TIGHAR
Amelia Earhart Search Forum => Join the search => Topic started by: Heath Smith on December 01, 2011, 06:47:38 PM
-
Is it possible to obtain a higher resolution copy of the footage that is posted here?
http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/ameliavideo.html
I would like to analyze the video frame by frame and would like to obtain the highest resolution footage available.
Thank you.
-
Is it possible to obtain a higher resolution copy of the footage that is posted here?
http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/ameliavideo.html
I would like to analyze the video frame by frame and would like to obtain the highest resolution footage available.
We could put the best copy we have on DVD. $50 contribution. Free to TIGHAResearchers (http://tighar.org/membership.html).
-
Is it possible to obtain a higher resolution copy of the footage that is posted here?
http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/ameliavideo.html
I would like to analyze the video frame by frame and would like to obtain the highest resolution footage available.
Thank you.
Here are some low resolution frames.
gl
-
Is it possible to obtain a higher resolution copy of the footage that is posted here?
http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/ameliavideo.html
I would like to analyze the video frame by frame and would like to obtain the highest resolution footage available.
Thank you.
Here are some low resolution frames.
gl
Some more frames.
Even with these low resolution frames it is clear that there are TWO separate and distinct puffs of dust next to each other, one kicked up behind each of the main wheels. It is clear from these frames, and will be even clearer if you analyze hi res frames, that these two dust clouds were not made by a belly antenna being ripped off. This is especially obvious since the tail is up and there are several feet of ground clearance under the belly antenna.
gl
gl
-
Ric,
Thank you for the information. I will look in to joining up. I appreciate it. After breaking down the videos to still frames it is an interesting challenge and I am willing to invest some time there.
Gary,
It is funny you say that because that is exactly what I see as well for a couple of reasons. One frame seems to clearly show the puffs from the left wheel originating at the wheel itself. You probably cannot see the initial puffs of smoke from the right wheel due to the position of the sun and the shadow of the Electra. Once the smoke is no longer in the shadow it is quite visible.
The distinct puffs are also too large to be caused by an antenna wire falling off. They look like smoke from the tires. I found another clip on the Internet that shows the Electra "bouncing" at high speeds just before takeoff causing smoke puffs (and I am sure there were two distinct puffs there as well). That can be see here at 0:23s and 0:24s:
http://dsc.discovery.com/videos/finding-amelia-signs-of-danger.html
Did Amelia use some technique at take off to get the tail up or something? I do not recall many instances of tires creating smoke at take off as in shown in the footage. Something is odd there but I cannot put my finger on it. It seems odd that the wheel speed would be that different after losing contact with the ground for a fraction of a second. Any ideas there?
While viewing the footage that I do have of the last takeoff, I also believe that I can see the antenna post located below the wings although this is one visible for 2-3 frames. Was that the post that was supposed to have broken off or was it the other 1/2 way down the body?
While the theory that Amelia could not hear because the belly antenna was ripped off at take off is compelling, I do not believe that this footage can demonstrate that. Even with much better footage, the antenna and posts are difficult to see at 1/2 the distance with much better resolution footage. I am willing to take a good look though.
If the antenna did not fall off, perhaps there was some other reason that she was not able to receive transmissions, maybe operator error or equipment malfunction? It seems crazy to me that they did not take off and immediately test their radio with someone on the ground as it really was their only lifeline to the outside world. Was there any evidence of such a radio test heard by ham operators or anyone else? There was no tower at Lae with a radio? Strange.
Thanks.
Heath
-
The distinct puffs are also too large to be caused by an antenna wire falling off. They look like smoke from the tires. ...
http://dsc.discovery.com/videos/finding-amelia-signs-of-danger.html (http://dsc.discovery.com/videos/finding-amelia-signs-of-danger.html)
Did Amelia use some technique at take off to get the tail up or something? I do not recall many instances of tires creating smoke at take off as in shown in the footage. ...
I believe a dirt road crossed the runway.
I don't have time to confirm that now. I have to suit up and show up for class.
But the puffs may be "dirt" rather than "smoke."
If the antenna did not fall off, perhaps there was some other reason that she was not able to receive transmissions, maybe operator error or equipment malfunction?
Another blown fuse (http://tighar.org/wiki/Receiver_fuse_replaced_in_Darwin), perhaps?
It seems crazy to me that they did not take off and immediately test their radio with someone on the ground as it really was their only lifeline to the outside world.
Earhart did many things that seem crazy in retrospect (http://tighar.org/wiki/Failure_to_communicate). Not understanding or verifying the operations of her radios is a big part of the accident chain.
Was there any evidence of such a radio test heard by ham operators or anyone else?
There are no reports of HAM operators listening in from Lae, New Guinea (that I know of).
There was no tower at Lae with a radio? Strange.
There were radios. Cf. The Chater Report (http://tighar.org/wiki/Chater), for example.
-
One frame seems to clearly show the puffs from the left wheel originating at the wheel itself.
I disagree. The film clearly shows that the puff originates well behind the left wheel and probably centered under the fuselage.
You probably cannot see the initial puffs of smoke from the right wheel due to the position of the sun and the shadow of the Electra. Once the smoke is no longer in the shadow it is quite visible.
There is no puff from the right wheel. There is only one puff that splits into two parts, probably due to propwash from the two engines.
The distinct puffs are also too large to be caused by an antenna wire falling off. They look like smoke from the tires.
Neither you nor Gary understand the hypothesis about the antenna loss. The hypothesis is that the rearmost mast supporting the belly wire antenna was knocked off before the takeoff run began, probably when the airplane swung around to line up with the runway. When the takeoff began the broken-off mast was dragged along the turf runway by the wire. The puff is the mast snagging on the ground and ripping the wire free - hence the later anecdotal report of a length of antenna wire being found on the runway.
I found another clip on the Internet that shows the Electra "bouncing" at high speeds just before takeoff causing smoke puffs (and I am sure there were two distinct puffs there as well). That can be see here at 0:23s and 0:24s:
http://dsc.discovery.com/videos/finding-amelia-signs-of-danger.html (http://dsc.discovery.com/videos/finding-amelia-signs-of-danger.html)
Did Amelia use some technique at take off to get the tail up or something? I do not recall many instances of tires creating smoke at take off as in shown in the footage. Something is odd there but I cannot put my finger on it. It seems odd that the wheel speed would be that different after losing contact with the ground for a fraction of a second. Any ideas there?
Those are not smoke puffs. They are water splashing from puddles. Notice that no flaps are used on the Oakland takeoff either (900 gallons of fuel aboard). Mantz was in the right seat. It's not likely that Paul "forgot" to lower the flaps. My suspicion is that, knowing that AE had trouble keeping the airplane straight on takeoff and knowing that flaps reduced rudder authority at low speeds, Mantz advised her not to use flaps on takeoff. I know that Gary likes to draw conclusions from technical studies but Amelia may never have seen Report 487 and probably wouldn't have understood it if she did.
While viewing the footage that I do have of the last takeoff, I also believe that I can see the antenna post located below the wings although this is one visible for 2-3 frames. Was that the post that was supposed to have broken off or was it the other 1/2 way down the body?
The aft antenna mast is definitely there when the plane taxis out. It is definitely gone when the plane comes back past the camera. The latter determination was made by a professional forensic imaging specialist who examined a still photo (not a frame from the film). Whether the "puff" has anything to do with the antenna loss is really neither here not there. It's a simple case of now you see it, now you don't. The antenna was lost.
While the theory that Amelia cold not hear because the belly antenna was ripped off at take off is compelling, I do not believe that this footage can demonstrate that.
That's correct. The antenna loss was confirmed from a still image taken by by Mr. Alan Board.
-
Ric,
I do not suppose that still image that was analyzed is available on the Tighar site?
Looking at the puffs, I do not see that they are on the center line. Maybe with the higher resolution footage that would be apparent.
-
I do not suppose that still image that was analyzed is available on the Tighar site?
Research Bulletin here (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/20_LostAntenna/20_LostAntenna.html). [link repaired 12/3/2011 @ 10:57 am ET]
Looking at the puffs, I do not see that they are on the center line. Maybe with the higher resolution footage that would be apparent.
As I said before, there is only one puff. It first appears well behind the left main gear. Exactly where it appears in relation to the underside of the airplane is hard to determine due to the angle but it was the opinion of the forensic imaging specialist that was under the fuselage.
-
If the mast was ripped off the aircraft, did anyone ever mention finding the mast along with the wire? Or was it only the antenna wire that was found on the runway?
Brad
-
If the mast was ripped off the aircraft, did anyone ever mention finding the mast along with the wire? Or was it only the antenna wire that was found on the runway?
The anecdote about finding the antenna wire on the runway at Lae (http://tighar.org/wiki/The_Lost_Antenna) was secondhand and not contemporaneous with the event.
That doesn't necessarily mean it's false.
-
Who said anything about thinking it was false? All I asked was if there was any mention of the mast itself, or if it was just the wire?
Brad
-
Is it possible to obtain a high-resolution of this image?
http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/20_LostAntenna/20_LostAntenna.html
(http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/20_LostAntenna/20_LostAntenna.html)
-
Who said anything about thinking it was false? All I asked was if there was any mention of the mast itself, or if it was just the wire?
I'm sorry if I made it sound as though I imputed that opinion to you.
TIGHAR has often expressed a preference for first-hand witness statements made close to the time of the events in question. So, for example, the claim by Gore Vidal that AE used code to report that the delay in Lae was due to Fred being drunk (http://tighar.org/wiki/Fred_Noonan#Was_Noonan_a_drunkard.3F) is second-hand and was not recorded not close in time to the event in question.
The report that some "old timers" said they had found Earhart's antenna on the runway at Lae (http://tighar.org/wiki/The_Lost_Antenna) is dubious on the same grounds. It does not mention the mast being attached to the wire; it is not from an eyewitness; it is not from a record close in time to July, 1937; in my view, it is of dubious value in deciding what, if anything, fell off NR16020 on the morning of 2 July 1937.
-
I recently realised that I may have been mistaken to assume that a broken antenna would still be attached at the front connection point, at least initially. The problem with this scenario is explaining how the aft end magically hooks on something on the field and is yanked off to create the "puffs" seen during the takeoff film. Is this what others assumed happened? What do you think the loose end hooked on? Most airfields are preferred to be free of obstructions and objects that might hook airplane parts, and a loose, floppy antenna, possibly with a broken section of mast still attached, will not "hook" on the ground by itself. Note that I do a lot of vehicle tests that include dragging cables along the ground, and I've never seen a cable "hook" on bare ground, even when dragging failed ground anchors, tent pins, instrumentation boxes, etc. However, there is a different scenario that makes hypothetical sense to me, so I'll throw it out here:
Let's say that during the taxi at Lae, the aft mast contacted the ground, bending it back, tensioning the antenna wire enough to cause it to fail at the forward end. The loose section of cable was then dragged along the ground, still connected to the bent aft mast, and possibly to a bent intermediate mast. When the tailwheel rolled over the loose end of the antenna, the remaining connection point abruptly failed. I've seen a similar action take place when a vehicle wheel rolls over a moving cable - the cable abruptly acquires the velocity of the ground, rather than the velocity of the vehicle (caveat: I test vehicle barriers for a living, not aircraft antennas).
But there's a problem - this scenario would have to occur while the tail wheel was still firmly on the ground, not during the takeoff run when the tail is in the air. If so, then the puffs are not from the antenna getting yanked off - it was already gone earlier in the taxi or takeoff.
The simple explaination for the puff(s) is the plane passing over the hypothesized dirt road.
OK, let the flames begin.
-
I recently realised that I may have been mistaken to assume that a broken antenna would still be attached at the front connection point, at least initially. The problem with this scenario is explaining how the aft end magically hooks on something on the field and is yanked off to create the "puffs" seen during the takeoff film. Is this what others assumed happened? What do you think the loose end hooked on? Most airfields are preferred to be free of obstructions and objects that might hook airplane parts, and a loose, floppy antenna, possibly with a broken section of mast still attached, will not "hook" on the ground by itself. Note that I do a lot of vehicle tests that include dragging cables along the ground, and I've never seen a cable "hook" on bare ground, even when dragging failed ground anchors, tent pins, instrumentation boxes, etc. However, there is a different scenario that makes hypothetical sense to me, so I'll throw it out here:
Let's say that during the taxi at Lae, the aft mast contacted the ground, bending it back, tensioning the antenna wire enough to cause it to fail at the forward end. The loose section of cable was then dragged along the ground, still connected to the bent aft mast, and possibly to a bent intermediate mast. When the tailwheel rolled over the loose end of the antenna, the remaining connection point abruptly failed. I've seen a similar action take place when a vehicle wheel rolls over a moving cable - the cable abruptly acquires the velocity of the ground, rather than the velocity of the vehicle (caveat: I test vehicle barriers for a living, not aircraft antennas).
But there's a problem - this scenario would have to occur while the tail wheel was still firmly on the ground, not during the takeoff run when the tail is in the air. If so, then the puffs are not from the antenna getting yanked off - it was already gone earlier in the taxi or takeoff.
The simple explaination for the puff(s) is the plane passing over the hypothesized dirt road.
OK, let the flames begin.
I think that everyone has always assumed that Lae was a sleepy little backwater airport, maybe one or two planes a day. It turns out that in the '30s Lae was one of the busiest airports in the world! The airplanes flying in and out of Lae carried more air freight than ALL THE OTHER AIRLINES IN THE WORLD PUT TOGETHER!
http://www.airwaysmuseum.com/Junkers%20G31%20VH-UOW.htm
This was due to the gold rush in New Guinea which could only be carried out with air transport since there were no roads. Several months ago I brought up the question of why Earhart didn't takeoff from Rabaul which was almost 400 miles closer to Howland. Ric did not know that there was an airport at Rabaul (there were actually three) in 1937 and expressed the opinion that there was no reason to believe that Earhart knew about them. There were many flights every day between Rabaul and Lae so it is impossible that Earhart did not know about Rabaul. It would be like being at the Cincinnati airport and not knowing that there was an airport in Chicago.
So, I agree with you, the TWO puffs of dust were created by the TWO main wheels hitting the road crossing the runway. Ric's explanation that it was just one puff broken into two by prop wash reminds me of the old story about the new guy on his first day working at the airport. An old timer sends him off with a bucket to get some "prop wash" and he is run all around the airport by the other old timers in search of the mysterious prop wash.
It is highly unlikely that at an airport that handled that much traffic that somebody would not have detected and removed every obstruction from the runway and from the taxiway that was large enough and strong enough to break the belly antenna of Earhart's plane. Because of this, it is an unlikely event that the belly antenna mast was broken off while taxiing and impossible after the tail was up. Then, in Ric's scenario, the dragging antenna gets snagged a second time, on a different obstruction, another unlikely event for the same reasons already mentioned. Two unlikely events in series results in a very unlikely event. And then there is the question (assuming for the sake of argument that Ric is right) of just where the antenna would fail if it did get snagged. There is no reason to believe that the antenna wire was more likely to fail at the forward end than at the back end where it was connected to the rear antenna mast. In fact, it is more likely that the wire would fail where it was connected to the rear mast resulting in the rear mast being torn off but leaving the antenna wire still connected to the forward mast. This is due to the stress risers created by twisting or tieing off the wire at the rear mast and these stress risers lead to a weakness and a failure at that point.
Then there is also the likelihood that the belly antenna was not used for HF radio reception in the first place. Since a tuned transmitting antenna is the most effective antenna for reception it is most likely that the receiver utilized the transmitting antenna on the top of the plane.
gl
-
... So, I agree with you, the TWO puffs of dust were created by the TWO main wheels hitting the road crossing the runway. ...
I'm the one who introduced the possibility that there was a "road" crossing the runway--and I did so without checking where that idea came from.
I see that it is a controverted point in the old Forum (http://www.google.com/cse?cx=009580785602718212762%3Anmcmqnbv5de&ie=UTF-8&q=lae+runway+road&sa=Search&siteurl=www-open-opensocial.googleusercontent.com%2Fgadgets%2Fifr%3Furl%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.google.com%252Fcoop%252Fapi%252F009580785602718212762%252Fcse%252Fnmcmqnbv5de%252Fgadget%26container%3Dopen%26view%3Dhome%26lang%3Dall%26country%3DALL%26debug%3D0%26nocache%3D0%26sanitize%3D0%26v%3Dcf1c065b931d6062%26source%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Ftighar.org%252Fnews%252Fhelp%252F82-how-do-i-search-tigharorg%26parent%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Ftighar.org%252Fnews%252Fhelp%252F82-how-do-i-search-tigharorg%26libs%3Dcore%253Acore.io%253Arpc%23st%3D%2525st%2525%26rpctoken%3D1775415268#gsc.tab=0&gsc.q=lae%20runway%20road&gsc.page=1).
The Lae Gallery (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/27_LaeGallery/27_LaeGallery.html) contains a 1943 aerial photograph of the runway:
(http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/27_LaeGallery/4Laeairfield.jpg)
There does seem to my eye to be a "road" across the runway, not far from the red rectangle on the right.
Please note that I am not a qualified interpreter of aerial photographs. I also don't know how closely the conditions pictured in 1943 matched those of 1937.
I'm still under time pressure, so I don't have time to review other arguments about the purported "road."
-
I think that everyone has always assumed that Lae was a sleepy little backwater airport, maybe one or two planes a day.
I can't speak for everyone but I've been aware that Lae was active in supporting the gold mining industry. Note that the Chater Report (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Chater_Report.html) is addresses to M.E.Griffin at Placer Management Limited. Placer was (and is) a mining company.
Several months ago I brought up the question of why Earhart didn't takeoff from Rabaul which was almost 400 miles closer to Howland. Ric did not know that there was an airport at Rabaul (there were actually three) in 1937 and expressed the opinion that there was no reason to believe that Earhart knew about them. There were many flights every day between Rabaul and Lae so it is impossible that Earhart did not know about Rabaul. It would be like being at the Cincinnati airport and not knowing that there was an airport in Chicago.
I didn't know there was an airport in Rabaul and you haven't shown that Earhart knew either. Yes, once she got to Lae she undoubtedly found out but by then it was too late to change her departure point for Howland even if she wanted to.
So, I agree with you, the TWO puffs of dust were created by the TWO main wheels hitting the road crossing the runway. Ric's explanation that it was just one puff broken into two by prop wash reminds me of the old story about the new guy on his first day working at the airport. An old timer sends him off with a bucket to get some "prop wash" and he is run all around the airport by the other old timers in search of the mysterious prop wash.
We can disagree about about what the photos show but, as I've said before, it ultimately doesn't matter whether there is one puff of dust caused by the dragging antenna mast snagging in the dirt or two puffs of dust caused by the wheels. The simple fact is that the belly antenna is there when the airplane taxis out and it's gone when it comes back by on the takeoff run. All of the discussion about how that happened is speculation. Fun to puzzle over but we'll never know for sure.
It is highly unlikely that at an airport that handled that much traffic that somebody would not have detected and removed every obstruction from the runway and from the taxiway that was large enough and strong enough to break the belly antenna of Earhart's plane.
Who said anything about "obstructions?" It was a heavily-used dirt/turf runway. In my experience, heavily-used unpaved runways tend to get beat up. The aircraft was heavier than it had ever been. You can see in the film that when the plane taxied out, the aft antenna mast barely cleared the ground. It's not hard for me to believe that it could have been knocked off by striking the ground, especially if Earhart taxied into the over-run at the end of the runway to turn around so as have as much runway as possible. And it's not hard for me to believe that the mast being dragged along the ground by the still-attached wire might, at some point, snag in the dirt (maybe where the road went across the runway) and tear the antenna loose. But again, it's all speculation.
Because of this, it is an unlikely event that the belly antenna mast was broken off while taxiing and impossible after the tail was up. Then, in Ric's scenario, the dragging antenna gets snagged a second time, on a different obstruction, another unlikely event for the same reasons already mentioned. Two unlikely events in series results in a very unlikely event.
I would argue that the first event (the ground strike of the aft antenna mast) was not an unlikely event due to its proximity to the ground, the weight of the aircraft, and the nature of the field. Once that happens and the mast if being dragged along the ground, the second event (the mast catching on something) is almost inevitable.
And then there is the question (assuming for the sake of argument that Ric is right) of just where the antenna would fail if it did get snagged. There is no reason to believe that the antenna wire was more likely to fail at the forward end than at the back end where it was connected to the rear antenna mast. In fact, it is more likely that the wire would fail where it was connected to the rear mast resulting in the rear mast being torn off but leaving the antenna wire still connected to the forward mast. This is due to the stress risers created by twisting or tieing off the wire at the rear mast and these stress risers lead to a weakness and a failure at that point.
I have no idea what you're talking about. All I'm suggesting is that the aft mast struck the ground during taxi resulting in the broken-off mast being dragged along the ground by the wire antenna. When the mast ultimately snags on something the wire pulls free.
Then there is also the likelihood that the belly antenna was not used for HF radio reception in the first place. Since a tuned transmitting antenna is the most effective antenna for reception it is most likely that the receiver utilized the transmitting antenna on the top of the plane.
By that logic, Earhart and Noonan surely were adept at sending and receiving Morse code since code was the standard method of radio communication at that time.
-
Regarding part of Gary's post, Ric sez: "...I have no idea what you're talking about..."
I think Gary is referring to points I raised in my message #17, in which I propose that the antenna may have broken at the forward end, rather than at the aft end. If this happened, then I know of one means that explains how the antenna would subsequently be pulled completely free of the aircraft by the tail wheel if it ran over the loose end of the antenna. This would explain how the antenna wet missing between the taxi out, and the takeoff run. It does not explain the puffs, which may in fact be unrelated.
In my experience, a loose wire, with or without a broken mast on the end, is unlikely to catch on anything when dragged along the ground. I've seen no suggestions for what the antenna might have caught on, and I believe it unlikely that an antenna could have hooked on something, so I offered a different scenario to explan how the antenna went missing, based on something I've observed in practice.
I think it may be more important to concentrate on the antenna than on the puffs. The photographic evidence supports the conjecture that the belly antenna went missing between taxi and takeoff. The puffs might offer some indirect supporting evidence to explain how that happened, but the missing antenna is a fact that stands alone without requiring further explanation.
-
The photographic evidence supports the conjecture that the belly antenna went missing between taxi and takeoff.
Call it conjecture if you want to but the antenna was not there when the plane left Lae.
-
I can see why the antenna and any remaining attached support may have just dragged behind NR16020 until it simply broke free; either attached to the aircraft by the front or rear mast. But what if the now-broken antenna and mast went "Twang!"? As AE approached the end of the taxi strip, would it have been prudent or necessary (as the 10-E was a tail-dragger) to come a full stop after aligning with the center line of the runway prior to running up the engines and releasing the wheel brakes to begin her take-off roll? Or would she have allowed the aircraft to roll through and begin it's take off roll directly from taxiing (as sometimes takes place today)? If she came to a full stop, what would been the fluidity of motion as the aircraft rolled forward from that full stop? Would it been uneven enough from the derelict mast's point-of-view between the propwash and the release of the brakes so as to tip the remaining portion of the mast upward at some point, resulting in it's bouncing along over the ground still secured to the airframe? Alternatively, if she rolled through at the beginning of the take-off run, would centrifugal forces have whipped the antenna sideways causing it to have to bound along as it regained it's fall position under the centerline of the fuselage? Either way, the "tipping" action could happen while the antenna mast was being dragged slowly at first but at an increasing rate of speed over an uneven surface or striking a small crevasse or rock (or ruts from the possible cross-runway road), being jerked forward as the aircraft begins to gather speed and repeating the process. Instead of it sliding along on the ground, it is bouncing along, until the repeated physical shocks to the wire break it free (with or without the other mast) from the airframe. We should also consider the changing geometrical relationship of the wire with the aircraft as the tail wheel came up off the ground. Admittedly this is all a guess but if it were the aft mast that had failed during taxiing and the mid-point mast broke off during the take-off roll, that could explain the puff (or puffs) of dust we see in the film. If the runway had been paved, it is conceivable the antenna might have remained attached to the aircraft as it left the ground, sliding down the runway then trailing along in the air until it failed from being jerked around in the conflict between gravity and propwash.
It almost makes me want to get in a truck in the sub-freezing temps and drag a length of similar copper wire down a graded but unimproved dirt road at the same speed with an appropriately-sized and weighted aluminum "mast" behind it to simulate the scenario in this hypothesis.....except most of the county roads near me right now are under a few inches of snow!
LTM,
Friend
-
Below is the address to a Purdue picture showing the belly aft antenna mast(s), at some earlier date. At one time there was a second antenna that was part of the Hoven ADF system. The second mast may be part of that system, although I don't see a second wire. The fat dangling object behind the masts appears to be the weighted the end of the retracted long wire antenna. I've read that its location was moved from the tail, to the belly (as I think is shown here), then finally removed entirely. The mast(s) do not appear to be substantial structural items, so a ground contact would reasonable be expected to break it off. Would it have been visible if it were dragging along on the ground? Only with luck that positioned the greatest cross section to the camera lens at the right instant. Otherwise it would have been a rapidly bouncing stick on a skinny string, neither of which are likely to show up easily in the photo The mast and stretched wire are obviously missing from where they're supposed to be.
http://earchives.lib.purdue.edu/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=%2Fearhart&CISOPTR=802&DMSCALE=25.00000&DMWIDTH=600&DMHEIGHT=600&DMMODE=viewer&DMFULL=0&DMOLDSCALE=2.80269&DMX=0&DMY=0&DMTEXT=%2520b12f9i2&DMTHUMB=1&REC=1&DMROTATE=0&x=115&y=106
-
Call it conjecture if you want to but the antenna was not there when the plane left Lae.
Ric,
Help me understand your thought process.
There are three numbered statements below. Which, if any, do you consider to be fact?
1. The aft ventral antenna mast has not been detected in still or motion photography of AE’s final takeoff from Lae.
2. The aft ventral antenna mast was torn free of the fuselage at some point during AE’s final departure from Lae.
3. The ventral antenna was separated from the aircraft at some point during AE’s final departure from Lae.
(This is not intended to be a trick quiz.)
Chuck
-
Ok, another crazy theory.... the rear mast did indeed snap off. There was slack in the wire with the rear mast dangling. When they throttled up, the wire eventually was swept up and wrapped around one of the props and a piece violently smacked the pavement (I am sure someone did mention this already). The rear mast was pulled against the mast in the middle deforming it or ripping it off completely.
Has anyone ever noticed a faint line in the LaeT-Odet.jpg photo under the left wing? That seems out of place. I inversed the image so that it is easier to see. Strange how the line intersects exactly where the center mast is supposed to be.
It sure would be nice to have a higher resolution image than the 8-bit jpg image to work with.
-
Is there something visable on the plane's belly just aft of the rear window in the take off picture? Or is it simply lint or something on the negative?
-
As far as missing antenna mast: A picture is worth a thousand words. It simply isn't there on the takeoff roll picture. No amount of high resolution is going to make it re-appear!
As far as Lae vs Rabaul: An instrument rated pilot myself, 'trying' to think in terms of a poorly trained (she had vitrually none) instrument pilot, with 1937 navigation technonlogy, and considering where they were, 'personally' I would want as much "dead reconing" as possible during this last leg. Better to calculate wind drift and ground speed early in the flight....before going out over the vast....nothingness! But, that's just me trying to think like a VFR pilot having to go over the ocean....in 1937. I want to fly over as much land as possible.....
-
As far as missing antenna mast: A picture is worth a thousand words. It simply isn't there on the takeoff roll picture. No amount of high resolution is going to make it re-appear!
There are limits to what pictures can say. No picture, for example, can say, "A picture is worth a thousand words."
"The Lost Antenna II" (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/26_Antenna2/26_Antenna2.html) says, "It could be argued, however, that our inability to see the mast does not prove that it wasn’t there. (You cannot prove a negative hypothesis.)"
I very strongly disagree with the unproven negative assertion, "You cannot prove a negative hypothesis." Nevertheless, I grant that it is difficult to prove some negatives. On the basis of the photographic analysis and the fact that the radio transcripts (http://tighar.org/wiki/Transmission_timeline) show that AE and FN only heard one transmission from the ''Itasaca,'' I'm willing to say that it is not unreasonable to think that the antenna was lost on takeoff. Because the interpretation of the photo relies on certain assumptions about the reliability of the lens and the quality of the film, I'm not willing to say that we know for certain that "the antenna was not there when the plane left Lae."
The putative loss of the antenna on takeoff would account for the problems with radio reception during the fatal flight. There might be other causes (such as a blown receiver fuse (http://tighar.org/smf/tighar.org/wiki/Receiver_fuse_replaced_in_Darwin)?) that could have kept the receiver from working. It may well be the best explanation available for the receiver failure on 3105 kcs and 6210 kcs. If there was only one receiver on board, then it was in working order when the repeated transmission of the letter "A" was heard on 7500 kcs.
The Niku Hypothesis (http://tighar.org/wiki/Niku_hypothesis) is independent from the Lost Antenna Hypothesis. Evidence for or against one theory does not confirm or discredit the other.
-
'trying' to think in terms of a poorly trained (she had vitrually none) instrument pilot, with 1937 navigation technonlogy,
If you mean simply that she was poorly trained in the use of the particular radio equipment she had for the world flight, that's true. But this is not a good characterization of her instrument skills as a whole. She'd learned attitude instrument flying between 1929 and 1932, and later added radio navaids; from late 1934 onwards she used radio compasses, which were early versions of the ADF, to navigate U.S. airways.
LTM,
Mona
-
There are three numbered statements below. Which, if any, do you consider to be fact?
1. The aft ventral antenna mast has not been detected in still or motion photography of AE’s final takeoff from Lae.
The aft ventral mast IS visible in motion picture photography when the airplanes taxis out at Lae. It is NOT visible in still photography taken during the actual takeoff. I consider these statements to be fact.
2. The aft ventral antenna mast was torn free of the fuselage at some point during AE’s final departure from Lae.
I consider that statement to be fact. For the statement to be false the mast would have to be present but not visible in the still photo taken during the takeoff run. All of the other antennas are visible in that photo and a forensic imaging specialist confirmed that the aft ventral mast is not visible. That's good enough for me.
3. The ventral antenna was separated from the aircraft at some point during AE’s final departure from Lae.
I consider that statement to be fact.
Ric
-
I think Ric just solved it. John you're right on the money with that idea. Who wants to lead that one? It probably shouldn't be someone who believes the TIGHAR theory. Maybe Gary
-
So if you think that this can't be done then you are disagreeing with the navigation experts in the U.S. Navy and with Noonan.
I wouldn't dream of it. So Noonan had flares, was able to use them effectively, got accurate winds aloft information, and was able to navigate accurately to Howland. What are a relief.
This is always your retort.
Every once in a while an airliner crashes but that doesn't mean that the technology and the procedures are wrong and that airliners can't actually fly. Prior to those flights on which an airliner crashed, neither the dispatcher nor the pilot nor anybody else expected the resulting crash. The same with Noonan and Earhart. Neither they, nor the people on the ground, had any reason to believe that the navigation methods used by Noonan would not get them safely to Howland until sometime after 20:13 Z when they failed to arrive and they stopped transmitting.
Stuff happens.
What happened, I don't know and nobody else knows either.
Here's another example of an unexpected ending. Eddie Rickenbacker was on a special mission during WW2. On takeoff in a B-17, the plane blew a tire and swerved off the runway and the navigator's octant flew across the cabin floor. The navigator examined it and thought it was O.K. They then departed in a second B-17 and ended up ditching way off course and Rickenbacker and crew drifted for 24 days in life rafts. The octant had apparently suffered some hidden damage. If the navigator had suspected any problem prior to takeoff he would have gotten a different octant so neither he nor anybody else suspected the eventual ditching. Like I said, stuff happens.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddie_Rickenbacker
"Adrift at sea
One of Rickenbacker's most famous near-death experiences occurred in October 1942.[23] He was sent on a tour of the Pacific Theater of Operations to review both living conditions and military operations, and also to deliver personally a secret message to General Douglas MacArthur from the President. After visiting several air and sea bases in Hawaii, Rickenbacker was a passenger in the B-17D Flying Fortress numbered 40-3089, which strayed hundreds of miles off course while on its way to a refueling stop on Canton Island in the Central Pacific Ocean. The B-17 was forced to ditch in a remote and little-traveled part of the Central Pacific.
The failure in navigation has been ascribed to an out-of-adjustment celestial navigation instrument, a bubble octant, that gave a systematic bias to all of its readings. That octant reportedly had suffered a severe shock in a pre-takeoff mishap. This unnecessary ditching spurred on the development of improved navigational instruments and also better survival gear for the aircrewmen. The B-17's pilot-in-command, Captain William T. Cherry, Jr., was forced to ditch his B-17 in the Pacific Ocean, rather close to Japanese-held islands, also. However, the Americans were never spotted by Japanese patrol planes, and they were to drift on the ocean for thousands of miles.
For 24 days, Rickenbacker, the Army captain Hans C. Adamson, his friend and business partner, and the rest of the crewmen drifted in life rafts at sea."
gl
-
So what people are trying to do in this forum is raise scenarios as to why "stuff happens". Isn't that why accidents are investigated? Find out why something happened and try to make sure it isn't going to happen again. Your Rickenbacker story is a perfect example of that.
As you also point out Gary no one knows what happened and there is no one who lived to tell the tale. Hence we have a mystery. 75 years old. No black boxes. No witnesses. No smoking gun. But there is a lot (preponderance?) of evidence that permits a theory. You don't agree with it which is your right. But how many people have you convinced over the years that the TIGHAR theory isn't plausible?
I happen to enjoy your posts. They tend to keep people defending the theory. But Ric is right too. If everything you say is accurate then AE and FN should really have landed on Howland. You don't leave any other option.
-
I happen to enjoy your posts. They tend to keep people defending the theory.
Amen to that. Critics and skeptics keep us re-examining our evidence and our thinking.
-
I think that everyone has always assumed that Lae was a sleepy little backwater airport, maybe one or two planes a day.
I didn't know there was an airport in Rabaul and you haven't shown that Earhart knew either. Yes, once she got to Lae she undoubtedly found out but by then it was too late to change her departure point for Howland even if she wanted to.
Why was it too late to change her departure point to Rabaul? The runways at Rabaul were longer than at Lae, there was fuel available there and it was in the same country as Lae so any diplomatic clearances she may have needed to operate from New Guinea would also have allowed her to depart from Rabaul. Since the runways were longer, she could have filled up all the tanks even if this meant using less than full power for takeoff (I only state this since others have made that claim) if only 87 octane fuel was available at Rabaul. (It is also possible that 100 octane fuel may have been available at Rabaul since that was the capital city of New Guinea.) TIGHAR has calculated that the 1100 gallons on board at takeoff from Lae provided 24 hours of endurance so filling all the tanks, 1151 gallon, should have given at least one hour additional endurance. With a 25 hour endurance and with the existing winds, the point of no return to Rabaul would not have occurred until at a distance of 1807 SM from the departure point. Since it is only 2184 SM from Rabaul to Howland (compared to 2556 SM from Lae) the point of no return would have been only 377 SM short of Howland so they would have had the capability to turn around and return safely to Rabaul until quite close to Howland if there had been any problems causing Noonan to not be able to get celestial observations to fix his position during the night. If there were no problems and they decided to continue, then the flight would have taken less than 18 hours leaving a 7 hour fuel reserve, allowing them to reach the Gilberts or even Nauru if they were unsuccessful in finding Howland. The Gilberts were inhabited and the many islands were closer together than the Phoenix islands so provided a better emergency target.
If, instead they had departed Rabaul with the same 1100 gallons they had when they departed Lae, the PNR would have 440 SM short of Howland and they would still have had a 6 hour reserve allowing a diversion to the Gilberts if they couldn't locate Howland after going past the PNR.
All in all, Rabaul would have provided a much safer departure point.
See attached files.
gl
-
Now that's an interesting concept Gary. It sounds like a much safer route. HOWEVER, (wait for it) AE didn't do that. (Sorry I stole your line Ric).
Sorry Gary. I couldn't resist. I initially thought it might have been the time crunch to get back to California but AE did sit around at Lae waiting for the right weather and a time check. Although it was unplanned time.
Perhaps she could have made that shorter trip to Rabaul first and she might have survived. Perhaps she could have carried a little less fuel and a radioman instead. Perhaps she might have..... You get my point.
-
At most destinations Earhart had pre-positioned her own fuel. It's not clear whether that was true at Lae. In any event, the fuel had to be paid for and, by the time she got to Lae, Earhart was low on cash (see Finding Amelia page 71). We tend to forget that AE had to deal with such mundane issues.
Would Rabaul have been a better departure point? Perhaps. Would AE have been wiser to learn Morse code and be sure she knew how to operate her RDF? Without a doubt. Should she have coordinated earlier and more closely with the Coast Guard? Of course. We could go on and on. As Gary has often pointed out, the Lae/Howland flight was well within the capability of the airplane and navigational methods and technologies of the time and yet the flight failed to reach its intended destination. Yes, "stuff happens" but, especially in aviation, it happens most often to the negligent and incompetent.
-
At most destinations Earhart had pre-positioned her own fuel. It's not clear whether that was true at Lae. In any event, the fuel had to be paid for and, by the time she got to Lae, Earhart was low on cash (see Finding Amelia page 71). We tend to forget that AE had to deal with such mundane issues.
Would Rabaul have been a better departure point? Perhaps. Would AE have been wiser to learn Morse code and be sure she knew how to operate her RDF? Without a doubt. Should she have coordinated earlier and more closely with the Coast Guard? Of course. We could go on and on. As Gary has often pointed out, the Lae/Howland flight was well within the capability of the airplane and navigational methods and technologies of the time and yet the flight failed to reach its intended destination. Yes, "stuff happens" but, especially in aviation, it happens most often to the negligent and incompetent.
I agree with you Ric. We don't know what went wrong with the celestial navigation part of the equation but we do know that Earhart decided not to use Morse code (she could have learned it), and left the trailing wire antenna behind which foreclosed the possibility of getting bearings from the Itasca. Then she didn't take the time to learn radio operation as shown by her not even knowing that she had to transmit for more than just a couple of seconds if she ever wanted to get a bearing from Itasca. We know that her transmitter worked and there is no reason to think that it would not have worked on 500 kc (it worked on the flight to Hawaii ) if she had kept the long antenna. (It might even have put out a weak, but possibly strong enough, signal for Itasca to get a bearing on her but there is no indication that she ever tried it, she never announced that she was going to give it a try.) We know that her receiver worked (at least after she switched to 7500 kcs) so Itasca could have given her a bearing on that frequency after measuring it on 500 kcs. Even if she could never receive a bearing from Itasca, at least Itasca would have known where to search for the plane after it went down. When the flight was being planned they obviously realized that radio would be important to the success of the flight since they put the appropriate radio equipment on board and hired a radio operator, Harry Manning. After he bailed out on her the necessity of radio did not go away so she should have made sure to have the same radio capability, either by getting a new radio operator or by learning how to correctly operate the radios herself and by learning Morse code at a usable level, it isn't that difficult, and she had plenty of time (three months) to do this. On the flight to Hawaii they were able to get bearings as far a 660 NM from the shore station and Earhart should have been able to get usable bearings if she had taken the time to learn proper radio usage.
So I do criticize her preparation, planning, and lack of professionalism relating to the World Flight, not her piloting of the aircraft, and I do not mean to take anything away from her prior accomplishments.
gl
-
Aha, the 800 lb elephant.
AE was negligent and incompetent, that constitutes "Pilot Error" as the primary cause of the "accident", not "poor communications" although that was certainly a contributory cause.
As far as not having cash, I think George could have handled that. Gary makes an excellent case for Rabaul. My guess is that they had charts, etc for the first attempt and just reversed the route and not changing anything except direction. Again, poor decision making.
-
Ric sez: "At most destinations Earhart had pre-positioned her own fuel. It's not clear whether that was true at Lae."
Interesting, I wasn't aware of that. Did she have drums of fuel from a reliable source sent to those locations, or pay to have fuel sent to those locations (by the lowest bidder?), or was fuel "pre-paid" at the various airports, trusting it to be of good enough quality?
-
As far as not having cash, I think George could have handled that.
It's a common misconception that Putnam was wealthy.
-
Rabaul still looks much scarier to me! After just a few minutes in the air.....no more land in site.
A lot of land nearby with a departure from Lae. Still sticking to my opinion on that as a safer departure point. Give me more land to fly by or over until I have to face the loneliness of open water.
-
I have started to re read "Finding Amelia" and am, yet again, surprised at the number of discrepancies in so many official documents and eye witness reports. Today's black boxes and other electronics help with keeping the facts straight.
Even in these TIGHAR forums I find I have to be very careful, usually not succeeding, in keeping what I believe to be the facts straight. Opposing sides in arguments, entrenched positions, quoting of official yet disputed documents, etc. make it difficult not to go down the wrong path in our thinking. Just look at the example in the photograph quoted by Gary as he reads it from Elgen Long as a photo from July 2, 1937 and Ric's position that the same photo was from years earlier. Its very easy to read a statement and feel confident that it certainly sounds valid only to have its authenticity quashed can leave people wondering what to really believe.
The science of the TIGHAR hypothesis and the real known facts will continue to be questioned until the mystery is solved, if ever.
-
Opposing sides in arguments, entrenched positions, quoting of official yet disputed documents, etc. make it difficult not to go down the wrong path in our thinking.
Yep. That's what makes this investigation so compelling. It's mostly about methodology. It's less about WHAT to think than it is about about HOW to think.
Just look at the example in the photograph quoted by Gary as he reads it from Elgen Long as a photo from July 2, 1937 and Ric's position that the same photo was from years earlier.
It's not my "position" that the photo dates from 1936. The photo is one of more than two dozen given to us by the ship's former quartermaster. They all date from the 1936 cruise. He wasn't aboard for the Earhart cruise.
Its very easy to read a statement and feel confident that it certainly sounds valid only to have its authenticity quashed can leave people wondering what to really believe.
That is precisely what has plagued Earhart researchers for nearly 75 years. That's why I say the investigation is all about learning how to think - how to decide what is most likely to be true.
The science of the TIGHAR hypothesis and the real known facts will continue to be questioned until the mystery is solved, if ever.
I agree.
-
Is that why I find this forum so intriguing? I enjoy every post I read here as I am continually learning. For instance your point that those 1936 photos were just you presenting the facts not your position. I get your point. It really is about HOW to think. I like to tackle problems from non traditional angles. Case in point is my post on "Could the Electra have taken off from Gardner"? I believe the TIGHAR hypothesis is true but sometimes I like to see how others reply to different ideas to see how they think.
-
Congratulations. You get it!
-
All in all, Rabaul would have provided a much safer departure point.
See attached files.
gl
See additional attached files. The old Rabaul airport was 5,600 feet long and was destroyed by the volcano in 1994. The Tokua airport is 5,500 feet long and was paved in 1928, and is 13 SM southeast of the Old Rabaul Airport.
gl
-
All in all, Rabaul would have provided a much safer departure point.
See attached files.
gl
See additional attached files. The old Rabaul airport was 5,600 feet long and was destroyed by the volcano in 1994. The Tokua airport is 5,500 feet long and was paved in 1928, and is 13 SM southeast of the Old Rabaul Airport.
gl
Attached are Google Earth files that will take you to these airports in Google Earth. The best picture of the Old Rabaul Airport in from 2006 so select "historical imagery" in the "view" menu of Google Earth.
gl
gl
-
I have no background in aviation, but I can't stay away from this forum for more than a day or so or I have withdrawal symptoms. As an educator, I really appreciate TIGHAR's attention to the principles of research.
Cindy
TIGHAR #3167
Is that why I find this forum so intriguing? I enjoy every post I read here as I am continually learning. For instance your point that those 1936 photos were just you presenting the facts not your position. I get your point. It really is about HOW to think. I like to tackle problems from non traditional angles. Case in point is my post on "Could the Electra have taken off from Gardner"? I believe the TIGHAR hypothesis is true but sometimes I like to see how others reply to different ideas to see how they think.