TIGHAR
Amelia Earhart Search Forum => General discussion => Topic started by: MichaelAshmore on February 19, 2021, 05:21:44 AM
-
There is much more to this image. After months of review, here’s what I’ve found. This object is most likely to be the left wing of Amelia’s Lockheed Electra. The size, shape, angles and image shadowing say it is. The wing being much shorter in height than the fuselage, would easily disappear under the sand/ silt of the shallow water at the Taraia spit. There is probably much more damage to the wing than my pictures show. For instance, wing tip most likely bent enough to break off the outer aileron hinge. Which would explain why the aileron is at a different angle then the wing. The length that was brought up in previous post on original Taraia object forum also coordinates with the Electra 10E wing. Have a look.
-
https://youtu.be/nsKmqJA085k
Short video of Taraia object hypothesis.
-
You may be on to something. We were all thinking fuselage the whole time, but it's a pretty good match for the wing. The question is, does this match where the wing would separate from the fuselage? Wouldn't the forces required to separate the wing bash it around and damage it much worse than this?
-
The question is, does this match where the wing would separate from the fuselage?
The short answer is no. The Model 10 is built around a "center section" that includes a massive "main beam". The engine mounts and landing gear are attached to the main beam which runs from engine to engine, so the wings of an Electra are made up of three pieces - the center section and two outboard wing panels. The fuselage sits on top of the center section and the main beam runs through the cabin (passengers in the forward seats had to step over the main bean to get to their seat). In other words, a Lockheed 10 cannot come apart like that.
-
And it was likely this center section that Emily Sikuli had pointed out to her by her father in the late '40's, long after wave action separated the fuselage, engines and wings.
-
And it was likely this center section that Emily Sikuli had pointed out to her by her father in the late '40's, long after wave action separated the fuselage, engines and wings.
Make that early '40s. Emily and her family arrived in early 1940 and she left to go to nursing school in the fall of '41.
Tapania Taeke saw "part of a wing" on the reef flat not far from the main passage some time in the late '50s. The size and color she described sounds like an outer wing panel.
-
Why couldn’t a Lockheed Electra come apart like this ? Whose to say the forces exerted on the aircraft at that exact moment didn’t exceed everything the designers thought they overcame.
-
Why couldn’t a Lockheed Electra come apart like this ?
It sold be obvious from my explanation of how the aircraft was constructed. The center section is a single unit with the main beam extending from engine to engine. For the inboard and outboard sections of one wing to separate from the aircraft, the wing would have to sustain so much sheering force as to cause that massive main beam to fracture at the wing root. Explain how that could happen without demolishing the wing itself.
-
So understanding your statement correctly. Your saying it’s highly improbable, but not impossible. Basically, anything could happen during a aircraft incident or subsequent airframe failure situation during a crash. Let’s also take into account flying an overloaded plane thousands of miles. Compounding the stresses from wind and turbulence on the airframe substantially, causing metal fatigue. So mixing in the human factors like lack of sleep and altered judgement due to fatigue, plus speed and angle of impact could be the reason for its separation. Leaving us to see this object the way we do.
-
I think Ric is saying that Occam's Razor should be applied here.
-
Occam's Razor is a handy guide, but it's not a law. Highly improbable things happen. A Bushnell surveyor lost a sextant box near where a castaway's bones would later be found. A few people stumbled across Amelia's distress calls on harmonics of her primary frequencies. It looks increasingly like the only surviving piece of the Electra washed up in a storm near where TIGHAR came ashore in 1991. Occam would have a fit. That said, highly improbable events must still obey the laws of physics. The problem with the wing separation theory is that it doesn't. There is no conceivable way to break an entire wing off a Lockheed 10 without virtually destroying the wing.
That said, if we ever go back to Nikumaroro I promise to go to that spot and check it out.
-
If she landed on the reef at Gardner, the airplane likely later broke up into 7 substantial pieces:
1. Outboard left wing
2. Outboard right wing
3. Engine 1
4. Engine 2
5. Center section
6. Aft main fuselage
7. Empennage (tail section)
6 and 7 could possibly have stayed together, but I think it was eventually ripped apart.
That center section is so heavy and strong that it and the big radial engines are likely the only pieces that anyone will find. Even if she decided to nose dove into the reef, that beam probably just bent, but did not shear.
Here’s how the wing would separate from the fuselage:
-
Yep, and radial engines in a coral reef environment (rather than a lagoon) don't hold up as well as everyone assumes. The aluminum and magnesium go away, leaving only the steel crank and cylinders. The photo below is what's left of a Brewster Buffalo R-1820 Wright Cyclone engine on the reef at Midway - and that's a level surface. The steep reef slope at Niku is prone to underwater landslides that could easily bury wreckage.
-
Being dismissive and quoting Occam’s Razor doesn’t make your assertions correct. As for 2-2-V-1, there’s no concrete evidence that it has anything to do with Amelia Earhart’s Lockheed Electra. But more likely one of the thousands of planes lost during WW2. Grant-it this theory doesn’t fit your narrative, but here we are. An image that has more substance to it then not. To say there’s no way the wing could sever is ludicrous. The long search for the Titanic proves anything’s possible. Until it was found, nearly everyone thought it would be in one piece due to it’s innovative design and safety features. It was simply considered unsinkable. And there was no way that could happen. But the keel did in fact break and the ship wasn’t found in one piece.
-
While I applaud Mr. Ashmore for his zeal- you are preaching to the choir here and you'll need WAY more proof than a re-imaged photo to begin to sway the group.
I'll just address one of your statements that are misleading."But more likely one of the thousands of planes lost during WW2." Yes-there WERE many planes lost in the Pacific during WWII, however records indicate very few were anywhere remotely near Niku, and having been a part of the group comparing 2-2-V-1 to sample aircraft at the USAAF museum in Dayton, OH. for rivet pattern matches and seeing how no military craft matched even closely, it makes the likelihood of the artifact having come from anything other than the Electra extremely remote. I'll stick with the factual evidence that has been presented regarding 2-2-V-1.
-
For Mr. Ashmore.
I was also part of that group. I agree with Jeff. Completely.
Here's a link to the Research Report Ric wrote following our visit:
https://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/71_RiddleOf22V1/71_Riddle22V1.html
Here's a link to a Research Report discounting the theory that 2-2-V-1 came from a PBY:
https://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/74_Is_22V1_From_PBY/74_Is22V1PBY.html
-
Ric says "That said, if we ever go back to Nikumaroro I promise to go to that spot and check it out."
Happy to go back and check it out, but we've already been to that spot and checked it out. In 2001 not only did we survey this part of the lagoon using divers on manta boards pulled by a skiff, but we surveyed this shoreline, including Taraia point, visually and with metal detectors. Folks have been back to Taraia Point several times since. I can say with relative certainty that if there has been a L-10 wing section there in 2001 or since, there is a high probability we would have noticed it.
It is possible that sands have shifted, objects exposed, or buried, but I think the odds extremely remote that a wing section got moved there since 2001. I don't think Taraia Point has changed that dynamically in the past 50 years.
My personal opinion is that we're looking at a coconut log.
Best
Andrew
-
There are data on what crashed Electras look like. Here’s a representative example:
https://www.baaa-acro.com/sites/default/files/import/uploads/1937/11/SP-AYD-6.jpg
Google “Electra 10 crash wreck” and review the images.
Dan Brown, #2408
-
https://www.baaa-acro.com/sites/default/files/import/uploads/1937/11/SP-AYD-6.jpg
This image just illustrates Ric's point. This L10 has obviously been in a major accident - looks like perhaps it's cartwheeled. The outer wings have been ripped off leaving the very sturdy inner girder section relatively intact.
-
For other examples search https://baaa-acro.com/crash-archives for Aircraft = "Lockheed 10 Electra".
Dan Brown, #2408
-
If the strength of the main beam, is as most say. Would make it likely that we are only seeing one side of main wing. The center and other side though attached, would still be buried in the sand/silt not visible.
-
Mr. Ashmore- you are still not listening. Please re-read reply #16 above from Andrew and take in what he is saying.
Been there, looked there, METAL DETECTED there.
In other words, IT AIN'T THERE!
-
https://youtu.be/_DgDRHGin3s
I can now see what everyone said about the main beam, it didn’t break. It still looks connected after over eight decades. I retrieved this image from Apple Maps. The proof I was looking for that ( Amelia Earhart and Fred Noonan belly landed in the lagoon at the Taraia spit on Nikumaroro in 1937 ). Just as the amateur radio operator said, she was on a sandbank. This we know now to be true. And as you can see, the Electra is somewhat intact and waiting for us to go get her. I have more evidence, but for now. Amelia Earhart’s Lockheed Electra location has been found, submerged in water, sand and silt on Taraia spit.
(-4.6684276, -174.5284368 )
-
That’s a Beech 18.
-
It’s Amelia’s Lockheed Electra, I know this because she didn’t depart Lae, New Guinea in a Beach 18.
-
Just as the amateur radio operator said, she was on a sandbank.
No amateur radio operator heard her say she was on a sandbank. Dana Randolph heard her say she was on a reef south of Howland.
In any case, if she landed in the lagoon she would not be able to use her radio.
You can shout nonsense as loudly as you wish, but it's still nonsense.
-
Landed on the sandbank we know as the Taraia spit. Yes it was a sandbank, not a reef. I got this information from your own Earnhardt Project. As I see that no one discounted it before, why now ? (Attachment’s below)
-
It’s Amelia’s Lockheed Electra, I know this because she didn’t depart Lae, New Guinea in a Beach 18.
Sorry, I meant it's a Beach.
-
Landed on the sandbank we know as the Taraia spit. Yes it was a sandbank, not a reef. I got this information from your own Earnhardt Project. As I see that no one discounted it before, why now ? (Attachment’s below)
Randy Jacobson based his comment on this passage from COLORADO Captain Wilhelm Friedell's report (https://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Friedell's_Report.html):
"Shortly after the flares were known to be false a report was received that further investigation of the report received on 3 July that on 3105 Kcs a woman’s voice had made four distress signal calls followed by KHAQQ, followed by “225 garble, Off Howland, battery very weak, can’t last long, garble indicated sandbank,” had been made and considerable credulance was given to the possibility of the report having been actually received."
This is apparently a reference to a message from Coast Guard San Francisco Division at 1455Z on July 3, listed as Message 45 in the Post-Loss Radio Catalog (https://www.tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/ResearchPapers/Brandenburg/signalcatalog2.html):
"COMFRANDIV reported receiving a telephone report from a “Charles McGill,” amateur call sign W6CHI, in Oakland, who said he heard SOS calls from Earhart “on about 86 meters,” saying she was at a point 225 miles north northwest of Howland Island, and asking Putnam to fly a kite. The 1935 Radio Amateur Call Book shows call sign W6CHI was assigned to Charles Miguel of Oakland. Apparently, the person who took the call at COMFRANDIV misunderstood “Miguel” as “McGill.”
As you can see, Friedell was mistaken. There was no reference to a sandbank. Besides, the message is not credible.
-
"As you can see, Friedell was mistaken. There was no reference to a sandbank. Besides, the message is not credible."
Sadly, I fear, neither is this Mr. Ashmore credible either. Another internet troll I fear!
-
Sadly, I fear, neither is this Mr. Ashmore credible either. Another internet troll I fear!
I don't think Mike is a troll. He's not out to disrupt just for the sake of disrupting. He really believes he sees an airplane and tries to prove it with his own amateur analysis of the image. Seeing is believing, but the mind often sees things that aren't there. Forensic image analysis is a science. It took Jeff Glickman two years and a trip to England to confirm the Bevington Object matches the wreckage of Lockheed Landing Gear Assembly 40650.
-
Adding to my supporting evidence that Mrs. Earhart put her plane down
in the lagoon ( Gardner Island ) is here in this 1938 photograph. Have a look.
-
I darken it up in case you couldn’t see it.
-
Sorry Michael, but I just don't see anything in these photos that suggest aircraft wreckage. And TIGHAR has been there, looked at that spot, and used metal detectors there with no success. I'm no expert on aerial photogrammetry, but I don't think Amelia ditched there. I appreciate you sharing your theory though. Keep on looking!
-
Here’s an interesting find on a Nikumaroro image, possible reflection off object at Taraia spit. I know reflections off water surfaces happen all the time, but this one is too close to just write off as that. No other place on picture is quite like this, a starlike reflection. So all of these pieces of information I’m posting aren’t just coincidental. There’s something more to this and the clues keep building. This photo is from atlasobscura.com and most likely you’ve already seen it.
-
But aircraft wreckage that has been there 80+ years wouldn't be shiny & reflective, it'd be dull & corroded. I don't think there were any stainless steel components of the Electra?
-
smh! I'll leave this to our photo expert Jeff Glickman to debunk, er... I mean explain.
-
Thank you Simon. I have taken that into account and would have had a similar opinion if the object weren’t submerged in saltwater, sand/silt. Protecting it from being in an oxygen rich environment with minimal corrosion over these many years. For example, if this piece of aluminum called 2-2-v-1 has been in this type of environment ( Not saying it has anything to do with her plane ), it looks pretty reflective to me. So I think it’s possible that a good amount of reflective surfaces still exist on the Electra. And that this could be a reflection from it.
-
I am apparently not the only one who believes aluminum can endure longer than most might think. Making it totally possible that a large portion or most of the Electra is intact.
I came across this post from 2001.
-
Okay, good find Michael, but since your reflection target is up in the surf of the shoreline of the inner lagoon and the lagoon itself is subject to the tides then the last paragraph of Ric's 2001 reply above would seem the most relevant.
-
I would think that paragraph to be the least, being that it’s only exposed occasionally. If it were exposed all the time, I would expect it to be in bad shape. But it’s not. So why hasn’t someone seen this long ago ? Because it’s been buried, submerged underwater, with sand/silt protecting it at the location she landed.
-
I would think that paragraph to be the least, being that it’s only exposed occasionally. If it were exposed all the time, I would expect it to be in bad shape. But it’s not. So why hasn’t someone seen this long ago ? Because it’s been buried, submerged underwater, with sand/silt protecting it at the location she landed.
How do you know it's only exposed occasionally?
-
This is a screen grab from a YouTube video of the 2015 expedition. Can anyone confirm if this group is approaching the spot of sand in question, and could the object partially submerged in the background be the coconut palm log in question? This occurs at about 40:10 in the video.
https://youtu.be/5h8DXqmzEPY
-
This is a screen grab from a YouTube video of the 2015 expedition. Can anyone confirm if this group is approaching the spot of sand in question, and could the object partially submerged in the background be the coconut palm log in question? This occurs at about 40:10 in the video.
Nope. The 2015 Betchart tourists (to the strains of Caribbean music) walk from the landing channel area all TIGHAR's "Gallagher Highway" through the New Village coconut jungle to the lagoon shore where they turn left and proceed along the lagoon shore past the "Club Fred" area where we traditionally base our lagoon launch, to the tip of the sand spit that extends into the lagoon at the southern edge of Tatiman Passage where there is a surviving marker from the 1985 Australia Army survey of the island - incorrectly noted in the video as the "Survey Marker for the Village." Looks like there might have been a coconut logged washed into the lagoon. Not unusual.
-
I believe it’s only exposed occasionally because of these observations. Tidal movement has shifted enough sand at these moments in time for us to get a glimpse of what lays beneath.
The topographic images show them to be submerged in water and mostly covered in sand. Also the limited amount of images, pics showing it.
-
There is another, nearly identical reflection about 750 meters to the south, on the edge of a big blob of coral. I'm going to lean toward sun reflecting off of the water. I can find endless evidence of sun shining off of the surface of the water in satellite images of the south pacific. The tide also comes in and out each day.
It sounds like you are so in love with your theory that you willing to make leaps of illogic to meet your needs, which is what the conspiracy theorists (Japanese capture and others) tend to do. Fuzzy objects, shadows, bits of coral or reflections become airplanes, barges, altimeters and Japanese commandos.
-
It sounds like you are so in love with your theory that you willing to make leaps of illogic to meet your needs, which is what the conspiracy theorists (Japanese capture and others) tend to do. Fuzzy objects, shadows, bits of coral or reflections become airplanes, barges, altimeters and Japanese commandos.
Confirmation Bias lurks under every rock. We've been bitten more times than I like to admit, but unless you're willing to accept defeat when the evidence says you're wrong you never learn from your mistake. There is another mental hazard that can be just as dangerous. I'll call it Denial Bias. Nobody wants to look like a gullible idiot, so when confronted with a piece of evidence that looks too good to be true there can be a tendency to construct illogical explanations to explain it away. In both cases, the trick is figuring out what is and is not illogical.
-
For an organization that has found absolutely no actual evidence of Amelia Earhart’s disappearance after three decades plus, I feel I made the wrong choice for help on my
find. It also seems any other opinions result in personal attacks and bullying by a handful of your Ricbots. These two images have more substance than all of your combined work. And as for you Ric, I don’t believe you even want to find her, seems to be nothing but a business to you and I am ashamed to a part of it. Cancel my membership
-
I don’t think anyone attacked or bullied you. This is a discussion. Other members have countered your assertions with their own:
Water is shiny
Coconut palm trees fall down
To your point that Tighar has found nothing in 30 years, numerous people have stood in that exact spot and found nothing. Their nothing has to be your nothing.
Canceling a membership won’t turn sand into aluminum.
-
It also seems any other opinions result in personal attacks and bullying by a handful of your Ricbots.
I'm sorry you feel that way. I think we gave your observations and opinions a fair airing. No one attacked you or bullied you. We just disagreed with you. We could be wrong. As I said earlier, if the opportunity arises we will take another look at that location. If there's a Lockheed Electra there you'll have the last laugh.
Cancel my membership
As you wish.
-
It appears Mr Ashmore has started his own AE search organization
https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/amelia-earhart-s-plane-possibly-found-in-nikumaroro-lagoon-1030396509
-
Tim Mellon, Robert Waelleans, Mike Ashmore - the power of pareidolia is truly amazing.
-
Think of all the time, money, and effort Tighar could have saved over the last decades if they had just waited for Google Earth to be invented.
-
The "announcement" by Mr. Ashmore starts to sound ridiculous in the first paragraph and only gets worse as the short article goes on. As was stated, nobody "bullied" him here- we discussed and disagreed with him. We also, in my opinion, totally disproved his theory, but as we have seen before in other cases the originator of a hypothesis is usually to close to accept negative criticism in any form turning it into "attacks" on their character. As Ric stated- IF Mr. Ashmore turns out to be right, then the laughs will be on us. However, I don't see him ever going to the island to test his theory, so we most likely will never know.
-
the originator of a hypothesis is usually to close to accept negative criticism in any form
We have to be constantly vigilant that that never applies to us.
-
There is a C-46 commando on a sandbar in the Bahamas that gives a pretty good illustration of what one would see had the Electra ditched in the lagoon at Niku. At low tide the top of the airplane, which is highly corroded, is exposed.
-
Mr Ashmore is expanding his discoveries from old photos. On this site (https://www.lelezard.com/en/news-19991528.html ) he shows what he believes is the “impact scar” of the Electra as it crashed in the brush near the edge of the lagoon and asks for donors to fund an expedition to Niku. I can’t see anything clearly in the photo.
-
I wonder he knows he would need TIGHAR's permission to do an expedition to Nikumaroro. We have an Antiquities Management Agreement with Kiribati that give TIGHAR the exclusive right to conduct Earhart research within the borders of Kiribati.
-
I don't see anything in that photo like what he says is there. In fact, I don't see much of anything except what looks like trees and a bit of beach.
LTM,
Don
-
As IF there would be any visible remnants of a "scar" after all this time and all the over wash from storms in the last 84 years! I really think he is off in his own world, but good luck on that!
-
To be fair Ashmore is referring to a 1938 aerial photo.