whatever-it-is.
-
In the Nimanoa photo Ric posted earlier today I’ve circled (actually, ‘ovalled’) something that can be seen in the image next to the Nimanoa that looks similar to the launch/landing gear/whatever seen in the famous B.O. photo.
As I wrote in my earlier post: "The small dark object in the water may be a canoe."
It does not resemble the Bevington Object.
-
If you look at the aft portion of the sloping starboard deck on the NC you can see the shadow of the mast and crosstrees. This gives a near-perfect sun angle.
True, but to my eye it looks like the time of day is different from the Bevington photo. The sun is in the north and the starboard side of NC and the stern of Nimanaoa are in shadow.
Yes, we have no way of knowing if the BO picture and this one were taken on the same day. I'm guessing Mr. Bevington didn't put a date on the back of the photos.
Although . . . the sea state in the two pictures seem to be similar. Would it be normal for the kind of calm conditions seen in the pictures to last multiple days?
-
I'm guessing Mr. Bevington didn't put a date on the back of the photos.
Actually, we don't know. The photos are fastened in an album. We haven't seen the backs.
Although . . . the sea state in the two pictures seem to be similar. Would it be normal for the kind of calm conditions seen in the pictures to last multiple days?
Not at all unusual.
[/quote]
-
Further to the Launch Hypothesis:
Attached is a better copy of the photo of Nimanoa moored to Norwich City...
I don’t claim that what I am pointing out is a boat, I’m simply noting it since it seems relevant to the current discussion. In the Nimanoa photo Ric posted earlier today I’ve circled (actually, ‘ovalled’) something that can be seen in the image next to the Nimanoa that looks similar to the launch/landing gear/whatever seen in the famous B.O. photo. I’ll leave it up to others to say what relevance this has to the boat/landing gear/whatever-it-is.
Comparison -
-
I make a motion that we formally retitle this discussion "Dueling Pixels:" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1tqxzWdKKu8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1tqxzWdKKu8)
And that's all I've got to say about that.
LTM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 CE
-
Real comparison.
-
I make a motion that we formally retitle this discussion "Dueling Pixels
Or "Banjo Redux." We've been down this road before and it leads to nowhere. I'm locking this thread. If anyone has a genuine, realistic alternative identification for the Bevington Object please start a new thread and we can try to have an intelligent discussion about it.