TIGHAR

Amelia Earhart Search Forum => Join the search => Topic started by: Shaw Durman on December 23, 2011, 04:11:49 AM

Title: aircraft parts villagers had?
Post by: Shaw Durman on December 23, 2011, 04:11:49 AM
if the electra was washed over the reef edge into deep water, what aircraft parts did the settlers from the village have access to?
if they were parts of the electra, this surmises the electra broke into pieces on the reef, with the wings staying on it for a period of up to several years and the main section (e.g fusalage) being washed into the deep in the 38 hours after the last radio transmission?

I would think the electra would be washed over the reef edge more or less intact. are there any aircraft crash cites on Niku? is the B24 crash site mentioned on a neighbourghing island?
Title: Re: aircraft parts villagers had?
Post by: Tom Swearengen on December 23, 2011, 06:22:00 AM
I dont recall Ric indicating that there was anything else---even near the Coast Guard station. And if the electra was underwater, and hung up on the reef, I would think that the search overflght 'may' have been able to spot it-----guess not
Tom
Title: Re: aircraft parts villagers had?
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on December 23, 2011, 06:39:08 AM
are there any aircraft crash sites on Niku?

No (not counting the possibility of a landing on the reef by our heroes).

Quote
is the B24 crash site mentioned on a neighbourghing island?

At least one C-87 crashed on Canton (http://tighar.org/wiki/Canton) during the war.
Title: Re: aircraft parts villagers had?
Post by: Rich Ramsey on December 23, 2011, 08:14:29 AM
If you want my unprofessional take on this read on. My view on this issue is that after they landed on the reef there were able to taxi to spot where they could run the engine's to send out the radio calls. The reason's they didn't move the aircraft to the beach could be more than one. My feeling is that the reef was not flat enough near the beach and the plane might of got stuck in a rut. This would explain Nessie. Now the surf must of come in and ripped the plane apart to the point they couldn't use it anymore and it was covered by the surf when the fly over was done. I don't think it was a few years later that the remainder of the aircraft went over the edge. This would explain many things and if you ask me, this is how it happened. No, I can't prove it.
Title: Re: aircraft parts villagers had?
Post by: Irvine John Donald on December 23, 2011, 11:56:19 PM
This is the problem I posed in the thread about "Could the Electra have taken off from Gardner".  From the time of the last credible post loss radio message, Wednesday at 8.18pm local Gardner time, to the overflight on the Friday at around 10am or noon, local Gardner time, is 38 to 40 hours.  In that time the aircraft went from being able to transmit (engine running and crew onboard, to total vanished and presumed washed away over the reef flat edge.  Could it have only been partially destroyed such that natives got parts of it ashore to use as tools?  I don't think that's likely as that presumes the wreckage was still in place months after the landing and overflight which is when the natives arrived. So the surf tore up the plane in 38 hours to the point of being unrecognizable and yet the surf did not wreck the wreckage during the several months before the natives arrived. So the surf isn't consistent in its damage?
Title: Re: aircraft parts villagers had?
Post by: Bill Mangus on December 24, 2011, 07:03:41 AM
"So the surf isn't consistent in its damage?"

I believe it's not because the surf isn't consistent in it's damage but more like the surf's ability to do damage on the wrecked, remaining parts diminishes over time.  Remember, the a/c is mostly hollow, air-filled space.  The surf would knock these things apart, bash them around, poke holes in them and they'd fill with seawater.  Once they fill-up and sink they get heavier and thus harder to move around by the "normal" surf.  Over time and larger storms these pieces then get scattered or pulled off the reef.

Once the initial damage has been done, probably in a few days, most of the pieces would have been pulled apart in such a way they were not visible at high tide during the Navy flyover.
Title: Re: aircraft parts villagers had?
Post by: Irvine John Donald on December 24, 2011, 07:33:16 AM
"So the surf isn't consistent in its damage?"

I believe it's not because the surf isn't consistent in it's damage but more like the surf's ability to do damage on the wrecked, remaining parts diminishes over time.  Remember, the a/c is mostly hollow, air-filled space.  The surf would knock these things apart, bash them around, poke holes in them and they'd fill with seawater.  Once they fill-up and sink they get heavier and thus harder to move around by the "normal" surf.  Over time and larger storms these pieces then get scattered or pulled off the reef.

Once the initial damage has been done, probably in a few days, most of the pieces would have been pulled apart in such a way they were not visible at high tide during the Navy flyover.

Okay, but the surf didn't damage the plane and pull it into pieces from July 2 to July 8. The crew transmitted on the evening of July 8. Engines running and crew inside the cockpit to start engines and operate the radio. Then you're suggesting the surf got bad enough over the next 38 hours to break the plane up into pieces small enough to be hidden from view by the surf to aerial searchers yet large enough to be there months later for natives to get parts.

The surf didn't do that type of damage for 6 days but then on the 7th day it did all that damage?  Ric has suggested the current at that point on the island is strong and would push the aircraft towards the reef edge. I can buy that based on his on the spot experience and photo evidence. However something in the back of my mind says that if the plane was being pushed towards the edge and it suddenly went over during that 38 hour window then, because they could transmit, it was being pushed as one piece. Not being broken up during its push.  This would mean when it went over the reef edge it should have done so as one big piece of wreckage. Not broken up. This fits with the fact that three aircraft searching on the Friday did not see wreckage of an airplane.  But that doesn't fit the natives seeing the wreckage months later and getting parts off of it. Either wreckage was there to be seen or not. I don't think it can be both ways.
Title: Re: aircraft parts villagers had?
Post by: Harry Howe, Jr. on December 24, 2011, 01:09:01 PM

It wasn't just the 38-40 hour period between 2018 hours Gardiner time and midday 7/9 that the surf and tides had to interact with the Electra, it was also the 6-1/2 to 7 days (14 low tides and 14 high tides) between the landing and the disappearance that the weather had to interact with the plane.  A little bit at a time unntil voila gone.
Title: Re: aircraft parts villagers had?
Post by: John Ousterhout on December 24, 2011, 08:44:22 PM
I'm skeptical that the searchers paid much attention to the reef area.  I doubt that they would have thought that there might be aircraft wreckage to look for there.  They almost certainly didn't know that the reef would have made an attractive landing site at the time the Electra might have been there, especially since they flew over at high tide when there was a heavy surf noted.  We only know some fragments of what they were looking for, and can only surmise what they weren't looking for. Survivors waving from somewhere on the island was something they WERE looking for, and didn't see.  They reported that they believed they would have seen the Electra if it had ditched in the lagoon.  They also believed they would have spotted anything as large as a life raft floating on the sea.  Wreckage hidden in the surf 200yards+ from the beech may not have been what they looked for. We know that people tend to see what they are looking for, and don't see what they aren't looking for.
An aircraft gradually breaking up off the edge of the reef, even in fairly deep water, might occasionally give up pieces that wash onto the shore.  Numerous shipwrecks have done this, years after they went down.  Why not an aircraft?
Title: Re: aircraft parts villagers had?
Post by: Bill Mangus on December 25, 2011, 09:38:12 AM
I agree that the a/c was intact enough on 8 July 37 to allow for transmissions but I also agree that some minor damage might have been done during the period 2-8 July.  Betty's notebook offers indications of a struggle, possible injury(s), panic, etc. notably 'waters coming in. . .get out'.  Do not recall the date of Betty's transcriptions, but wasn't it the 8/9th July?  In any case, if you believe Betty's notes, something significant/serious was happening.  Perhaps that was the start of the breakup, leading AE/FN to hastily evaculate to the beach.  The absence of recovered removable/transportable gear from the a/c, either by the Oct 37 survery party, the native islanders over their period, the CG crew and TIGHAR searchers might suggest that AE/FN left the a/c in a hurry, not having used the preceeding 6 days to ferry possessions to the beach.  Along with their other poor decisions, maybe they didn't realize they were in a "survival" situation until it was too late to do anything about it.

As for the natives seeing the wreckage and getting parts off it, I think whatever material they found and used for their own purposes was stuff that was swept along the reef, into the lagoon channel or onto the beach where it would be found and recovered at little/no risk.  As Ric and other TIGHAR searchers can probably attest, doing anything on the edge of the reef is an extremely dicy proposition, and even the island natives, with all their skill and experience would likely shyed away from doing any extensive recovery operations there.  Perhaps the 'ghost'story(s) related by Emily and others were nothing more than parents wanting to keep the kids from exploring a dangerous location and getting badly hurt.

Clearly something catastrophic happened to the Electra in that 38 hour window between the last transmission and the Navy flyover.  Something serious enough to rip it off its landing gear, poke holes in the fuselage and wings and fill them with water.  How deep is the water at reef's edge during high tide?  Three or four feet?  The latest photo of Nikumaroro from the ISS, in another thread here, shows what might be the start of a trench at the spot where the wreckage was supposed to be.  Ric identified a hole at the spot where Nessie was supposed to be.  Might that trench be nearby?  How deep is it?  What's the largest diameter of the a/c--8-12'?  Add breaking 3-5' foot swells at/near high tide and its not hard to imagine the a/c being mostly hidden to someone not focusing their attention there anyway.

Title: Re: aircraft parts villagers had?
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on December 25, 2011, 10:52:13 AM

Betty's notebook

the date of Betty's transcriptions, but wasn't it the 8/9th July?

Oct 37 survey party

As for the natives seeing the wreckage and getting parts off it

How deep is the water at reef's edge during high tide?  Three or four feet? 

The latest photo of Nikumaroro from the ISS,

What's the largest diameter of the a/c--8-12'?


Please use the search tools (http://tighar.org/news/help/82-how-do-i-search-tigharorg) to dig out information that is readily available on the TIGHAR website.

Then provide links (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,127.0.html) as an aid to your readers who would like to see for themselves what it is that you are discussing in your posts.

Betty's notebook (http://tighar.org/wiki/Betty%27s_Notebook) (or materials linked from that page) answers your question, about "the date of Betty's transcriptions, but wasn't it the 8/9th July?"
 
 Oct 37 survey party: this is the GEIC survey (http://tighar.org/wiki/Category:Surveys).
 
"As for the natives seeing the wreckage and getting parts off it," you are probably referring to the interviews (http://tighar.org/wiki/Category:Interviews/Anecdotal_Accounts) with Emily Sikuli, Pulekai Songivalu, and Pulekai's daughter.

 "How deep is the water at reef's edge during high tide?  Three or four feet?"

Cf.  "Post-Loss Signal Statistics with Tide Information." (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/ResearchPapers/Brandenburg/TidalStudy/TidalStudy.htm)
 
 The latest photo of Nikumaroro from the ISS (http://tighar.org/smf/Spectacular%20Photos%20from%20the%20ISS%20by%20cosmonaut%20Fyodor%20Yurchikhin),
 
"What's the largest diameter of the a/c--8-12'?" Depends on what you're trying to measure.  Some clues in the article on the Electra (http://tighar.org/wiki/Electra).  I don't see an 8' 12" dimension in the planform (http://tighar.org/wiki/File:Planform.gif).
 
 
Title: Re: aircraft parts villagers had?
Post by: Bill Mangus on December 25, 2011, 02:05:54 PM
Sorry Marty.  I was not attempting to post accurate, historical, researched data.  Think more of questions for those far smarter than I to ponder and respond to.
Title: Re: aircraft parts villagers had?
Post by: Irvine John Donald on December 27, 2011, 07:46:11 AM

It wasn't just the 38-40 hour period between 2018 hours Gardiner time and midday 7/9 that the surf and tides had to interact with the Electra, it was also the 6-1/2 to 7 days (14 low tides and 14 high tides) between the landing and the disappearance that the weather had to interact with the plane.  A little bit at a time unntil voila gone.

But Harry, "A little bit at a time unntil voila gone.". But you are suggesting damage happened but not enough damage to stop them from getting in the aircraft, start and run the right engine and transmit on the radio.  That's either very selective or very little damage. In fact it could have been that the left wing was completely gone but then her left gear would also be gone and that likely means damage to gas tanks. Others know better that I do but I'm guessing that the main beam between the wings would have caused serious structural damage as this would not have been a sudden in flight failure but a slow destruction likely transmitted through the wing root. I'm not sure of the nomenclature here but I'm trying to make the point that surf damage wouldn't be selective.
Title: Re: aircraft parts villagers had?
Post by: John Joseph Barrett on December 27, 2011, 10:01:13 AM
As Harry said, " a little bit at a time". Pure conjecture, of course, but wave and surf action work on the plane, maybe even exacerbating any structural damage from the landing. Plane finally gives in and falls from at least one remaining gear strut. Now it's laying on the reef, radio is submerged when tide is in. Tide and waves lift plane up and down, banging it against the reef and opening more holes for water to get into wings, etc.. Waves eventually slide plane across reef and into one of the spur and groove areas. Damage to the plane allows water to enter wings, lower fuselage, etc throughout this so the plane doesn't float well or for long. Weight of the engines and cockpit hold the plane nose down exposing the tail surfaces and fuselage to the force of the waves. Fuselage is weakest in the long open area of the aft cabin with no bulkheads and gives way, maybe even crushing the fuel tanks that haven't already filled. Plane settles in water that allows settlers to see it but yet be covered by surf during overflight by searchers. Plane eventually breaks up from surf action/corrosion and slides into deeper water. Plane continues to break up during storms, allowing for pieces and parts to be found on shore and used by settlers. Steel ships sunk in 130' of water can be moved and broken up by hurricanes. I would think an aluminum aircraft could be similarily affected. Spanish treasure from ships sunk in the 1600's is occasionally tossed ashore after storms in Florida. I think it is quite possible that the plane was in a position where settlers could recognize it as a plane, obtain bits and pieces on occasion, and not have been seen by the overflights, especially if the searchers were looking for the plane on land and not in the water.   LTM,  John
Title: Re: aircraft parts villagers had?
Post by: Irvine John Donald on December 27, 2011, 10:33:53 AM
As Harry said, " a little bit at a time". Pure conjecture, of course, but wave and surf action work on the plane, maybe even exacerbating any structural damage from the landing. Plane finally gives in and falls from at least one remaining gear strut. Now it's laying on the reef, radio is submerged when tide is in. Tide and waves lift plane up and down, banging it against the reef and opening more holes for water to get into wings, etc.. Waves eventually slide plane across reef and into one of the spur and groove areas. Damage to the plane allows water to enter wings, lower fuselage, etc throughout this so the plane doesn't float well or for long. Weight of the engines and cockpit hold the plane nose down exposing the tail surfaces and fuselage to the force of the waves. Fuselage is weakest in the long open area of the aft cabin with no bulkheads and gives way, maybe even crushing the fuel tanks that haven't already filled. Plane settles in water that allows settlers to see it but yet be covered by surf during overflight by searchers. Plane eventually breaks up from surf action/corrosion and slides into deeper water. Plane continues to break up during storms, allowing for pieces and parts to be found on shore and used by settlers. Steel ships sunk in 130' of water can be moved and broken up by hurricanes. I would think an aluminum aircraft could be similarily affected. Spanish treasure from ships sunk in the 1600's is occasionally tossed ashore after storms in Florida. I think it is quite possible that the plane was in a position where settlers could recognize it as a plane, obtain bits and pieces on occasion, and not have been seen by the overflights, especially if the searchers were looking for the plane on land and not in the water.   LTM,  John

Hi John. You paint an interesting picture.  I especially like the tide part with surf and tide raising and lowering the aircraft frame onto the coral and punching holes.  I assume you don't mean on the reef flat.  Thats flat enough to land on so not a lot of big jagged coral formations there for punching holes.  Perhaps after it slides off the reef edge. 

However....You're suggesting that the section I bolded above all happened during the 38 hour window. Transforming in 38 hours from a recognizable aircraft with running engine to unrecognizable wreck where natives could recognize it as a plane wreck?  I can buy that over time your scenario could happen. But two points bother me. First is if the Electra went over the reef edge how would much be left for the natives to see?  Secondly is what would the natives actually see as wreckage?  It's suggested the surf would cover it from aerial view. That means the wrecks below the surface. What does a native see from shore?  During low tide they could walk out and perhaps swim down to the wreckage?  Why swim there?  Nessie?  Why didn't aerial searchers see Nessie? 

It's a fascinating puzzle. Unfortunately no one has the answers. Yet. And maybe even after the Electra is found in the deep waters off Niku, we won't know why they got lost and didn't find Howland. Keep it up John. Good thinking.
Title: Re: aircraft parts villagers had?
Post by: JNev on December 27, 2011, 10:46:37 AM
As I think of what I've been able to observe of the sea and elements in my lifetime, I would not be surprised if an identifiable piece of NR16020 were sitting right on the beach at Niku on the next visit.  I also would be disappointed - but not surprised - if we never found a trace, even if what we believe of the theory really did put the airplane there.  John Joseph Barrett's experience reinforces my own thoughts.

The sea is almost capricious in its nature - it possesses great hydraulic forces that can be stirred by storms, and it can be as calm as a mill pond at other times.  When its mass moves objects against other objects - like man-made against natural reefs, etc. - it can crush and shred in remarkable ways - steel plate may be mangled and aluminum spared, or vice versa - depending on the freak force of the moment and anvil at-hand.

And sometimes objects long lost to the deep emerge on a beach; other times, something long lodged at high-water suddenly is gone after a storm.  Anything between these extremes is certainly possible for any and all of the stuff that once was NR16020, if it was ever caught in that surf.  Personally I remain enchanted by the "found objects" (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Archives.html)(see 'Tracks September 1996' link on this page by that name, and "What's a dado anyway?" in 'Tracks September 1995'), among others.  Some of these may yet prove linked to NR16020.  The plexiglass (artifact 2-3-V-2) discussed in "found objects" really got my attention as a potential L10E artifact.

We can probably reconstruct with some degree of confidence how the break-up may have occurred over time, given some knowledge of rising elements and the nature of the airplane's construction.  But I'd hate to be held to account too closely on the accuracy of any prediction of those things - so many variables, and many of those variables so very local along that shore.

We can observe when certain things seemed to happen - and when they stopped - like radio messages.  We can also realize that the nature of the forces present would have leaned more toward destructive, and that gravity and a natural ramp of sorts (reef face) can be seen as players.  We can also see plenty of potential arresting features - like gouges in the reef.  So, we can get an idea.  Things may be snagged on the way down... or back up.

It does make for a fascinating study of reconstruction of what may have gone at that place.
Title: Re: aircraft parts villagers had?
Post by: Irvine John Donald on December 27, 2011, 11:06:24 AM
Hi Jeff. Great post. I really think the plexiglas is a smoking gun candidate. More research requires the funding. So too would parking an old aircraft on the reef flat. Like an old Electra for example.  Money and government cooperation would allow a true test of this part of the hypothesis. Put the plane there during a similar period of high and low tides and observe.  For the preservationists out there I think there would need to be a method of cleaning up after the experiment. But this would all cost more than a good ROV search.

Yes it makes a fascinating study. But the answer may only be months away with the next expedition.
Title: Re: aircraft parts villagers had?
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on December 27, 2011, 06:28:33 PM
Put the plane there during a similar period of high and low tides and observe.

It sounds all scientific to "run an experiment."  But scientists control variables to make sure that their experiments produce repeatable results.

1) How precisely do you know what the high and low tides were in July, 1930?

2) How will you predict a recurrence of exactly those conditions in advance so that your sacrificial airplane goes on the reef at the right time?

3) How long can you spend waiting for the right "weather window?"

4) How much money do you have to bankroll the experiment?

5) Who will sell you an Electra 10-E Special, rebuilt exactly like NR16020, for your destructive testing?

6) What landing craft will you use to install the airplane on the reef?

7) Where will you place it on the reef?  Small differences in initial conditions can make a big difference in the outcome.

Cost: high.

Benefit: low.

Recommendation: don't bother.
Title: Re: aircraft parts villagers had?
Post by: Irvine John Donald on December 27, 2011, 09:32:49 PM
As I said Marty, this would cost more than a good ROV search. So you're right. Why bother?  I don't believe that even if you had the cash to do a proper experiment that it could be done as you correctly point out the reproduction factors would be darn near impossible. But it's nice to just think these things out.
Title: Re: aircraft parts villagers had?
Post by: Harry Howe, Jr. on December 27, 2011, 11:05:18 PM

We physicists call them  Thought Experiments, the nost well known one is Einsteins "Twin Paradox"
Title: Re: aircraft parts villagers had?
Post by: Gary LaPook on December 28, 2011, 01:23:49 AM
As I think of what I've been able to observe of the sea and elements in my lifetime, I would not be surprised if an identifiable piece of NR16020 were sitting right on the beach at Niku on the next visit.  I also would be disappointed - but not surprised - if we never found a trace, even if what we believe of the theory really did put the airplane there.  John Joseph Barrett's experience reinforces my own thoughts.

The sea is almost capricious in its nature - it possesses great hydraulic forces that can be stirred by storms, and it can be as calm as a mill pond at other times.  When its mass moves objects against other objects - like man-made against natural reefs, etc. - it can crush and shred in remarkable ways - steel plate may be mangled and aluminum spared, or vice versa - depending on the freak force of the moment and anvil at-hand.

And sometimes objects long lost to the deep emerge on a beach; other times, something long lodged at high-water suddenly is gone after a storm.  Anything between these extremes is certainly possible for any and all of the stuff that once was NR16020, if it was ever caught in that surf.  Personally I remain enchanted by the "found objects" (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Archives.html)(see 'Tracks September 1996' link on this page by that name, and "What's a dado anyway?" in 'Tracks September 1995'), among others.  Some of these may yet prove linked to NR16020.  The plexiglass (artifact 2-3-V-2) discussed in "found objects" really got my attention as a potential L10E artifact.

We can probably reconstruct with some degree of confidence how the break-up may have occurred over time, given some knowledge of rising elements and the nature of the airplane's construction.  But I'd hate to be held to account too closely on the accuracy of any prediction of those things - so many variables, and many of those variables so very local along that shore.

We can observe when certain things seemed to happen - and when they stopped - like radio messages.  We can also realize that the nature of the forces present would have leaned more toward destructive, and that gravity and a natural ramp of sorts (reef face) can be seen as players.  We can also see plenty of potential arresting features - like gouges in the reef.  So, we can get an idea.  Things may be snagged on the way down... or back up.

It does make for a fascinating study of reconstruction of what may have gone at that place.
I made the following suggestion to Ric back in October, he hasn't gotten back to me on this.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

I have a suggestion for you for an experiment to test your theory on your next trip to Niku.  Bring a bunch of pieces of aircraft aluminum, say four feet by four feet. Inscribe each piece "NOT FROM EARHART PLANE." On the first day go to many places along the edge of the reef and chuck them over the edge. Record the locations from your GPS.  Then on the last day see where those pieces ended up. Did they slide all the way down to the abyssal plain? Did they get caught in shallower water by protuberances on the side of the reef? Did they end up on the various shelves on the side of the reef that you showed in your recent movie? Were they cast back up on top of the reef?

Then on the following trip look for them again, see if they have moved from their original resting places.

It's a good experiment. If they get tossed back on top of the reef then it supports your explanation for the bits found on the island. If they disappear down all the way to very deep water then it also supports your theory since it explains why you haven't been able to find pieces in the shallow water on the side of the reef. I'll predict that they don 't slide very far down the side of the reef before getting caught in pretty shallow water where they will stay forever, but I could be wrong. It shouldn't cost very much for the pieces of aluminum so an inexpensive experiment that might help with your theory.

https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,481.msg6151.html#msg6151

gl
Title: Re: aircraft parts villagers had?
Post by: Irvine John Donald on December 28, 2011, 08:19:29 AM

We physicists call them  Thought Experiments, the nost well known one is Einsteins "Twin Paradox"

Thanks Harry.  There seems to be a lot of those experiments on this site. LOL.
Title: Re: aircraft parts villagers had?
Post by: Chris Johnson on December 28, 2011, 08:32:57 AM
I'll predict that they don 't slide very far down the side of the reef before getting caught in pretty shallow water where they will stay forever, but I could be wrong.

https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,481.msg6151.html#msg6151

gl

Gary, what makes you think that the peices would get caught up in shallow water? If this was the case then the action of waves, tides and storms would be more likely to move the peices out of the shallow areas and onto the reef flat as when the waves hit the shallow areas the energy within tem is released.
Title: Re: aircraft parts villagers had?
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on December 28, 2011, 10:22:39 AM
We physicists call them  Thought Experiments, the most well known one is Einstein's "Twin Paradox"

Thought experiments, by definition, can be conducted by anybody in the laboratory of their own mind.

They draw out implications of what is known by forcing a reorganization of what is accepted as true.

Einstein published four papers in the Miracle Year (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annus_Mirabilis_papers) of 1905 while working as a clerk in a patent office.  His thought experiments had definite results on the field of physics.  They were not just daydreams.  His thought experiments led to real observations and experiments that have confirmed his insights. 

Even if the proposal to place a Lockheed Electra 10-E Special duplicate on the reef in duplicate weather conditions is a "thought experiment," it isn't in the same ballpark as Einstein's re-thinking of physics.  I ran the experiment in my mind (the only laboratory available for "thought experiments," of course) and concluded that it leads to a dead end.

NASCAR teams claim that there is no such thing as identical chassis, even though all have been produced by the same blueprints by the same workers using the same materials, jigs, blueprints, and templates.  Even if someone invested the millions of dollars necessary to build a duplicate of the Electra using period materials and techniques, we could not be sure that that airframe would have the same elastic characteristics of the original airframe, which had been stressed both by flight and by the crash at Luke field, followed by repairs for which we have no adequate account.  Which pieces of the plane were from the original?  Which from the repairs?  What additional material was used to strengthen stressed parts (if any)?  How many rivets were stressed by the crash but not replaced?  What G-forces acted on the main structural members in the crash?  How much did those forces affect the strength of the materials?

Sometimes small differences make no difference; other times, little things add up and make a big difference. 

Real physicists routinely receive bucketloads of thought experiments from cranks.  It is something they laugh about among themselves over drinks late at night, if they pay any attention to the new Einsteins at all.  The cranks, meanwhile, detail their rough treatment at the hands of professionals and console themselves with the thought that the professional physicists of 1905 also rejected Einstein's theories when they first heard them.

I completed the first full-length biography of a physical chemist (http://www3.canisius.edu/%7Emoleski/polanyi.htm) whose theory of adsorption of gases was rejected by Einstein but rehabilitated by London.  Polanyi's key insight into adsorption came from mulling over data collected by others.  It was, on a small scale, something like Einstein's meditation on the physics of his day.  Polanyi's third-power law for adsorptive forces could not be explained until until quantum theory developed, which was a few years after Einstein had rejected it on the non-quantum view of electron mobility that prevailed in the early 1920s.

I don't foresee any change in materials science or engineering or weather prediction that would allow this thought about an experiment to bear fruit.  YMMV.
Title: Re: aircraft parts villagers had?
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on December 28, 2011, 10:28:14 AM
I have a suggestion for you for an experiment to test your theory on your next trip to Niku.  Bring a bunch of pieces of aircraft aluminum, say four feet by four feet. Inscribe each piece "NOT FROM EARHART PLANE." On the first day go to many places along the edge of the reef and chuck them over the edge. Record the locations from your GPS.  Then on the last day see where those pieces ended up. Did they slide all the way down to the abyssal plain? Did they get caught in shallower water by protuberances on the side of the reef? Did they end up on the various shelves on the side of the reef that you showed in your recent movie? Were they cast back up on top of the reef?

Then on the following trip look for them again, see if they have moved from their original resting places.

It's a good experiment.  ...

https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,481.msg6151.html#msg6151 (https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,481.msg6151.html#msg6151)

Salting an archeological site with fresh aluminum debris does not sound like "a good experiment" to me.

You are assuming, without proof, that the pieces would stay together so that the "not from Amelia Earhart's plane" tags would stay intact.

Howard Alldred (http://tighar.org/wiki/Howard), may he rest in peace, was an oceanographer who knew something about wave action.  He theorized that most of the aluminum would be turned into grains as small as grains of sand. 

I think it is best not to add anything to the debris field on or near Niku, if it exists. 
Title: Re: aircraft parts villagers had?
Post by: Shaw Durman on December 28, 2011, 10:30:19 AM
A further thought on NR16020 parts, have the pools/holes in the 'boat channel' between the reef flat and beach been thoroughly searched?
Just woundering if a piece or pieces of 16020 are lying in the bottom of these 4-6 foot deep pools, maybe under a few inches of sand or sediment.
Title: Re: aircraft parts villagers had?
Post by: Gary LaPook on December 28, 2011, 10:35:43 AM
I'll predict that they don 't slide very far down the side of the reef before getting caught in pretty shallow water where they will stay forever, but I could be wrong.

https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,481.msg6151.html#msg6151

gl

Gary, what makes you think that the peices would get caught up in shallow water? If this was the case then the action of waves, tides and storms would be more likely to move the peices out of the shallow areas and onto the reef flat as when the waves hit the shallow areas the energy within tem is released.
I've done a lot of diving on reefs and they have an infinite number of nooks, crannies, protuberances, and coral heads to catch stuff. The TIGHAR theory also relies on this to get the aircraft pieces to the natives. If the plane went over the edge and did not get caught in shallow water then it would have sunk to such a depth that none of the pieces would ever have come back up because wave action does not extend very far below the surface and gets attenuated very rapidly. So it TIGHAR is correct I would expect some pieces to still be found at a fairly shallow depth that has already been searched by the ROV with nothing found.

gl
Title: Re: aircraft parts villagers had?
Post by: Shaw Durman on December 28, 2011, 10:37:22 AM
could a magnatometre be tuned to ignore steel (what the Norwich City was made of) and only pick up aircraft aluminium?
Title: Re: aircraft parts villagers had?
Post by: Gary LaPook on December 28, 2011, 10:54:09 AM
I have a suggestion for you for an experiment to test your theory on your next trip to Niku.  Bring a bunch of pieces of aircraft aluminum, say four feet by four feet. Inscribe each piece "NOT FROM EARHART PLANE." On the first day go to many places along the edge of the reef and chuck them over the edge. Record the locations from your GPS.  Then on the last day see where those pieces ended up. Did they slide all the way down to the abyssal plain? Did they get caught in shallower water by protuberances on the side of the reef? Did they end up on the various shelves on the side of the reef that you showed in your recent movie? Were they cast back up on top of the reef?

Then on the following trip look for them again, see if they have moved from their original resting places.

It's a good experiment.  ...

https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,481.msg6151.html#msg6151 (https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,481.msg6151.html#msg6151)

Salting an archeological site with fresh aluminum debris does not sound like "a good experiment" to me.

You are assuming, without proof, that the pieces would stay together so that the "not from Amelia Earhart's plane" tags would stay intact.

Howard Alldred (http://tighar.org/wiki/Howard), may he rest in peace, was an oceanographer who knew something about wave action.  He theorized that most of the aluminum would be turned into grains as small as grains of sand. 

I think it is best not to add anything to the debris field on or near Niku, if it exists.
There have been lots of WW2 aircraft discovered in very good condition in both shallower and deeper water than what we are talking about. If you are worried about polluting the area with metal that could be confused with Earhart's plane aluminum then use an alloy with the same specific gravity and other characteristics as her alloy but that has a metallurgy that is easy to distinguish from her alloy.

For identification spell it out with a bunch of small holes through the plates that would last until the plates are completely destroyed.
gl
Title: Re: aircraft parts villagers had?
Post by: Harry Howe, Jr. on December 28, 2011, 11:56:23 AM

Marty
I don't recall saying anything that would warrant equating a "thought experiment" with a DayDream.  Perhaps I should have said "a thoughtful Thought Experiment".  That might have dampened your need to pontificate.

At one time it was thought that the proton and the neutron were "elementary" particles, .i.e they were indivisible.  Now the standard model defines the proton as a combination of two "Up" Quarks and a "Down"  Quark (the Up Quark carries a charge of positive 2/3 of the charge of an electron, and the Down Quark carries a charge of negative 1/3 of the charge of an electron), thus two Ups and one Down, the proton, has a charge of positive 1 electron charge.  The neutron is a combination of two Down Quarks and one Up Quark and has zero charge.

The existence of the 6 Quarks (Top, Bottom, Up, Down, and Charmed, Strange) were first Theoretical, i.e. a Thought, and then Experimental,i.e. a Discovery.  Who knows, maybe even a DayDream or two might have been involved. 
Title: Re: aircraft parts villagers had?
Post by: Irvine John Donald on December 28, 2011, 12:16:28 PM
Good comments one and all.  My original post in this thread suggesting an experiment ended with my comment that it would be better to spend the money on a good ROV search.

I share Jeff's feelings on experimentation to see what might happen but the expense isn't going to produce the evidence.

Marty's comments about the true definition of a Thought Experiment and how it doesn't mean the same as a "daydream" is probably technically accurate. But I think most experiments started with a thought. How else would someone "dream up" the experiment?  If we don't dream and think in this forum then are we just to sit and regurgitate the known facts?  You know, the technical ones. 

Read Jeff's reply. He says what I feel.  TIGHAR has been using the hypothesis and scientific methodology to develop this same hypothesis. Slowly more facts come to life. Especially from the island visits. But every one of those trips had a agenda. Someone 'thought' about what that agenda was to be.  That's the thinking that needs to continue.  I believe that's what Harry was suggesting.
Title: Re: aircraft parts villagers had?
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on December 28, 2011, 12:27:57 PM
There have been lots of WW2 aircraft discovered in very good condition in both shallower and deeper water than what we are talking about.

In quiet waters, yes.

On the side of a coral reef?  That's the relevant analogy.
Title: Re: aircraft parts villagers had?
Post by: Chris Johnson on December 28, 2011, 12:28:45 PM
I'll predict that they don 't slide very far down the side of the reef before getting caught in pretty shallow water where they will stay forever, but I could be wrong.

https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,481.msg6151.html#msg6151

gl

Gary, what makes you think that the peices would get caught up in shallow water? If this was the case then the action of waves, tides and storms would be more likely to move the peices out of the shallow areas and onto the reef flat as when the waves hit the shallow areas the energy within tem is released.
I've done a lot of diving on reefs and they have an infinite number of nooks, crannies, protuberances, and coral heads to catch stuff. The TIGHAR theory also relies on this to get the aircraft pieces to the natives. If the plane went over the edge and did not get caught in shallow water then it would have sunk to such a depth that none of the pieces would ever have come back up because wave action does not extend very far below the surface and gets attenuated very rapidly. So it TIGHAR is correct I would expect some pieces to still be found at a fairly shallow depth that has already been searched by the ROV with nothing found.

gl

OK now to add the text.

Gary, like Marty says in a nice environment.  I lived by the sea for nearly half my life in some rough conditions and have seen what the sea can do.  This picture was taken on Chritmas day on a sand beach after a moderate south westerly gale.  whats missing?

BTW the boulders/pebbles form a very nice storm surge ridge behind the photo taker.
Title: Re: aircraft parts villagers had?
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on December 28, 2011, 02:59:43 PM
I don't recall saying anything that would warrant equating a "thought experiment" with a DayDream.

I didn't attribute that to you.  I have trouble ranking wishful thinking about destroying an Electra on an active archeology site as the moral equivalent of physicists' thought experiments.

Quote
Perhaps I should have said "a thoughtful Thought Experiment".  That might have dampened your need to pontificate.

I doubt it.  Some thought experiments are more respectable ("thoughtful") than others.

Quote
At one time it was thought that the proton and the neutron were "elementary" particles, i.e. they were indivisible.  Now the standard model defines the proton as a combination of two "Up" Quarks and a "Down"  Quark (the Up Quark carries a charge of positive 2/3 of the charge of an electron, and the Down Quark carries a charge of negative 1/3 of the charge of an electron), thus two Ups and one Down, the proton, has a charge of positive 1 electron charge.  The neutron is a combination of two Down Quarks and one Up Quark and has zero charge.

The existence of the 6 Quarks (Top, Bottom, Up, Down, and Charmed, Strange) were first Theoretical, i.e. a Thought, and then Experimental,i.e. a Discovery.  Who knows, maybe even a DayDream or two might have been involved.

I did not deny the fruitfulness of thought experiments in physics.  In fact, I gave examples of how Einstein and Polanyi used them profitably.

I deny that this particular "thought experiment" is on par with those found in physics.
Title: Re: aircraft parts villagers had?
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on December 28, 2011, 03:08:06 PM
Marty's comments about the true definition of a Thought Experiment and how it doesn't mean the same as a "daydream" is probably technically accurate. But I think most experiments started with a thought. How else would someone "dream up" the experiment?  If we don't dream and think in this forum then are we just to sit and regurgitate the known facts?  You know, the technical ones. 

Yes, of course experiments must be preceded by thought.

Yes, some good ideas may come to qualified experimenters in the form of a dream or a daydream.  Arthur Koestler's book, Sleepwalkers, collects any number of stories like that.  So, too, does Polya in How to Solve It.

My disagreement is whether this particular "thought" ("Wouldn't it be nice to destroy an Electra at Niku?") is going to lead to a theoretical breakthrough in TIGHAR's work or to a real experiment.  My answer is, "No."

Quote
TIGHAR has been using the hypothesis and scientific methodology to develop this same hypothesis. Slowly more facts come to life. Especially from the island visits. But every one of those trips had a agenda. Someone 'thought' about what that agenda was to be.  That's the thinking that needs to continue.  I believe that's what Harry was suggesting.

I don't find your "thought" in the same class as the "thoughts" that lead TIGHAR to Niku and that have guided TIGHAR's research on the island.  Your thought reminds me of the cranks whom I have encountered personally, through reading Polanyi's files, and in my former work as a member of the Big Eight Management Board, where I dealt with some mathematical cranks.  Yes, scientists think; yes, some of their thoughts come in unusual forms; no, this thought that you have had is not one that is going to lead to good results.
Title: Re: aircraft parts villagers had?
Post by: Irvine John Donald on December 28, 2011, 03:45:42 PM
Thanks Marty for that clarification. As I was unaware of the term and definition of a "Thought experiment" then my whimsical thought can not be on par as you have observed.  Neither would I think it practical to destroy a perfectly good aircraft. Even I said in my original post that it would be better to spend the money on an ROV search. My admission that it would not be a good idea. However it did generate some ideas and comments from others. So my "thought" served a purpose.

I take your comment "Your thought reminds me of the cranks..." personally. I haven't had anyone say anything like that to me or about my thoughts in my lifetime that i am aware of.  You are, of course, entitled to your opinions as am I. Why have this forum if not to solicit ideas and comments?  Some of which you may not like. You should be allowed to express your ideas here without fear of personal attack. Please leave it at that.
Title: Re: aircraft parts villagers had?
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on December 28, 2011, 04:45:12 PM
I take your comment "Your thought reminds me of the cranks..." personally. I haven't had anyone say anything like that to me or about my thoughts in my lifetime that i am aware of.  You are, of course, entitled to your opinions as am I. Why have this forum if not to solicit ideas and comments?  Some of which you may not like. You should be allowed to express your ideas here without fear of personal attack. Please leave it at that.

I apologize for hurting your feelings.  I will try to respond to your solicitations for "ideas and comments" in the future more diplomatically.
Title: Re: aircraft parts villagers had?
Post by: Irvine John Donald on December 28, 2011, 05:29:27 PM
No apology is necessary. I respect that you have accepted a difficult role in this forum.  Your knowledge on how to move around and do research in this forum is envious. Your knowledge of the subject matter is highly respected.  Dealing with "Johnny come latelys" like me must test your patience.

 My role, as I see it in this forum is best explained with a quote by another respected TIGHAR member.

As Dr Tom King said in a forum post on Dec 2, 2007 "You can ask the questions and make the suggestions that don't occur to us who've been there (Gardner), or been with the project forever and ever and hence don't think to ask or suggest.  And often a "dumb" question or idea can cause us to look at something in a different way, and come up with new stuff. So please do keep presenting ideas, they're invaluable.".

LTM (Who reminds her children that the only really stupid question is the one not asked). ". 

I will try to keep my ideas and suggestions reasonable.  On to other things now Marty. Lots to think about.
Title: Re: aircraft parts villagers had?
Post by: Jeff Scott on December 28, 2011, 06:55:09 PM
Speaking of "thought experiments," I thought this was an interesting (if depressing) topic addressed by Dr. Tom King in an article on his blog (http://ameliaearhartarchaeology.blogspot.com/2010/12/why-i-dont-think-well-find-airplane-and.html):

Quote
A decade ago, we were blessed to have on the Earhart Project Advisory Council (EPAC) Howard Allred, a New Zealand-based coral reef geologist (though he’d gone into olive growing to make his living). Tragically, we lost Howard to a brain tumor not long before the 2007 expedition. I vividly recall Howard making a presentation to an EPAC meeting – he’d flown all the way from New Zealand to participate – on what he thought the action of the ocean on the Nutiran reef would do to the Electra. It would most likely, he said, tear it to shreds, and the pieces would then move slowly southeast along the reef face, every now and then being coughed up onto the reef flat. Such fragments may be responsible for the reflective signatures that appear on some mid-twentieth century aerial photos of the southern Nutiran reef flat, and the periodic deposition of such fragments farther southeast, along the Ritiati shoreline, could be the source of the airplane parts we’ve found in the colonial village, some of them fashioned into handicrafts.

At the EPAC meeting someone – perhaps I – asked Howard where the plane parts might be by now. He said that by now they would have reached the midpoint of the shoreline, where the currents flowing down from the northwest run into those flowing up from around the southeast tip.

And how big would they be by now? Howard opined that they could be reduced to the size of sand grains.

Of course, it’s certainly possible that biggish parts of the Electra – notably those two big heavy engines – went down into deep water before they had a chance to be ground up by weather and waves. But the engines and other heavy parts of the airplane have their own problems. They’re steel, as are the pieces of the SS Norwich City that are scattered down the face of the Nutiran reef. The 2010 ROV work didn’t turn up a great deal of Norwich City wreckage on the reef face above 300 meters, but we know that the stern of the ship broke off and went down there, and much of the rest of it must have followed. There’s probably a good-sized Norwich City debris field at the base of the reef, all made of steel. Can the Electra’s steel engines or gear be distinguished from Norwich City debris? Maybe, but I’d call it a long shot.

My hope is that this line of reasoning is wrong, but it is certainly plausible.
Title: Re: aircraft parts villagers had?
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on December 28, 2011, 09:06:20 PM
As Dr Tom King said in a forum post on Dec 2, 2007 "You can ask the questions and make the suggestions that don't occur to us who've been there (Gardner), or been with the project forever and ever and hence don't think to ask or suggest.  And often a "dumb" question or idea can cause us to look at something in a different way, and come up with new stuff. So please do keep presenting ideas, they're invaluable.".

Dr. King no longer participates in the Forum.  He is very active in EPAC's private mailing list and continues to pore over the materials collected in TIGHAR's expeditions.

I state this as a matter of fact.  Dr. King has not explained why the steady stream of ideas suggested in Forum no longer interests him.
Title: Re: aircraft parts villagers had?
Post by: Irvine John Donald on December 29, 2011, 07:22:28 AM
Thanks for sharing that story Gary. Very interesting.  I do believe that it wouldn't take a lot to do as you propose but I really do wonder at the value of the experiment. Marty points out, rightly, that there are more cons than pros. What could be proved by dropping these sheets in is "what happens to 2x2 sheets of aluminum when dropped off the edge of a coral reef.". While interesting in itself it doesn't seem like the right thing to do. An aircraft body is made so much more rigid in its construction than flimsy thin sheets. The sheets would simply be washed away in the current proving very little.
Title: Re: aircraft parts villagers had?
Post by: richie conroy on December 31, 2011, 09:23:45 AM
(http://static.polityka.pl/_resource/res/path/d0/b2/d0b242a5-5801-4ebe-a716-06da50304b1c_665x665)

http://uk.images.search.yahoo.com/images/view;_ylt=A0PDodvpNf9OlikA6HRNBQx.;_ylu=X3oDMTBlMTQ4cGxyBHNlYwNzcgRzbGsDaW1n?back=http%3A%2F%2Fuk.images.search.yahoo.com%2Fsearch%2Fimages%3Fp%3Dnikumaroro%26n%3D30%26ei%3Dutf-8%26y%3DSearch%26fr%3Dyfp-t-702-s%26tab%3Dorganic%26ri%3D172&w=499&h=665&imgurl=static.polityka.pl%2F_resource%2Fres%2Fpath%2Fd0%2Fb2%2Fd0b242a5-5801-4ebe-a716-06da50304b1c_665x665&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.polityka.pl%2Fgalerie%2F1503119%2C12%2Ckrolowa-przestworzy---galeria.read&size=132.6+KB&name=...+Nikumaroro.+-+Kr%C3%B3lowa+przestworzy+-+galeria+-+zdj%C4%99cie+12+-+Polityka&p=nikumaroro&oid=541cb67a82f711114808232db4c1740b&fr2=&fr=yfp-t-702-s&tt=...%2BNikumaroro.%2B-%2BKr%25C3%25B3lowa%2Bprzestworzy%2B-%2Bgaleria%2B-%2Bzdj%25C4%2599cie%2B12%2B-%2BPolityka&b=151&ni=96&no=172&tab=organic&ts=&sigr=12cp1l36m&sigb=13l8qk91a&sigi=12o6sfven&.crumb=N/pm6JGF7Wi

couldn't get it to translate to English but apparently Gardner island

don't think it is but worth checking out
Title: Re: aircraft parts villagers had?
Post by: Chris Johnson on December 31, 2011, 11:03:44 AM
picture gallery of queen of the skies policy 12

"Być może kolejna ekspedycja TIGHAR odnajdzie zatopiony wrak Electry w wodach otaczających wysepkę Nikumaroro"

"Perhaps another expedition to find the sunken wreck of TIGHAR Electra in the waters surrounding the island Nikumaroro"

The item of wreckage looks like wooden decking with a blue finish.
Title: Re: aircraft parts villagers had?
Post by: John Ousterhout on January 01, 2012, 09:46:12 AM
To me, the item of wreckage looks like the trailing edge of an aircraft wing.  Wooden decking isn't usually tapered.  I wonder where the photo was taken?
Title: Re: aircraft parts villagers had?
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on January 01, 2012, 10:03:11 AM
To me, the item of wreckage looks like the trailing edge of an aircraft wing.  Wooden decking isn't usually tapered.  I wonder where the photo was taken?

Judging by the amount of background light in the photo, I would say it's relatively shallow water.

Judging by the lack of publicity of someone finding the Electra, I would say it's not from Niku.
Title: Re: aircraft parts villagers had?
Post by: Richard C Cooke on January 01, 2012, 04:31:14 PM
To me, the item of wreckage looks like the trailing edge of an aircraft wing.  Wooden decking isn't usually tapered.  I wonder where the photo was taken?
Judging from the corral formations that looks like a wing from a much bigger plane than an Electra.  Maybe one of the many B29s than went down in the Pacific.

rc
Title: Re: aircraft parts villagers had?
Post by: Irvine John Donald on January 01, 2012, 07:57:39 PM
Richard, how can you judge the wing size from the coral formations? I can't see anything in the image to provide scale.
Title: Re: aircraft parts villagers had?
Post by: Chris Johnson on January 02, 2012, 06:22:40 AM
Still looks like 3 peices of plank, tounge and grooved with a blue finish.
Title: Re: aircraft parts villagers had?
Post by: Richard C Cooke on January 02, 2012, 07:08:37 AM
Richard, how can you judge the wing size from the coral formations? I can't see anything in the image to provide scale.
I have done @ 500 dives in tropical waters, including 50 off Rabaul.  Coral is a made up of a lot of small things put together, when it gets bigger it adds more components, like leggo, for example where a huge structure is made up of lots of similar size parts.  On top of the wing the brain coral is made up of nodules and the fan coral below is made up of little branches, from which I'm guessing that picture is at least 15 by 20 ft.

rc
Title: Is it an aircraft wing, or tongue and groove planking
Post by: John Ousterhout on January 02, 2012, 09:00:41 AM
Although not directly related to the thread topic, this is an interesting object to analyze.
There are specific parts of the picture that make me think it's a wing, rather than T&G planking:
The object appears to be quite thick some distance back from the nearest edge, and thicker at the left side of the picture than the right side, giving it a tapered appearance.  The sunlit top surface and shaded bottom surface do not appear to be parallel, but form a thick wedge that tapers in two directions, like a wing.  This would be an unusual shape for planked construction - perhaps a very thick awning or high-dive platform?  The marine growths suggest a long time under water, so if it's a planked structure, when did it become submerged, and what was its original purpose?
The object appears to have a rather sharp edge, nearest the camera, like the trailing edge of a wing, but unlike normal planking.
The object has what appears to be a joint or line approximately parallel to the sharp edge, consistant with the small gap between an aileron and wing surface (or T&G planking).
A second, less promenant line parallels the first, consistant with a dive brake panel (or T&G planking).
A geometrically regular object projects at an angle from the bottom of the object right of center, giving the appearance or a rod or shaft.  This might be the remains of an aileron counterbalance weight, the end of which is missing.  If the object is a planked construct, this might be a structural element.
What would explain the presence of a planked object on a reef?  What would explain an aircraft wing on a reef?  In the south pacific, both objects would represent imported objects.  A planked tapered structure seems less likely to be present on a coral reef than a WWII aircraft wing.  OTOH, if the photo was taken in the Bahamas, then the opposite might be true.
Would a wooden structure have bare patches like the ones visible on the object?  Isn't the pattern more commonly seen on aluminum aircraft from WWII?
To duplicate the shape with planking would create a shape that looks very much like part of an aircraft wing.  Not impossible, but not likely to be present on a reef, to my very limited knowledge.
It seems likely that somewhere out there in cyberspace is a photo by the same diver of the entire object, not just the awning/diving-platform/dive-bomber object.  Perhaps Richie can help find it? (I'm on slow dial-up, and photo searches are unbearably slow for me. Sorry)

<later addition: http://s3.footagesearch.com/stills/JV04_026.jpg is a photo showing the trailing edge of a wing.  Not a great comparision, but the best I could find on short notice.>
Title: Re: aircraft parts villagers had?
Post by: richie conroy on January 02, 2012, 09:39:46 AM
i'll try to find a full image of object if i can,

i find lots off diffrent things trawling the net for instance this image which is not the electra but what caught my eye was there seems to be numbers on the right wing
Title: Re: aircraft parts villagers had?
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on January 02, 2012, 10:27:45 AM
May be an interesting visual exercise for field searchers.

TIGHAR has been blessed with an extraordinary collection of divers who are well-versed in identifying underwater objects.

See, for example, the ten photo albums from the most recent Devastator dives (http://tighar.org/news/day-one-5-june-2009).

It is difficult to prove some negative statements, but I'm inclined to believe that there is no wing section on the reef next to Niku or in the lagoon that resembles the original photo in any way.  TIGHAR has done a good search.  If a wing was in the 40-meter depth that they have covered in detail, the divers would have seen it; they did not see it; I conclude that no such wing section is there. 

I presume the ROV also went over that same ground, though I don't have any references to back up this assumption.
Title: Re: aircraft parts villagers had?
Post by: richie conroy on January 02, 2012, 11:09:30 AM
its defo not on gardner, i just posted it because it claimed to be on the reef of gardner an who better to find out if it true or not than Tighar
Title: Re: aircraft parts villagers had?
Post by: Irvine John Donald on January 02, 2012, 11:58:49 AM
Richard, how can you judge the wing size from the coral formations? I can't see anything in the image to provide scale.
I have done @ 500 dives in tropical waters, including 50 off Rabaul.  Coral is a made up of a lot of small things put together, when it gets bigger it adds more components, like leggo, for example where a huge structure is made up of lots of similar size parts.  On top of the wing the brain coral is made up of nodules and the fan coral below is made up of little branches, from which I'm guessing that picture is at least 15 by 20 ft.

rc

Thanks for that info Richard.  Based on your experience can you also "age" the growth?  Thanks.  I also do not believe it is from Gardner.  Something like that would likely stand out dramatically from all of the other formations on the ocean bed.  As Marty said, experienced divers have given a thorough search.  After all thats a big part of the hypothesis explaining where the Electra is.

I don't believe there has been a categorization of the evidence obtained from land searches versus ocean or subsurface searches.  I recall the video images form the ROV last year showing a "wire" that could have been a type of coral but don't recall any other evidence from the ocean.  I think most of it comes from land searches such as around the villages and Seven sites. 
Title: Re: aircraft parts villagers had?
Post by: Irvine John Donald on January 02, 2012, 12:35:54 PM
This whole thread has made me think about the evidence gathered.  It seems to fall into two categories.  We know that AE and FN did not make Howland and therefore ended up "somewhere".  Post Loss radio signals can't be denied. (Gary??).

The first category of evidence suggests "Gardner Island".  Available terrain for a landing. Location on the LOP.  Fuel and time.  The second category of evidence attempts to prove that Gardner was the island.  Bones, pictures, Seven Site evidence.   

The first category of evidence is not required to prove they landed and died on Gardner.  It is just to help pinpoint a location that was the most likely so TIGHAR could search there.  The term "Smoking Gun" has been used to suggest we need this type of evidence to prove the hypothesis.  If the sonar search suggested for this year's expedition does not produce the "smoking gun" evidence then what?  It doesn't mean the TIGHAR hypothesis is wrong.  Just that too much time has passed for the smoking gun evidence to survive or that it just hasn't been found yet.  In the meantime there is further land searching to do.  Could the smoking gun in fact be on the Seven site? 

Marty, what has the board of directors decided to do with the land search component this year?  While I am sure that any expedition to Gardner is expensive, is land searching more expensive (labour intensive) than ocean sub surface searching (expense of tehnology)?  Where will TIGHAR get the biggest bang for its donated buck?  Is this thread drift or somewhat on topic?
Title: Re: aircraft parts villagers had?
Post by: Richard C Cooke on January 02, 2012, 02:33:40 PM
Richard, how can you judge the wing size from the coral formations? I can't see anything in the image to provide scale.
I have done @ 500 dives in tropical waters, including 50 off Rabaul.  Coral is a made up of a lot of small things put together, when it gets bigger it adds more components, like leggo, for example where a huge structure is made up of lots of similar size parts.  On top of the wing the brain coral is made up of nodules and the fan coral below is made up of little branches, from which I'm guessing that picture is at least 15 by 20 ft.

rc

Thanks for that info Richard.  Based on your experience can you also "age" the growth?  Thanks.  I also do not believe it is from Gardner.  Something like that would likely stand out dramatically from all of the other formations on the ocean bed.  As Marty said, experienced divers have given a thorough search.  After all thats a big part of the hypothesis explaining where the Electra is.
It looks much too young to be even WWII, compare it to the B25 picture.  Large parts of the wing have just a thin film of marine life on it, but after 74 years it should be covered, especially since its quite shallow.  Colors fade with depth, but there is a bit of sunlight and color on the top of the wing, so its in about 15m of water.

rc
Title: Re: aircraft parts villagers had?
Post by: Irvine John Donald on January 02, 2012, 06:59:33 PM
Thanks Richard. I thought it wasn't covered enough but don't have the experience to say for sure.

Jeff, did the Electra have fabric covered panels as you describe?  Surely the fabric wouldn't last long?
Title: Re: aircraft parts villagers had?
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on January 02, 2012, 07:16:10 PM
Marty, what has the board of directors decided to do with the land search component this year?

I haven't heard, but, even if I had, I wouldn't say.

Ric Gillespie and Pat Thrasher are the chief executives for TIGHAR.  They handle all of the rollouts for Niku expeditions.  Here is what they've released so far for Niku VII (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/niku7.html).

The way these things go, what they will actually do will depend on funds that they raise.  Expeditions have expanded and contracted in the past as the economic realities fluctuated.  If there is enough money, I speculate that they might open up the expedition to extending Rolling Thunder at the Seven Site.  The announced focus at this time seems to me to be just the offshore deepwater search.

Quote
While I am sure that any expedition to Gardner is expensive, is land searching more expensive (labour intensive) than ocean sub surface searching (expense of tehnology)?

I don't have any facts in hand.  I imagine that the costs of the high-tech stuff are higher than the cheerful hand labor of our archeological team.  One problem is space on board the expedition boat(s). 

Quote
Where will TIGHAR get the biggest bang for its donated buck?

I don't know.  We know that there is still lots of archeology to do at the Seven Site.  We don't know that there is anything to find underwater.

Quote
Is this thread drift or somewhat on topic?

I suppose it is thread drift.  Feel free to start new threads when you think it's appropriate.  Anyone who can post can start a new thread.
Title: Re: aircraft parts villagers had?
Post by: Irvine John Donald on January 02, 2012, 07:31:32 PM
Thanks Marty. I appreciate your comments.
Title: Re: aircraft parts villagers had?
Post by: Shaw Durman on January 04, 2012, 03:05:46 PM
Has asking the Woodshole Oceanographic Institute for assistance been considered? Sure if you got Dr Robert Ballard on the underwater search, he could get good results and they may even just do it for the publisity and discovery channel program! :-D
He's the guy who found the Titanic, Bismark and Yorktown.
Title: Re: aircraft parts villagers had?
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on January 04, 2012, 04:50:32 PM
Has asking the Woodshole Oceanographic Institute for assistance been considered?

Yes.
Title: Re: aircraft parts villagers had?
Post by: JNev on February 13, 2013, 08:25:50 AM
Thanks Richard. I thought it wasn't covered enough but don't have the experience to say for sure.

Jeff, did the Electra have fabric covered panels as you describe?  Surely the fabric wouldn't last long?

Irv, sorry - I have long overlooked answering your question -

The Electra was all-metal, no fabric used on control surfaces.
Title: Re: aircraft parts villagers had?
Post by: George Pachulski on February 15, 2013, 10:13:22 AM

 Interesting to note that the interaction of seawater and diffrent metals and how that results in corosion and metal disintegration.

http://geminimarinesurvey.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/Marine_Metal_Corrosion.325111027.pdf (http://geminimarinesurvey.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/Marine_Metal_Corrosion.325111027.pdf)

Seems that even aluminum can deteriorate very quickly in the dynamic environment that  the reef  edge on the jagged corals  can produce.

Title: Re: aircraft parts villagers had?
Post by: robin deatherage on March 17, 2013, 12:25:44 AM
The Plane Drifted partially submerged until it reached the island. This would greatly explain the search planes on the fly over to miss it and the explanation of wreckage washing up after a storm. It could have splashed down anywhere. And it would be extremely hard to spot a silver plane and non emergency rescue colors in the water. A ship could have been a mile away and never see them. Even today with GPS ang bright orange and yellow colors rescues can and do fail.
Title: Re: aircraft parts villagers had?
Post by: Monty Fowler on July 04, 2013, 12:45:38 PM
Ummm, Robin? Not to be a wet blanket, so to speak, but the top of the horizontal stabilizer and the leading edges of the wings of Earhart's Electra were painted what is now known as International Orange. TIGHAR knows this because it has a fragment from the Luke Field crash that has that color on it.

And have you ever seen an aluminum aircraft in the bright sunlight? In the water, I grant you, it might not have shown up as well as on land, but aluminum in shallow water can and does show up quite well: see here - http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/56_WhereIsElectra/56_WhereIsElectra.htm and scroll down to the 1953 entry.

LTM, who tries to keep the wheels on the bus,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 CER
Title: Re: aircraft parts villagers had?
Post by: Chris Johnson on August 21, 2013, 12:03:57 PM
Thinking about parts that washed up on the reef, any further information about the supposed 'door' that children played with?  This cropped up from the Solomon's to Nikumaroro village if I remember rightly.
Title: Re: aircraft parts villagers had?
Post by: Jeffrey Pearce on April 02, 2015, 12:01:28 AM
A further thought on NR16020 parts, have the pools/holes in the 'boat channel' between the reef flat and beach been thoroughly searched?
Just woundering if a piece or pieces of 16020 are lying in the bottom of these 4-6 foot deep pools, maybe under a few inches of sand or sediment.

I think Shaw's question is a good one. I have been thinking about asking a similar question but before I did I found Shaw's. If metal airplane parts fell into the 'boat channel' is there a possibility they could still be there? I think so. If AE or Fred's remains fell into the channel some of the remains such as bones could be there. I have read that sharks have been seen in the 'boat channel'. I suppose this could be a deterent . Is the 'boat channel' or other depressions that may hold plane or human parts under consideration for examination if they have not already been examined?

Jeff P.
Title: Re: aircraft parts villagers had?
Post by: JNev on April 02, 2015, 09:57:45 AM
Maybe anything is possible, but what is likely? 

In looking back at the old post you quoted I ran across this -

I'll predict that they don 't slide very far down the side of the reef before getting caught in pretty shallow water where they will stay forever, but I could be wrong.

https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,481.msg6151.html#msg6151

gl

Gary, what makes you think that the peices would get caught up in shallow water? If this was the case then the action of waves, tides and storms would be more likely to move the peices out of the shallow areas and onto the reef flat as when the waves hit the shallow areas the energy within tem is released.
I've done a lot of diving on reefs and they have an infinite number of nooks, crannies, protuberances, and coral heads to catch stuff. The TIGHAR theory also relies on this to get the aircraft pieces to the natives. If the plane went over the edge and did not get caught in shallow water then it would have sunk to such a depth that none of the pieces would ever have come back up because wave action does not extend very far below the surface and gets attenuated very rapidly. So it TIGHAR is correct I would expect some pieces to still be found at a fairly shallow depth that has already been searched by the ROV with nothing found.

gl

I think Gary was onto something in that.

Which is sobering to me in that it seems IF the Electra had been ON Niku and did slip into the depths, she would have had to do a lot of parts shedding in the shallows on her way down to Davy Jones' Locker for that sort of parts migration and deposit to happen, otherwise the depths would hold her until some gravity reversal took hold or something...

IF she was there and didn't plunge so deeply as to escape the active surf, then it seems we ought to have found a wealth of junk by now: yes we have an anecdotal record of a 'plane' there, but generally where wreckage is within reach, I would *think* (not daydreaming) that all kinds of stuff might have gotten fetched off and used or hoarded such that it might be found in such a setting. 

Of all the 'airplane parts' looked at from that island so far, only a sherd of plexiglass and 2-2-V-1 seem to have been serious candidates - and the latter at least doesn't seem to fit.  I'm not sure what the odds are of other parts finding their way into the area you speak of, but it seems like a very remote possibility at best, IF the Electra was there.

Looks more to me as time passes and I reflect on the things considered so far as if deep waters are the place to look, notwithstanding the sonar 'anomaly'. 

That said, there is an awful lot of deep water one would have to look through.
Title: Re: aircraft parts villagers had?
Post by: Jeffrey Pearce on April 03, 2015, 09:16:40 AM
After landing on Nikumaroro it is possible that AE would desire to get to shore in order to save her plane. If she got far enough she would come to the 'boat channel' and perhaps enter it. It's also possible that her plane would be substantially damaged on the way to shore. If metal parts fell from the plane it is possible that they would work their way to shore via wave action and then fall into the 4-6 foot deep 'boat channel' as Shaw described the 'boat channel' dimensions. Some of the heavier parts that also have little length by width area could possibly survive in the 'boat channel' for a long time.

Jeff P.
Title: Re: aircraft parts villagers had?
Post by: Ric Gillespie on April 03, 2015, 11:04:21 AM
Some of the heavier parts that also have little length by width area could possibly survive in the 'boat channel' for a long time.

We'll look again but we've been all through that boat channel.