TIGHAR
Amelia Earhart Search Forum => News, Views, Books, Archival Data & Interviews on AE => Topic started by: Irvine John Donald on June 01, 2012, 10:43:28 AM
-
Hi forum readers. I am going to post photos from the event throughout the three days of the symposium. It's 12.25pm on Friday in Washington. I have just posted a test picture to the web link below. I am not sure how often I can post that will depend mostly on my camera and iPad batteries. Please reply if there is a particular shot you might like or that you think I am missing. Wish you were here.
The hall is starting to fill up nicely. The test shot is the empty meeting room being set up.
The link is. https://picasaweb.google.com/irvdonald/Earhart75thSymposium?authkey=Gv1sRgCIKup5u7tdXUlQE
If it breaks then let me know. Thanks.
-
Picture looks great Irv. Keep it up!
-
WOW! An unexpected pleasure! Thank you JDI! Any pictures or info is much appreciated.
-
Good work Irv. Thanks for sharing.
-
I am so mad I couldn't make this. GRRR >:(
But thank you for sharing these.
-
Irv, no new photos since the search patterns. Are you broken?
-
C.W.
Looks like their on a break ;D
-
Chris, he put several more up that I didn't see before including those from Arlington.
Irv, thank Bruce for those of the grave marker.
-
Those shots of Nessie are amazing! Something is there for sure, but what!? Almost looks like a wave was hitting it as the picture was taken. I can see "man made" parts though.
Good work guys!
-
Thanks Bruce, knew you had your own visits to make but its also nice to see those other markers.
-
Those shots of Nessie are amazing! Something is there for sure, but what!? Almost looks like a wave was hitting it as the picture was taken. I can see "man made" parts though.
Good work guys!
Just wish I could see something appart from a circle within a circle.
-
Thank you so much for thinking of those of us who could not attend... I have pulled my monitor closer and wiped the dust from the screen in anticipation of your pictures...
Thanks Again!
Brad
-
Thanks Bruce, knew you had your own visits to make but its also nice to see those other markers.
You are too subtle, Chris! "Markers" indeed! I had to read your comment again to catch that.
Hey, at least I found him within a couple of hours of entering that huge Arlington National Cemetery ... without needing to "circle and zoom". BTW if anyone wants to similarly find Lambrecht's grave, the final picture shows it in relation to the amphitheater where the Tomb of the Unknowns is. Standing at the extreme right side of the balcony area (overlooking where the Changing of the Guard ceremony begins for the guard coming on duty), look over the brow of the hill to the right in order to spot Lambrecht's marker. Oops, I used that word again.
-
The Monte Carlo results are interesting. Since they were well short of Howland, it explains why they did not see Baker Island on their way down the 157/357 line. Also, following the 157/357 line SE from the centroid puts them right on top of Nikumaroro.
-
The Monte Carlo results are interesting. Since they were well short of Howland, it explains why they did not see Baker Island on their way down the 157/357 line. Also, following the 157/357 line SE from the centroid puts them right on top of Nikumaroro.
Wounder what GLP will have to say about that one ;D
-
Great group photo's. Some people's pictures i've seen and some not. Funny the image the mind congures based on posts and misc. information.
Keep up the good work ;D
-
Are the 2 images of 'Nessie' shown here from the recent scans of the original by Jeff?
I say that because there's something not quite right with these 2 images, apart from 'Nessie' obviously.
-
Jeff,
What do you mean something is not quite right about those images?
If anyone is attending the symposium and reading this, can you tell me if they have estimated the size of Nessie? Thanks.
-
Jeff,
What do you mean something is not quite right about those images?
If anyone is attending the symposium and reading this, can you tell me if they have estimated the size of Nessie? Thanks.
Well, without doing any enhancements at all Heath, this is the image straight from Irv. The area in the blue box is the area that looks strange to me. I am happy with the rest of the image, wave action looks normal, shadows look normal, wave crests normal, angle of wave lines the same and so on, all normal. Inside the blue box that doesn't seem to apply. And of course there is 'Nessie'.
First image is as Irv posted
Second image is as Irv posted but with the area in question outlined in blue
If you need anything pointed out Heath I can post the images, again without any enhancement
(http://)
-
Jeff,
so what are you saying?
Wave swell looks OK to me, we don't know whats under that area. Thought I could see a wing though ;D
-
The photos are from a blown up poster of the photo. I asked Jeff Glickman what copy the poster is from and he didn't know. His talk comes up at 4.30 pm local time. Will shoot all slides that he puts up n
-
Chris, I wouldn't be surprised if there was something beneath the surface at this location which is affecting the wave actions. Have a look at these images that show the strange appearance of the surface of the water.
(http://)
-
And again
(http://)
-
Again, none of these images have had any enhancements...
(http://)
-
It reminds me of a swell over a depression
-
The Waitt Institute Target 1 versus the Monte Carlo actual position... pretty close
(http://)
-
Irv, your play by play photos are really great and much appreciated. Thanks! There was also a nice piece on the West Coast feed of tonight's ABC Evening News on the Symposium highlighting the Freckle Cream jar, a snippet of Ric, and some Earhart newsreel clips.
Rick J
-
If anyone is attending the symposium and reading this, can you tell me if they have estimated the size of Nessie? Thanks.
I believe Jeff Glickman said the part above the water surface was approximately 24 inches and the darker piece (presumably a tire) was 36 inches wide.
To be honest, I was a bit disappointed--the research and analysis has been superb but the end results were a bit of a letdown. As higher and higher resolutions of the Bevington photo were shown, the analogy that struck me was the face on Mars. The original photo looks a lot like a landing gear. As the resolution was increased, I thought it looked less and less likely. Others may feel differently.
-
If anyone is attending the symposium and reading this, can you tell me if they have estimated the size of Nessie? Thanks.
Heath, Jeff Glickman was the final speaker for today. He had a very professional slide show and I was very impressed with his presentation and presence at the lectern. He showed the same picture I previously posted a link to, of himself "shooting" the original photo pasted into the photo album that is held at Oxford University (the photos had been sent by Eric Bevington back home to his parents in England, and I presume they were the ones who pasted them into the album; the negatives were apparently lost when the Japanese swept into Tarawa a few years later). The original photo is surprisingly small, not at all the large format implied by the various postings we've seen on the TIGHAR website ... he held his fingers up and indicated a photo about 3.5" square.
He showed his photogrammetric work from back in 2010, pinpointing where Bevington (aboard the RCS Nimanoa) would have been when the photo was taken, as well as the location on the reef edge of the "Bevington feature". When the expedition members in 2010 worked their way to that calculated location, there was a pronounced fissure (he used a different word that I can't recall) in the reef.
He showed a deconstruction of the four distinct pieces corresponding to the tire, the strut, the fender, and the worm gear and showed how those pieces match up neatly with the pieces of the object in the photo, indicating how deformation might have occurred similar to what happened when the Electra groundlooped in Hawaii earlier that year.
And to answer your specific question: the tire portion he measured out at a width of 36", matching the diameter of the actual tires on the Electra.
-
there is a few odd shapes, just under water surface were Jeff has pointed out ?
don't no one else them ?
-
there is a few odd shapes, just under water surface were Jeff has pointed out ?
don't no one else them ?
Richie, I think we're all holding our breath for a few weeks, in hopes that something more substantial will be seen in new photos. :)
Oh dear, look at the time! I've got to get my bag packed and downstairs to breakfast, and then the final sessions of the symposium: "Niku VII: The Upcoming Underwater Search" and the "Round Table Discussion of Alternative Hypotheses."
-
How does the latest imaging of Nessie fit in with the theory that the wheel got stuck in a groove/fissure now that it is clear that it is the Oleo strut stuck in the groove/fissure?
Or is it still attached to something?
Any ideas?
Thanks for posting the images Irv, invaluable service provided.
-
Its a bit like looking at clouds for bunnies but to me I see something under like the birds been flipped over?
-
That would be a reasonable explanation Chris. It would really be stretching the theory of the gear being torn off and then the Oleo strut somehow being wedged into a groove/fissure with enough force to hold the gear upright.
-
Good morning folks. I hit the maximum on the free Picassa storage last night. I will take more pictures today and post all of them to a web site when I get back home tonight. The conference centre here has a different wifi connection that makes it very awkward and slow to access the Internet without some special code hat I don't have. It will be a fight to try fixing my storage issue from there.
Jeff Glickman is unsure if the shadow shown is a wing or just shade from a cloud. He can't say for sure at this point. Bruce is right that we just have to let some more analysis take place.
-
Bruce and Irv,
Thanks for the updates.
I am still a bit confused as to what is the overall dimensions of the anomaly are versus the size of the tire. I also have spent quite a while looking at the photo to determine what might be the strut, fender, worm gear, or even the tire for that matter, but have not been able to see what others are seeing.
If either of you get a chance, could you perhaps put some labels on the attached photo so that the rest of us can see what Jeff is talking about? The attached is an enhanced cropping of the CNN photo (CNN Picture.jpg) that was posted some time ago. We can use that as a template for creating marked up photos.
I am particularly interested in the dimensions of various pieces in the photo but also the proposed location of where Bevington snapped the photo and where the anomaly is thought to have existed. I have been working on my own analysis for some time now and would like to see how they compare.
Any information would be appreciated.
Thanks.
Update- Thanks for posting the latest pictures Irv. I have an idea as to where the parts are supposed to be located. If you have any more details about the various dimensions and locations please pass them on. Thanks!
-
i just done this quick for you not sure if it is right way :-\
-
It's the area inside the yellow lines am interested in, if u look at unedited picture u will notice the outline i have marked out...
second picture, underneath of an Electra,
if Earhart's Electra is on it's roof, maybe able to match up shadows :)
-
An interesting story on Google News this morning. See below.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/kiribati/9309084/US-Navy-prepares-mission-to-solve-riddle-of-Amelia-Earharts-death.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/kiribati/9309084/US-Navy-prepares-mission-to-solve-riddle-of-Amelia-Earharts-death.html)
-
Hi Richie
The depth of the water here is measured in a few feet and inches. Not enough for an Electra to be upside down and under water.
Jeff Glickmans slides were a great visual to his verbal presentation. There is a slide with a yellow triangle on it. That slide represents Jeff's calculations as to where the photo was taken from (top left of triangle) and then triangulating from the two shore points from the photo. The object is marked on the triangle. Going from memory it's About centre and close to the top line. I'm using my iPad so can't add the photo here. Sorry
It is my hope that Jeff and Ric will release the presentation. Even so it would be Greta to have audio from Jeff explaining all of the slides. It was a very well done presentation. The object is near the reef edge and located where there is a fissure in the coral. I can answer more questions later.
The rest of the day on Sunday was spent discussing alternate theories and other ideas with great interaction on the group. I have shots from the first session of the day with information on the technology to be used during the July trip. I will post all of these later.
I can say the entire event was professionally organized and run, meetings on time and on subject, everyone was polite and well mannered. In fact everyone was in good humor and enjoyed each others company.
-
Glad every think went smoothly and every one enjoyed there weekend :)
as for reef surface in front ov Nessie, if the force of waves snapped landing gear, there may be other bit's of wreckage in that area!!!
-
Thanks for posting the pictures Irv
The Bevington feature is amazing. Is the Good Year lettering and logo thought to be the white blurry part around the tire?
-
Hi Gregory. Jeff photo interpretation suggests that the curved white part is either he mud flap (partially submerged) or the gear section (bull gear) used to crank the wheel up and down. There was no discussion on white lettering or logo because I believe that, while there is an imprinted name, it doesn't show as being in white in any other pictures.
-
if Earhart's Electra is on it's roof, maybe able to match up shadows :)
TIGHAR knows that part of the reef well.
It has tidal studies that cover that area.
Under non-storm conditions (which is what the picture shows), there is not enough water to have the Electra under the object.
-
Thank's Marty
did Jeff have any better quality aerial photo's of the reef ?
-
did Jeff have any better quality aerial photos of the reef ?
Not that he showed us.
The start of the show was the imagery obtained last month in England.
He used a 35- or 36-megapixel Nikon body with some super-macro lenses to produce an image that has 16 times the resolution of the high-resolution scan that Oxford produced some time in the last year or so.
The original print is quite small. Ric or Jeff called it "wallet-sized." They were surprised at how small it is. The object as it appears on the print itself is less than a millimeter high. Jeff compared it to the size of a grain of sand.
It was very surprising to me to see how much rounder the object looked--and very complex. I did not guess where Jeff was going to place the four parts of the landing gear over the image as a theoretical interpretation of what we were seeing.
There are different levels of confirmation that may have been given by other photo analysts. For a start, they must have agreed that the photo represents a real object, not a distortion caused by the lens, the negative, the enlarger, or the print medium. If you don't get past that set of questions, nothing else matters.
I asked whether the folks who have visited Niku see lots of flotsam and jetsam of the same relative size as the object (roughly 36" across)--thinks like 55-gallon drums. They replied that the reef is swept clean of debris, as a general rule. The object may have been there from 1937 at least until Emily saw it in the 1940s, but is not there now. It could, of course, be something from the Norwich City; but it is upwind and "upriver" from it, so to speak.
Strange things do happen, so this is not a knockdown argument. It is an intriguing image. Jeff showed that it is surprisingly close to where Emily (http://tighar.org/wiki/Emily)claimed to have seen something when she was a girl. The location of the object as determined by Jeff's triangulation is further north than previous TIGHAR estimates of the "best" landing zone. That, in turn, affects where TIGHAR might reasonably search for "Camp Zero."
-
The original print is quite small. Ric or Jeff called it "wallet-sized." They were surprised at how small it is.
Photo prints like that were popular in the UK up until the 70's where I have one of me as a youngster holding my treasured blue helecopter.
-
Not too far in the distant past I have seen a video of a floatplane making a landing on to a lake but the pilot had mistakenly left the wheels down. From what I remember as soon as the wheels made contact with the surface of the water the plane instantly flipped over and nose dived into the water. Serious injury was averted because of the floats on the plane slowed the momentum of the flip over. I'll see if anyone has uploaded it to youtube since then.
-
did Jeff have any better quality aerial photos of the reef ?
Not that he showed us.
The start of the show was the imagery obtained last month in England.
He used a 35- or 36-megapixel Nikon body with some super-macro lenses to produce an image that has 16 times the resolution of the high-resolution scan that Oxford produced some time in the last year or so.
The original print is quite small. Ric or Jeff called it "wallet-sized." They were surprised at how small it is. The object as it appears on the print itself is less than a millimeter high. Jeff compared it to the size of a grain of sand.
It was very surprising to me to see how much rounder the object looked--and very complex. I did not guess where Jeff was going to place the four parts of the landing gear over the image as a theoretical interpretation of what we were seeing.
There are different levels of confirmation that may have been given by other photo analysts. For a start, they must have agreed that the photo represents a real object, not a distortion caused by the lens, the negative, the enlarger, or the print medium. If you don't get past that set of questions, nothing else matters.
I asked whether the folks who have visited Niku see lots of flotsam and jetsam of the same relative size as the object (roughly 36" across)--thinks like 55-gallon drums. They replied that the reef is swept clean of debris, as a general rule. The object may have been there from 1937 at least until Emily saw it in the 1940s, but is not there now. It could, of course, be something from the Norwich City; but it is upwind and "upriver" from it, so to speak.
Strange things do happen, so this is not a knockdown argument. It is an intriguing image. Jeff showed that it is surprisingly close to where Emily (http://tighar.org/wiki/Emily)claimed to have seen something when she was a girl. The location of the object as determined by Jeff's triangulation is further north than previous TIGHAR estimates of the "best" landing zone. That, in turn, affects where TIGHAR might reasonably search for "Camp Zero."
Thank's for info Marty
Look forward to further developments :)
-
The Monte Carlo results are interesting. Since they were well short of Howland, it explains why they did not see Baker Island on their way down the 157/357 line. Also, following the 157/357 line SE from the centroid puts them right on top of Nikumaroro.
Really? You'd better get out a chart and plot that out.
I posted this before and stated the same at the symposium:
I have finally been able to decipher the Monte Carlo simulation printout, it was difficult since you can't read out the scale on the sides of the diagram. The key for figuring out what you are looking at is the "H" and the "B" in the two squares representing Howland and Baker. Based on the spacing of these two squares and the fact that these islands are about 36 NM apart makes it clear that each square represents 6 NM, one-tenth of a degree, and the scale appears to be in the form X.x° also confirming this.
If you agree with TIGHAR, that the Monte Carlo simulation produces the most accurate estimate of the position of the aircraft at 1912 Z, then you must also agree that this means that they couldn't have landed on Gardner. I am attaching a marked up copy on the Monte Carlo printout. The circle I placed around Howland is 69 SM (60 NM) in radius. I drew the 157° line through Howland that goes to Gardner but the simulation shows that they were unlikely to be closer than 55 SM offset from this line with a higher probability of being more than at a 100 SM offset. I drew in lines that are parallel with the 157° line to Gardner offset by these distances. Since Euclid said parallel lines never cross, these lines maintain their spacings forever. This means that if AE turned to fly the 157° line from where the simulation places them, then they would fly down the offset line, not the correct line to Gardner, and that when they flew by Gardner they were at least 55 SM and, more likely, they were more than 100 SM to the west of that island, which makes it very difficult for them to see the island.
See: Monte carlo offsets-2.pdf (https://tighar.org/smf/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=555.0;attach=1223)(194.6 kB - downloaded 28 times.)
gl
I just noticed that this my 1234 th posting!
-
If you agree with TIGHAR, that the Monte Carlo simulation produces the most accurate estimate of the position of the aircraft at 1912 Z, then you must also agree that this means that they couldn't have landed on Gardner.
Well, therein lies the fly in the ointment, Gary. Yes, if someone were to think that the simulation was intended to definitively show where AE was at that time, then I suppose they would have to agree with the conclusion that you state. But, I have not seen anywhere that TIGHAR has touted the Monte Carlo simulation as producing "the most accurate estimate of the position of the aircraft at 1912Z." I think that you have seriously misrepresented the intent and conclusions of Randy Jacobson's work on the Monte Carlo simulation.
Quoting from the text in Ameliapedia (http://tighar.org/wiki/Monte_Carlo), "It is safe to say that there is no one single solution to this problem, for the simple fact is that there is not enough data available to constrain precisely where Earhart went or came down."
The most that should be concluded from the results of Randy's Monte Carlo simulation is summed up in this sentence: "The point, however, is that the flight more than likely went to the SW of the intended flight path." How much to the SW is, of course, unknown. It is only by naive interpretation of the results of the simulation that one could then believe the Nikumaroro Hypothesis as being completely blown.
-
going off the photo's from the Symposium
in the picture i have attached is this were Tighar now think Electra was ?
second but same pic is a picture, Ric posted page 59 Rov thread
-
If you agree with TIGHAR, that the Monte Carlo simulation produces the most accurate estimate of the position of the aircraft at 1912 Z, then you must also agree that this means that they couldn't have landed on Gardner.
Well, therein lies the fly in the ointment, Gary. Yes, if someone were to think that the simulation was intended to definitively show where AE was at that time, then I suppose they would have to agree with the conclusion that you state. But, I have not seen anywhere that TIGHAR has touted the Monte Carlo simulation as producing "the most accurate estimate of the position of the aircraft at 1912Z." I think that you have seriously misrepresented the intent and conclusions of Randy Jacobson's work on the Monte Carlo simulation.
Quoting from the text in Ameliapedia (http://tighar.org/wiki/Monte_Carlo), "It is safe to say that there is no one single solution to this problem, for the simple fact is that there is not enough data available to constrain precisely where Earhart went or came down."
The most that should be concluded from the results of Randy's Monte Carlo simulation is summed up in this sentence: "The point, however, is that the flight more than likely went to the SW of the intended flight path." How much to the SW is, of course, unknown. It is only by naive interpretation of the results of the simulation that one could then believe the Nikumaroro Hypothesis as being completely blown.
Well, Charlie Chisholm (and probably others) apparently took it to show that the simulation supported them flying 157 from the "centroid" to Gardner. "Also, following the 157/357 line SE from the centroid puts them right on top of Nikumaroro," so maybe it isn't so clear what purpose, if any, the simulation serves.
My original comments on the simulation was that it was based on an entirely unreasonable assumption and had no value at all and everybody jumped on me for pointing that out. But to those who do believe it has some validity then they are stuck with the fact that you can't get to Gardner from there by flying 157 degrees. Sorry, you can't have it both ways.
If you aren't claiming that the simulation is the best estimate of where they were at 1912 Z then just what is it's purpose and value?
gl
-
Well, Charlie Chisholm apparently took it to show that the simulation supported them flying 157 from the "centroid" to Gardner. "Also, following the 157/357 line SE from the centroid puts them right on top of Nikumaroro."
Yes, someone named "Charlie Chisholm" joined this Forum less than a month ago, and did jump to that false conclusion, and he did make that patently incorrect statement that you quote. I saw his entry last Friday night, and recognized it as ridiculous, but chose not to jump on it with both feet. (Having spent that morning walking nearly 8 miles through Arlington Cemetery, the only thing I wanted to jump on/into with both feet was a soothing bath!)
I hope you're not thinking that an erroneous statement by a non-member Forumite in his first (and only) contribution to the forum must be viewed as representing the collective mind of TIGHAR. By that standard, we'd have to reject the entire work of the Smithsonian Institution based upon the incorrect dates present in a certain person's slideshow on Saturday morning (i.e., AE did not groundloop in Hawaii on May 20, 1937; her mother, Amy Earhart, did not die in 1937).
My original comments on the simulation was that it was based on an entirely unreasonable assumption and had no value at all and everybody jumped on me for pointing that out.
I was there in the room with you Friday, and I have no recollection of "everybody" jumping on you. I, for one, didn't, and I think I'm entitled to be counted among that collective known as "everybody." In fact, I recall that it was acknowledged that the simulation was based on constraints that were far from being ironclad. Here's my advice for persons choosing to take off on flights of fancy based solely on the results of the Monte Carlo simulation: "Caveat emptor!"
-
Sorry for the incorrect post guys, I was just eyeballing it. It's clearly way too far west. I also misunderstood the level of intensity in this group - I thought it was way more casual. But I can see you guys take this thing very seriously indeed (especially after reading through some previous threads going back a few years). I will return to the shadows and just listen. Maybe somebody has an answer to this question, though: All the materials on Tighar showing the LOP place it to the east of Gardner - how far east? In other words, how short of Howland would they have had to be to line up with Niku on the 157 line? Or let's say within easy visual range of Niku? Oh, and what exactly is a "centroid"? Is it just the center of the plotted data? Also, I misstated the LOP - it's not 157/357 (duh) its 157/337. LTM, Charlie
-
My original comments on the simulation was that it was based on an entirely unreasonable assumption and had no value at all and everybody jumped on me for pointing that out.
I was there in the room with you Friday, and I have no recollection of "everybody" jumping on you. I, for one, didn't, and I think I'm entitled to be counted among that collective known as "everybody." In fact, I recall that it was acknowledged that the simulation was based on constraints that were far from being ironclad. Here's my advice for persons choosing to take off on flights of fancy based solely on the results of the Monte Carlo simulation: "Caveat emptor!"
I was referring to my original comments when I posted them several months ago, not my recent comments that I made at the symposium.
gl
-
Charlie-----continue to voice opinions on this forum. We need voices that speak ---but not necessarily from beyond ( you had to have been there to understand :o) . Ive gotten myself in trouble on here, and yep had to go to the principle's office and stand in the corner. But---in many cases it was worth it. Gary and I bantered for months on here, but you know what----I have alot of respect for him, his knowledge, his view on this project, and despite what some may think, Gary is a major part of what wer do here. Its part of the checks an balances of differing opinion that makes us stop, look, and listen.
Keep posting--
-
Don't worry too much about being 'right' or 'wrong' Charlie. It's a very difficult to prove and dis-prove a theory that has so little to go on and, everyone has their own theories. You will find that each member of the forum has their own field of expertise, or not, and you can learn much from them, Gary, Heath, Andrew etc... There's a vast amount of information on the TIGHAR website and tons of resources so feel free to join in and, conduct your own research, it all helps.
-
The value of the Monte Carlo seems to be that of demonstrating where the flight was at the time stated if not where it 'should have been'. It was apparently not where it 'should have been' or NR16020 would have arrived at Howland, so we have one idea - from the Monte Carlo - of where it might have been.
The Monte Carlo simulation (http://tighar.org/wiki/Monte_carlo) ends up with a plot of a "probability distribution." It is a cloud of possibilities, ranging from very unlikely to more likely. Strange things do happen, so finding the aircraft outside the calculated cloud of possibilities would not contradict the calculation; it would just show how improbable the final location was, given the few details we have about the path it took after takeoff from Lae.
Problem is, we can't know that the flight did make such 'neat' landfall or that the plane was ever even at the most likely place as suggested by the Monte Carlo; for all we know the flight approximated something in between and finally managed to blunder into Gardner, if it got there at all.
Agreed.
Gary has made a good argument that AE and FN would keep searching for Howland. I imagine that it might be possible for AE and FN to stumble on Gardner while searching for Howland. Of course, that puts them a long, long way from Howland at the beginning of their search. They shouldn't have been that far off--but the whole point of accidents is that things that shouldn't have happened do happen.
What we can know is that there was some blundering of some sort - surely we agree with that: if not, we'd not be discussing the mystery...
Agreed.
-
The original print is quite small. Ric or Jeff called it "wallet-sized." They were surprised at how small it is.
Photo prints like that were popular in the UK up until the 70's where I have one of me as a youngster holding my treasured blue helecopter.
I remember that too Chris. My parents would get different sized prints based on where they got them. A lot of them also had scalloped borders.
-
Sorry for the incorrect post guys, I was just eyeballing it. It's clearly way too far west. I also misunderstood the level of intensity in this group - I thought it was way more casual. But I can see you guys take this thing very seriously indeed (especially after reading through some previous threads going back a few years). I will return to the shadows and just listen. Maybe somebody has an answer to this question, though: All the materials on Tighar showing the LOP place it to the east of Gardner - how far east? In other words, how short of Howland would they have had to be to line up with Niku on the 157 line? Or let's say within easy visual range of Niku? Oh, and what exactly is a "centroid"? Is it just the center of the plotted data? Also, I misstated the LOP - it's not 157/357 (duh) its 157/337. LTM, Charlie
Please continue to post Charlie. I finally met a lot of the people who post here at the symposium. Believe me when I say they are all intelligent, well intentioned, salt of the earth people. And not a scary one in the bunch. Every one of them would instantly help a total stranger. And they won't admit this but they are also pussycats. LOL.
One of the things that was made clear this past weekend is the absolute respect each one of them holds for the right to freely speak your mind and for others opinions. You keep posting. You say what you think. You will be respected for it.
-
i just done this quick for you not sure if it is right way :-\
Did no one notice i got the image the right way :)
i posted my image at 08:51:20 AM
Irv uploaded image of Jeff's photo diagram at 10:26:14 AM
(https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-jtHp5nQr3O8/T8sC_bqvedI/AAAAAAAAAlc/o_dRkLx5Fq4/s512/IMAGE_014E9704-896E-4AB5-89FC-5AF5CF9D16AC.JPG)
-
great mods think alike.
-
the picture i posted
(https://tighar.org/smf/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=709.0;attach=2632;image)
:)
-
my point being, if i can see it then why can't every one else ?
great work by Jeff Glickman though :)
-
because it isnt on a silver platter. I kinda said awhile back that it looked like a gear. Just didnt think it was upside down. :-\
-
my point being, if i can see it then why can't every one else ?
great work by Jeff Glickman though :)
Perhaps because many people are looking at it objectively.
-
There were some detractors too-
-
There were some detractors too-
Detractors is an emotive word Tom - I prefer objective, at least it frees us from messianic overtones.
-
Obviously the hypnotic trance that Ric uses works.
-
Obviously the hypnotic trance that Ric uses works.
Now Tom, why not come out and say that you can't handle it if people are open-minded enough to question the Nikumaroroan hypothesis and would like to see a little firm evidence other than extrapolations from artifacts that could owe their origins on the island to events anytime over the period of settlement. There is nothing wrong or unusual about questioning of that type, in fact it is a perfectly natural and logical position to take. If and when TIGHAR produce something incontrovertible that links Earhart with Nikumaroro then I'll accept that the hypothesis is proved to be correct. This July they have the chance - let us all hope that they do.
-
Malcolm
What's the link to your website ?
I would like to see your work on the search for Amelia Earhart and Fred Noonan ?
TIGHAR has plenty of non believers, so grab a ticket an join the queue
you'll accept the hypothesis ?, Am sure Tighar will Rumble on weather you accept it or not ....
-
Malcolm---TIGHAR has some evidence, and is taking a expedition to validate is possible its theory. I'm not saying that all the artifacts I saw convinced me that AE was at the seven site. Quite contrary. Same as aircraft parts. We dont know anything for sure, other than the parts, and seen in pictures 'appear' to be consistant to that an Electra had. More research on that continues as we speak.
Oh Malcolm, I can handle other views. Gary and I got along just fine, and I'll bet he has been the most vocal of disenting views." If and when TIGHAR produce something incontrovertible that links Earhart with Nikumaroro then I'll accept that the hypothesis is proved to be correct. This July they have the chance - let us all hope that they do. " I certainly agree with that. There is alot at stake here.
lts just get along, support TIGHAR, and all be objective. But---is the NEW BRITIAN theory your hypothesis, or do you have any others? I would really like to hear them. Really I would. Because---all of this fits together.
tom
-
Richie, I always considered the 'shadow' extending away from 'Nessie' to be, well, a shadow. If you look at the treeline at the beachead there are no shadows cast, first image.
Second image is your composite with the 'shadow' circled in yellow and, the 'shadow' circled on the airplane. Is that the bottom of the engine nacelle? Should be approx 48 - 60 inch diameter. Don't know the exact depth of water at that location but, it might explain why 'Nessie' is able to stay upright.
IMHO
(http://)
-
Jeff
Have a look at this image, see were arrow points at the dark upright object ?
then follow the dark lines along white line
do you see them ?
-
Hello Richie and Jeff,
I would like to enhance a picture that might show the clips found at the 7 site.
Can you tell me what to use or maybe you can help?
It's the "Box1" picture in the "Can you help Identify the little clips" thread, in the Join the Search section.
I need to see the strap attachment better, also if any evidence of a dovetail joint of the box at the bottom edge.
In the comparison you did of the upside down gear, is the tire exploded? It looks like just part of the black thing on top is the only rubber left.
-
Richie,
You need to acquire the high resolution image to seriously study the Nessie (Bevington Object) photo and others.
When dealing with low resolution JPEG compressed images, artifacts are generated that are not part of the original image.
-
Hello Richie and Jeff,
I would like to enhance a picture that might show the clips found at the 7 site.
Can you tell me what to use or maybe you can help?
It's the "Box1" picture in the "Can you help Identify the little clips" thread, in the Join the Search section.
I need to see the strap attachment better, also if any evidence of a dovetail joint of the box at the bottom edge.
In the comparison you did of the upside down gear, is the tire exploded? It looks like just part of the black thing on top is the only rubber left.
i will check it out, an see if i can get a clear image for you, of the strap
as for landing gear, i think the image speaks for it's self... i see upside down landing gear with tyre intact, but then i see objects in Rov video that are more obvious than Nessie is....
However that's just my opinion no one else's :)
-
Hi forum readers. I am going to post photos from the event throughout the three days of the symposium. It's 12.25pm on Friday in Washington. I have just posted a test picture to the web link below. I am not sure how often I can post that will depend mostly on my camera and iPad batteries. Please reply if there is a particular shot you might like or that you think I am missing. Wish you were here.
The hall is starting to fill up nicely. The test shot is the empty meeting room being set up.
The link is. https://picasaweb.google.com/irvdonald/Earhart75thSymposium?authkey=Gv1sRgCIKup5u7tdXUlQE
If it breaks then let me know. Thanks.
I quote this because I could not make a link to this site work. In Irv's pictures is one labeled "More aluminum" which shows several pieces of artifact aluminum that I had not seen before (see #3 below). One of the pieces shown is a narrow strip in the rear of the display that is painted red. I have studied the entire airframe, as much as available photos allow, and I have concluded that there are only two areas of the aircraft that had red paint.
1. The top of the horizonal stabilizer which has no noticable strips.
2. The leading edge of each wing. Sometimes the paint is hard to see in the photos but it shows up well in others if you know what you are looking for.
Here is a link to a picture that shows the paint well on the bottom of the port wing (see #1 below).
http://earchives.lib.purdue.edu/u?/earhart,802 (http://earchives.lib.purdue.edu/u?/earhart,802)
The rear edge of the paint is defined by the dark colored stripe just forward of the "N" of the registration number. Next to the engine cowling is a strip that is part of the red painted area. It wraps around the leading edge of the wing and goes toward the trailing edge of the wing. If you place your cursor on the picture, near where the strip is located, and left click the you can zoom in on the area in question (it may take a few seconds for this to start to work). The artifact strip, in my opinion and having no indication of scale, looks like it could be a part of the strip on the Electra.
You can actually see the strip better in this picture when you zoom in. The red color does not show up here (see #2 below).
http://earchives.lib.purdue.edu/u?/earhart,351 (http://earchives.lib.purdue.edu/u?/earhart,351)
Comments from you guys who were fortunate enough to be able to attend the symposium?
-
Comments from you guys who were fortunate enough to be able to attend the symposium?
Wasn't at the seminar but could that red be red lead primer - fairly commonly used on US aircraft, especially naval types.
-
Malcolm, red lead primer was used on ferrous metals and was more of a brownish red color. It is no longer used in the US because of the lead content.
Zinc chromate primer was and and to the best of my knowledge is still used on aluminum. It is either a light green or a pale yellow color. Most paints will not stick to aluminum without the zinc chromate primer being applied first.
-
Malcolm, red lead primer was used on ferrous metals and was more of a brownish red color. It is no longer used in the US because of the lead content.
Zinc chromate primer was and and to the best of my knowledge is still used on aluminum. It is either a light green or a pale yellow color. Most paints will not stick to aluminum without the zinc chromate primer being applied first.
Thanks - yes I am aware of the use of zinc chromate and why. It acts to etch the surface slightly thus not only providing corrosion resistance but also to give the camo paint for the aircraft something to adhere to. When the Japanese attacked the US bases in the Phillipines in 1941 a number of P35s were hastily camoed with OD without any primer and the paint come off in sheets as tropical moisture got under it.
However I have noted on some Navy aircraft recovered from one of the Great Lakes where a couple of paddle steamers converted to rudimentary aircraft carriers were used to train pilots in deck landings that on some (F4Fs Wildcats) that parts of the skin where the top camo paint has worn off have a red undercoat or primer. Also Vought used their own mix of zinc chromate which was a salmon red-pink on the F4U (Corsair), which was why I asked the question. Therefore use of a red coloured primer is well-documented and so this may mean that that piece of aluminium on display is off a WW2 naval aircraft.
-
Well documented where?
-
Well documented where?
Where? I suggest that you do searches on your search engine of choice relating to aircraft recoveries from the Great Lakes, especially articles with photographs. Also, and this might seem strange, visit some of the aircraft modelling forums especially http://www.network54.com/Forum/149674/ and search under salmon pink, Vought, Corsair etc. Here is a link http://www.network54.com/Forum/149674/thread/1303516369/NAS+Pensacola+Update+2 . It is surprising how knowledgeable aircraft modellers are on the many many subtleties of aircraft finishes, it might seem strange but most of our current historical aviation experts are also modellers or post regularly on those forums. Many posters actually work in the industry or have real hands on time with the genuine things.
-
Malcolm, your documentation appears to be very long list of articles concerning many phases of model building. I don't have time to go through the list trying to find something to back up your comments.
Are you saying that I have no "hands on experience"?
-
Malcolm, your documentation appears to be very long list of articles concerning many phases of model building. I don't have time to go through the list trying to find something to back up your comments.
Are you saying that I have no "hands on experience"?
Did you try this -
http://www.network54.com/Forum/149674/thread/1303516369/NAS+Pensacola+Update+2
-
My Internet Explorer will not bring up that link.
-
My Internet Explorer will not bring up that link.
It should now - for some benighted reason known only to the gremlins of the internet the hosting service decided to collapse. I also couldn't access it for a while. It seems to be up now. Fingers crossed.
-
Thanks Malcolm. It opened this time. I have never seen that color used before. Also, I knew that the rudder on the Corsair was fabric covered but it appears from looking at these pictures that part of the wings may have also been fabric covered. Is that correct?
-
Gentlemen--Fortunately for us, 1936-1937 was a different era. The things we learned about lead in paint primers probably were'nt known in 1936 when the Electra was being built. But--just because this piece of aluminum has 'red primer', or 'red paint' doesnt mean it was off a WWII aircraft, or the Electra. Because, we dont know, because we havent found out whats on the reef yet.
All of this discussion of what it is or isnt is right now speculation (if I can use that word Marty). We know of the missing 'friendly' aircraft in the area ---see 'aricraft lost in the vicinity of Nikumaroro'. But, I havent found items relating to possible Japanese aircraft. They had large 'flying boats', the Kawanishi H8K, smaller seaplanes in Bougainville, the 'Rufe's", and even A6M2-N's Zeros with floats. So as much as I want to see the wreckage on the reef as being the Electra, until the expedition finds whats there, we dont know for sure, and other possiblities need to be mentioned. Including the B17. Granted, I think the possibliltes are extremely small, but even as small as they are, they are still there.
Back to the 'red primer/paint'---The piece of aluminum appeared to be a trim strip for a wing leading edge, altough it wasnt bent in the contour of that edge. Doesnt mean it wasnt 'altered' in the village. But---kind of looks faded like red paint might have been. As does have countersunk rivits like a external airfoil surface probably would have. Might have been from repair done from the Luke Field incident.
Tom
-
Thanks Tom. The reason I was looking for comments from the symposium crowd is that there was so little detail visable of the red strip. Size was also a problem. You guys have actually seen the artifact.
The photo I posted showing the paint on the wing, I think, was taken after the Luke Field repairs but I don't think there would have been any repairs in this area and I doubt there would have been any flush rivets even if there had been.
Just trying to check out a possibility.
-
Another possible source for aircraft parts Tom...
That area seems to be a magnet for ditched aircraft and beached ships ???
October 1943
Consolidated PB4Y-1
Lost at sea.
"ex USAAF B-24D 42-40882."[1]
"10/20/1943 PB4Y-1 32102 VB-106 Funafuti Canton Empire Lt Samuel I. Patella"[2]
"Missing in flight from Canton Island to Funa Futi. 9 missing"[3]
"CFAW-2 JUN; VB-106 JUL-OCT; Flight Canton Island to Funafuti, crashed at sea 400 mi. SW of Canton Isl. Loss date 18 Oct 1943. Stricken 20 OCT 1943."[4]
http://tighar.org/wiki/Aircraft_lost_in_the_vicinity_of_Nikumaroro (http://tighar.org/wiki/Aircraft_lost_in_the_vicinity_of_Nikumaroro)
(http://)
-
The Consolidated PB4Y-1 could be the likeliest suspect for the aluminium skin artifact. Consolidated BVD manufacturer of the PB4Y-1, BVD being Boeing/Vultee/Douglas, the companies which manufactured the assemblies had their Identification mark on them, D=Douglas?
Plus their are some promising locations on the Consolidated PB4Y-1 for the location of said aluminium skin.
Just a theory I will look into, could be another dead end though.
-
The local airport (the Grant County International Airport, in Moses Lake, Washington) has a small fleet of PBY's. I'm sure I could get permission to examine one's sheet metal. Any suggestions for where on the beast to look first?
-
The local airport (the Grant County International Airport, in Moses Lake, Washington) has a small fleet of PBY's. I'm sure I could get permission to examine one's sheet metal. Any suggestions for where on the beast to look first?
John, it's the PB4Y-1 (Liberator type) not the PBY (Catalina type). If they have the Liberator type then it's worth a look, nose and tail end of fuselage.
-
jeff---I caught alot of grief over suggesting that 'maybe ' Rickenbackers B17 could have floated to Niku. The PBY was supposedly alot further to the SW than the B17, so I temporarily discounted it, PENDING results of the underwater expedition.
Woody----the strip appears to be side enough to cover 2 mateing edges of wingskins. it isnt bent in a contour like it might be formed around a leading edge, but pretty straight. The rivit holes are longitudenal with the strip length, and it was about 20-24 inches as I recall. What I dont know is, how wide was the red paint on the wing, on both the top surface and the bottom surface? 2 feet may be about right. Now----the paint line near the cowling is extended, and the strip could match that area, either on top, or perhaps on the bottom.
tom
-
Don't worry Tom, I was initially led to believe that there were no other aircraft missing in this area. We now have 2, possibly 3 if you include the Electra. These are the ones we know of, WW2 would add the ones we don't know of, I guess there were quite a few aircraft around during that era.
And of course canton island was one of the links in the ferry routes across the Pacific ocean...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Pacific_air_ferry_route_in_World_War_II#Southwest_Pacific_Route_1945 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Pacific_air_ferry_route_in_World_War_II#Southwest_Pacific_Route_1945)
(http://)
-
jeff---I caught alot of grief over suggesting that 'maybe ' Rickenbackers B17 could have floated to Niku. The PBY was supposedly alot further to the SW than the B17, so I temporarily discounted it, PENDING results of the underwater expedition.
Woody----the strip appears to be side enough to cover 2 mateing edges of wingskins. it isnt bent in a contour like it might be formed around a leading edge, but pretty straight. The rivit holes are longitudenal with the strip length, and it was about 20-24 inches as I recall. What I dont know is, how wide was the red paint on the wing, on both the top surface and the bottom surface? 2 feet may be about right. Now----the paint line near the cowling is extended, and the strip could match that area, either on top, or perhaps on the bottom.
tom
Tom, the red paint was on both the top and bottom of the wing.
-
yes it was, and in the horizontal. I dotn have a good picture of that, but it is a possibility.
-
Tom, here is the picture of the same area without the paint. It gives a much better idea of what the strip looked like and the rivet pattern. There appears to be a splice in the strip part way down the picture. If we knew the diameter of the exhaust stack we could get a fairly good approximation of the size of the strip and the other features shown.
-
Woody, its hard to make out, but they all appear to be 'AN470" style button head rivits. Cant recall the original name (Jeff Nevill Help!!). Also I think the piece is narrower than whats on the plane, and the amounts of rivits is much more than on the strip. But---i think we're getting closer.
-
However I have noted on some Navy aircraft recovered from one of the Great Lakes where a couple of paddle steamers converted to rudimentary aircraft carriers were used to train pilots in deck landings that on some (F4Fs Wildcats) that parts of the skin where the top camo paint has worn off have a red undercoat or primer. Also Vought used their own mix of zinc chromate which was a salmon red-pink on the F4U (Corsair), which was why I asked the question. Therefore use of a red coloured primer is well-documented and so this may mean that that piece of aluminium on display is off a WW2 naval aircraft.
A young Lieutenant, George Herbert Walker Bush, did his carrier qualification on the Sable (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Sable_%28IX-81%29)steaming in Lake Michigan which docked at Navy Pier in Chicago.
Another aircraft carrier was based in Chicago, the Wolverine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Wolverine_%28IX-64%29), and both of these were propelled by paddle wheels!
Here is a link to video of planes landing on the Wolverine.
(http://twaintimes.net/boat/sbpage5.html)
If you are ever passing through Midway airport in Chicago take a few minutes to wander over to terminal A where they have one of the planes recovered from the bottom of Lake Michigan and a display about these carrier operations. (Also get a bite to eat at Manny's.)
The reason they did the carrier quals in the lake is because if they did it in the Atlantic they would have needed a complete task force of destroyers to protect the carrier from U-Boats.
17,820 pilots were qualified and 116,000 carrier landings were made on these two ships and more than 135 planes ended up on the bottom of the lake.
gl
-
Gentlemen--Fortunately for us, 1936-1937 was a different era. The things we learned about lead in paint primers probably were'nt known in 1936 when the Electra was being built. But--just because this piece of aluminum has 'red primer', or 'red paint' doesnt mean it was off a WWII aircraft, or the Electra. Because, we dont know, because we havent found out whats on the reef yet.
It was also part of the paint application used on fabric covered aircraft in WW1. The reason we don't see it often in photos is that it is covered with the final camouflage colours. However if ever you get to view original fragments of fabric covering dating from that period you can see where it has leached through the fabric on the inside to give that a pinkish hue.
However I agree that just because there is red paint on the piece of aluminium doesn't automatically mean it is original WW2 material, as you say it could have been applied after or could, given the official policy of removing red from external markings etc. in the Pacific War to avoid confusion with the Hinomaru, be a post war relic. Also without having seen the part in question I would not claim what exactly the paint on it is. I simply pointed out that the use of red coloured primers.
Red lead is just one of a suite of different metal and wood protective primers.
-
Thanks Malcolm. It opened this time. I have never seen that color used before. Also, I knew that the rudder on the Corsair was fabric covered but it appears from looking at these pictures that part of the wings may have also been fabric covered. Is that correct?
G'day Woody
Yes the outer panels aft of the main spar on the F4U were fabric covered.
-
That was what I had decided from looking at the pictures. Just goes to show that you can learn something new every day if you only pay attention.
I never would have guessed that from such a sturdy machine. But then there was the Hurricane.
-
The local airport (the Grant County International Airport, in Moses Lake, Washington) has a small fleet of PBY's. I'm sure I could get permission to examine one's sheet metal. Any suggestions for where on the beast to look first?
John, it's the PB4Y-1 (Liberator type) not the PBY (Catalina type). If they have the Liberator type then it's worth a look, nose and tail end of fuselage.
John, the Navy PB4Y= Army B-24.
-
"John, the Navy PB4Y= Army B-24."
The nice folks with the PBY's already informed me of the difference, and (in great detail) what TIGHAR was looking for. No, they're not members, but yes, they're followers of the TIGHAR activities! They're obviously interested in "The Search". I encouraged them to join.
Note that the most recent version of the movie "Always" was filmed here.
-
Right on. Stay after them!
-
Who says Ric doesn't like me?
gl
-
Just getting back to something Gary said about the Monte Carlo Simulation after the symposium
"If you agree with TIGHAR, that the Monte Carlo simulation produces the most accurate estimate of the position of the aircraft at 1912 Z, then you must also agree that this means that they couldn't have landed on Gardner. I am attaching a marked up copy on the Monte Carlo printout. The circle I placed around Howland is 69 SM (60 NM) in radius. I drew the 157° line through Howland that goes to Gardner but the simulation shows that they were unlikely to be closer than 55 SM offset from this line with a higher probability of being more than at a 100 SM offset. I drew in lines that are parallel with the 157° line to Gardner offset by these distances. Since Euclid said parallel lines never cross, these lines maintain their spacings forever. This means that if AE turned to fly the 157° line from where the simulation places them, then they would fly down the offset line, not the correct line to Gardner, and that when they flew by Gardner they were at least 55 SM and, more likely, they were more than 100 SM to the west of that island, which makes it very difficult for them to see the island.
See: Monte carlo offsets-2.pdf (194.6 kB - downloaded 28 times.)
gl
"
As Randy Jacobson pointed out at the symposium, the MC simulation tries to take into account as few variables as possible, so the result of the simulation does not include the assumption that Fred managed to get a celestial sun shot that am, and therefore was unable to calculate the distance between his position on the sun LOP and the distance to the advance LOP that ran through Howland. The MC simply shows that there is a probability that they ended up SW of the LOP through Howland.
However, if Fred had been able to get his sun shot, he would have been able to calculate the distance to the advanced LOP through Howland, and if SW of Howland, he would have then navigated the aircraft to the advanced LOP and intersected it at a point South of Howland. How far south is dependent upon where you put them in the MC simulation, but looking at the MC results, if they were at the SE side of the MC probability results when they took their sun shot, and then navigated to the advanced LOP, they could have intersected the LOP well south of Baker Isl. This leads to the scenario where AE would say "we are on the line 157 - 337" and "we are flying N and S", i.e. the intersect the line, fly north for a bit, don't find what they are looking for, and then turn south assuming that Howland is down the LOP somewhere, only to find Niku instead.
The point being that flying the 157 LOP from the end of the MC simulation doesn't really accurately portray what we might expect from a Navigator such as Fred as it don't include a morning sun shot as one of the variables. I think even Gary would agree that FN was a good enough navigator to get them to the advanced LOP through Howland, what he couldn't control (and this assumes Fred was unable to get proper star sightings overnight) were the variables that might have driven them south of course and therefore put them on the LOP south of their intended target.
Gary is a far superior navigator than I am, so no doubt he will shoot holes in my understanding, but one of the takeaways from the symposium for me was that the MC simulation did not include the assumption of a sun shot. The sun shot would help them correct for E-W position, but not for N-S position.
Andrew
-
I believe that FN would have had a very good idea where there were longitudinally just based on the sun rise alone.
-
I believe that FN would have had a very good idea where there were longitudinally just based on the sun rise alone.
Agreed.
That's why I think the "200 miles" and "100 miles" messages (http://tighar.org/wiki/Transmission_timeline) reflect accurate information about how close the aircraft was to Niku.
That, in turn, is why I consider the New Britain hypothesis not credible. They were well past the point of no return (calculated elsewhere by Gary LaPook, I believe) at the time Fred made those estimates, and therefore well past the point of being able to fly 2000+ miles back to New Britain.
-
I agree. Having spent many hours looking at the radio logs, fuel consumption, etc, the only way that Electra could have made it to New Britain was by floating there at which point it would be disassembled then hand carried up in to the jungle. Not likely.
-
I like it Heath! Very perceptive.