TIGHAR

Amelia Earhart Search Forum => General discussion => Topic started by: Thomas Carl Cofield on July 07, 2012, 04:54:50 PM

Title: Confidence
Post by: Thomas Carl Cofield on July 07, 2012, 04:54:50 PM
Based on my review of the evidence you have gathered to date, I have great confidence that you are on to it, i.e., finding the real site and moving toward solving the mystery. Do you have plans to leave persons behind to secure the site , or is that necessary in view of the remoteness ? Have you thought far enough ahead about plans to show the artifacts?
Title: Re: Confidence
Post by: richie conroy on July 08, 2012, 12:28:50 PM
would u want to be left at gardner, as nice as it looks i certainly wouldn't  :) 
Title: Re: Confidence
Post by: Thomas Carl Cofield on July 08, 2012, 12:42:54 PM
Excellent point, Mr. Conroy. I've heard of people offering to do stranger adventures (eg. Magellan; Neil Armstrong); so one never knows. This is a pretty interesting  journey here. I just have a feeling the mystery, or at least some of it, is about to be resolved.
Title: Re: Confidence
Post by: richie conroy on July 08, 2012, 01:34:37 PM
fingers crossed just hope the plane is not badly beaten up, so bad that little pieces are spread down reef face in little segments and are dismissed  :)
Title: Re: Confidence
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on July 08, 2012, 04:41:28 PM
Based on my review of the evidence you have gathered to date, I have great confidence that you are on to it, i.e., finding the real site and moving toward solving the mystery. Do you have plans to leave persons behind to secure the site , or is that necessary in view of the remoteness ? Have you thought far enough ahead about plans to show the artifacts?

Niku VII (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Niku7/niku7expedition.html) is a "look, but don't touch" expedition.

I'm not conscious of any plans for a museum exhibition.  Our late oceanographer, Howard Alldred, (http://tighar.org/wiki/Howard) thought the plane would have probably have been turned into aluminum sand by now.  I don't think anyone in TIGHAR expects to find much more than bits and pieces--if we're lucky!   :(
Title: Re: Confidence
Post by: Jay Burkett on July 09, 2012, 11:23:17 AM
Marty,

From what I have seen of WWII era aircraft that have been found in tropical waters over the past few years (photos from scuba divining magazines, Nat Geo, etc.) they tend to remain relatively intact if they are out of the surf zone.  The Devastator in the Jaluit Lagoon is a good example.  Would it not be reasonable to find rather large portions of the aircraft covered with coral and marine growth, but, otherwise rescognizable as not being part of the natural landscape?  This would seem to be the case the deeper the parts came to rest as the reef coral and vegitation growth becomes less as you go deeper.  Do we have a good reason why the assumption can be made the the surviving bits and pieces are going to be small?  You have aroused my couriosity!

Jay
Title: Re: Confidence
Post by: Chris Johnson on July 09, 2012, 11:27:18 AM
Jay,

many WW2 air craft are to be found in the more sheltered Lagoon situation such as the one you mention.

The Electra would have been washed over the reef edge on the seaward side on Niku where it would be prone to the actions of tide and storms, see the Norwich City Wreck.
Title: Re: Confidence
Post by: C.W. Herndon on July 09, 2012, 11:33:29 AM
Jay, here is Marty's latest overhead picture of the Norwich City wreck.
Title: Re: Confidence
Post by: Chris Johnson on July 09, 2012, 11:42:44 AM
In 1937 it looked just like any old ship, see this photo taken by the NZ survey Norwich City (http://tighar.org/wiki/File:Norwich_City_Aground_(Note_White_Paint_on_Bulwark)_(Wigram_AFB_Archives).jpg)
Title: Re: Confidence
Post by: Andrew M McKenna on July 09, 2012, 12:49:48 PM
Marty says:

"Our late oceanographer, Howard Alldred, thought the plane would have probably have been turned into aluminum sand by now."

I've disagreed with Howard on several of his thoughts, and this is one of them.  I don't think we've ever found evidence to support this notion that the aircraft was largely ground up and distributed as sand down current.


"I don't think anyone in TIGHAR expects to find much more than bits and pieces--if we're lucky!"

I for one am willing to go out on a limb and say that I think that there will be large sections of the electra found.  While pieces of it may be torn off during the landing, or afterwards, I imagine that once the main body was floated off the reef by the rising tide / wave action, the destruction would have largely stopped leaving substantial portions intact to be found, hopefully by side scan sonar during this expedition.

Looking forward to finding out if I'm right.   :-)

Andrew

Title: Re: Confidence
Post by: Bruce Thomas on July 09, 2012, 01:14:08 PM
We've been seeing that KAP picture of SS Norwich City a lot recently.  I think it was taken on Niku V in 2007.  Comparing it to the older pictures of the shipwreck does give one pause about the power of the relentless ocean pounding.

Two other things just struck me this time around. 

First, the smallish round objects remind me that when the Wheel Of Fortune  (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/41_WheelofFortune/41_Wheel.html) was first seen in 2002 near Tatiman Passage by Dr. Greg Stone, the shipwreck was suggested as a possible source of an object that just happened to look like an aircraft wheel.

But the second thing, which jumped out at me, is that the reef surface is bone dry in a lot of places with all that "stuff" lying about in the tropical sun.  Some people seem to continue to pooh-pooh the idea of the reef serving as a suitable landing surface for an airplane in 1937.  They can't seem to conceive of that, but this picture communicates the idea quite well.
Title: Re: Confidence
Post by: C.W. Herndon on July 09, 2012, 01:19:19 PM
Well said Bruce! That is the first picture I have seen of the reef when it was completely dry.

I also was amazed at how many "light colored" objects show up in the picture that are obviously parts from the ship wreck. And after all those years.
Title: Re: Confidence
Post by: Dave Potratz on July 09, 2012, 01:21:57 PM
Andrew wrote:
"I for one am willing to go out on a limb and say that I think that there will be large sections of the electra found."

Agree. I would join you out on that limb, sir, for the insightful reasons you state.
dp
Title: Re: Confidence
Post by: Greg Daspit on July 09, 2012, 01:34:33 PM
http://tighar.org/Publications/TTracks/2010Vol_26/find.pdf
This is an interesting article of what might be expected to be found in 2010.

Are they going to announce anything right away if they find something definitive?
Or have they agreed to hold any historic news until after the Discovery show?
Title: Re: Confidence
Post by: Tom Swearengen on July 09, 2012, 02:33:08 PM
Andrew---it needs to be a pretty stout limb---I there with you, as are a bunch of us.
Tom
Title: Re: Confidence
Post by: Bill Roe on July 09, 2012, 02:55:31 PM

But the second thing, which jumped out at me, is that the reef surface is bone dry .........  Some people seem to continue to pooh-pooh the idea of the reef serving as a suitable landing surface for an airplane in 1937.  They can't seem to conceive of that, but this picture communicates the idea quite well.

 

At what altitude was the picture taken?  A close look - nasty.

Suitable only in the sense of an emergency landing.  Maybe not even then.  I still believe that a good pilot, forced down,  would ditch gear up in shallow water. 
Title: Re: Confidence
Post by: Jeff Victor Hayden on July 09, 2012, 03:55:03 PM
It depends on what was on their mind when making the decision Bill.
Some possible influences for avoiding ditching into water:
a) Dry radio kit? would need a dry landing (although they couldn't get the damn thing to work properly all the way from Lae, why they would suddenly expect it to work... unless, they thought they might be able to fix it?)
b) Rescue and subsequent re-fuelling and take off ?
c) Strip it of useful survival gear
Title: Re: Confidence
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on July 09, 2012, 08:11:20 PM
From what I have seen of WWII era aircraft that have been found in tropical waters over the past few years (photos from scuba divining magazines, Nat Geo, etc.) they tend to remain relatively intact if they are out of the surf zone.

Note: "if they are out of the surf zone."

TIGHAR has picked up lots of aluminum pieces on Niku.

The natives sold boxes inlaid with aluminum "from the airplane wreck that was here when we got here" (Kilts).

Another fellow said he saw natives fishing with control cables.

The Bevington Object may have been a landing gear.

A wing (or perhaps a part of an elevator or rudder?) was said to have floated into the lagoon.

Our oceanographer thought the plane might well be reduced to "aluminum sand."

None of this proves that there isn't much left of the aircraft, but that's how it strikes me.  :(

Quote
The Devastator in the Jaluit Lagoon is a good example.  Would it not be reasonable to find rather large portions of the aircraft covered with coral and marine growth, but, otherwise rescognizable as not being part of the natural landscape?  This would seem to be the case the deeper the parts came to rest as the reef coral and vegitation growth becomes less as you go deeper.  Do we have a good reason why the assumption can be made the the surviving bits and pieces are going to be small?  You have aroused my curiosity!

The Devastator is on a flat, sandy bottom, at not too great a depth.

I believe it got there by ditching nearby (don't quote me--I really am not up on the case).

But whether they ditched or got shot down, the plane didn't work its way down the face of a reef.  I just don't think it is a good model for what TIGHAR is likely to find on this expedition.
Title: Re: Confidence
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on July 09, 2012, 08:16:41 PM
I've disagreed with Howard on several of his thoughts, and this is one of them.  I don't think we've ever found evidence to support this notion that the aircraft was largely ground up and distributed as sand down current.

You'd have to collect and analyze a LOT of sand to find such evidence.   :P

Quote
"I don't think anyone in TIGHAR expects to find much more than bits and pieces--if we're lucky!"

I for one am willing to go out on a limb and say that I think that there will be large sections of the electra found.  While pieces of it may be torn off during the landing, or afterwards, I imagine that once the main body was floated off the reef by the rising tide / wave action, the destruction would have largely stopped leaving substantial portions intact to be found, hopefully by side scan sonar during this expedition.

That's encouraging.

For those who haven't met Andrew, he has served on many TIGHAR expeditions, diving on the reef, surveying the lagoon, chopping scaevola, flying kites, commanding ROVs, etc., etc.

He knows the reef, up close and personal.

Maybe the odds are not as bad as I thought they were.   :)
Title: Re: Confidence
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on July 09, 2012, 08:18:36 PM
Or have they agreed to hold any historic news until after the Discovery show?

Discovery has some exclusive rights.

I'm pretty sure that there will be an embargo on the news until after Discovery airs its special--an embargo for TIGHAR expedition members, not Discovery, of course.

I think that's how it worked last time.
Title: Re: Confidence
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on July 09, 2012, 08:20:17 PM
At what altitude was the picture taken?  A close look - nasty.

It was taken from platform lifted by a kite.

I never heard how high the kite could carry the camera.

Wild guess: 200' to 400'.
Title: Re: Confidence
Post by: Andrew M McKenna on July 10, 2012, 02:51:19 AM
I don't think Discovery will hold the news until the airing of their show.  That will take much too long, and there is way too much risk that the story will get out before then.

If the arrangement with Discovery is similar to 2010 (and I've been told that it is substantially the same) Discovery has the rights to break the news announcing evidence that AE and or her aircraft has been definitively identified, as in smoking gun, any idiot artifact, proof.  What they desire is to be able to break the story and drive folks to their website for more information.  You can imagine the web traffic such a story would generate.

This is a delicate matter of timing, of course.  All the crew and TIGHAR team are restricted by non-disclosure agreements that even cover telling a spouse about a definitive artifact, at least until after Discovery breaks the story.  People being what they are, Discovery knows that it will only be a matter of time before the cat gets out of the bag, so they won't wait too long.  My guess, and this is only my speculation, is that Discovery would break the story within 48 to 72 hours of conclusive proof, and certainly before the ship arrives back in HI.  Why risk being upstaged on your own story?  The only reason I can think of for them to delay would be that they want the video and photos to post, but even then they can break the story and post video later.  Unlike our past expeditions, I believe the KOK has the capability to send data if needed, so even video could be delivered well before the ship arrives back in Hawaii.  Pricey, but doable.

Discovery will have the opportunity to milk this for all its worth, building interest over the several months it will take to put together the documentary show.

Once the definitive artifact is announced, TIGHAR and its members should no longer be restricted from disclosing information, so we should be able to get the full story from the expedition team.

Disclaimer - I am not the legal counsel for TIGHAR, and I've not been privy to the contract that has been signed between them for coverage / sponsorship of this expedition.  I was subject to the non-disclosure agreement on the last expedition.

Andrew
Title: Re: Confidence
Post by: Andrew M McKenna on July 10, 2012, 02:54:51 AM
As Marty says, kite height varies between 200' and 400' for good photos of the ground directly below.  I think we flew it higher at points when capturing photos at an oblique angle.

Limit to kite height is wind strength and length of the string.

By the way, even in the photo posted of the NC wreck, the reef was not entirely dry, there is still water out there in the pools etc. 

AMCK
Title: Re: Confidence
Post by: Jay Burkett on July 10, 2012, 11:12:48 AM
Perhaps some need a clarification iof my reasoning for finding large parts intact.

I assume that the current line of thinking is that one of the mains became lodged in the reef.  It is also reasonable to assume that the aircraft was landed along the beach.  This means taht the fuselage could have been parallel to the waves as they arrived at the shaore.  The main landing gear only moves in one direction.  It does not pivot.  Waves acting against the fuselage and vertical stabilizers, and the undersides of the wings and horizontal stabilzer if the aircraft is not sitting level  (and it probably was not --- remember the wheel/main stuck inthe trench?), would have generated a tremendous amount of force which would try to turn the whole aircraft about the stuck landing gear.  Some pieces could be torn off before this happens and they could have washed up on the shore.  It would not take too long before the aircraft is torn free from the stuck gear.  The options then are (a) to be wahsed up on the shore or (b) washed over the edge of the reef into deeper water.  Since nobody has found the aircraft, or large parts of it on land, it is safe to assume that it went over the edge.  Once in deeper water it would be out of the "surf zone" and relatively safe from further disassembly.  I beleive that this would have happened rather quickly.  In contrast, NC, becasue of its sheer size and mass, stayed in the surf zone as corrosion and wave action took its toll.  This theroy allsow for smaller pieces to have torn free and found their way to the shore to be found.  I think the larger whole of what is left is sitting down off the edge some place. 

I got to go back to building airplanes now ....
 

 
Title: Re: Confidence
Post by: Don Dollinger on July 10, 2012, 03:26:46 PM
Quote
Since nobody has found the aircraft, or large parts of it on land, it is safe to assume that it went over the edge.  Once in deeper water it would be out of the "surf zone" and relatively safe from further disassembly.  I beleive that this would have happened rather quickly.

One factor left out of that equation is the extra floatation that would be afforded the additional fuel tanks.  IMHO, this extra bouyancy would have kept it afloat longer (until the fuel tanks had been busted open or ripped from the fuselage) making it more suseptible to be beat against the reef face for a longer period of time reducing it to smaller pieces of electra, for that matter it could also of floated some distance from Niku before finally sinking.  How big of a search circle are they willing to go on this expedition?

As hopeful as the next Tighar that Ric and crew find the smoking gun but, what if?

LTM,

Don
Title: Re: Confidence
Post by: Jay Burkett on July 11, 2012, 11:20:53 AM
Don,

Because of the possible bouyancy generated by the empty fuselage and wing tanks the aircraft would float to a certain degree.  The aircraft trying to pivot around the stuck main would provide the force to tear it free.  If the winds and tides were right the aircraft would be carried away from the shore.  It would eventaully sink.  If it was still intact enough, it would possible "fly" as it sank.  (I don't have a clue what the glide ratio of the Electra would be ...).   I have heard stories (anecdotal) regarding searchers looking for aircraft that ditched and finding them quite a bit away from where it actually ended up  in the water.  The aerodynamics still work at the lower speeds due to the higher density of the water.  A realtively undamaged aircraft could fly quite a way once it sank.

I, too, am looking forward to what is found!
Title: Re: Confidence
Post by: Jeff Victor Hayden on July 11, 2012, 11:34:13 AM
Quote
If it was still intact enough, it would possible "fly" as it sank.

Well spotted Jay, indeed it would.

the aircraft began to oscillate up and down in a phugoid cycle

JAL 747 crash, crew lost all hydraulic control, phugoid cycle
TWA 747 crash, plane flew on after cockpit and forward fuselage section blasted away, phugoid cycle
UA 232
And lots more
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phugoid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phugoid)


Title: Re: Confidence
Post by: Don Dollinger on July 20, 2012, 09:45:11 AM
Quote
I think it was taken on Niku V in 2007.  Comparing it to the older pictures of the shipwreck does give one pause about the power of the relentless ocean pounding.

There was a beached longboat with a broken transim on a small uninhabited islet in Panama that we used to camp and dive at.  It was sunk in a small protected cove and discovered on our first trip there.  within 2 years what was left was indistinguishable.  Granted this was wood and not metal but it was the constant wave action that tore it apart.

LTM

Don
Title: Re: Confidence
Post by: Tom Swearengen on July 20, 2012, 11:06:08 AM
You guys are alot smarter than I am about such stuff------but may I presume that if the electra did float off, and the bottom ( as we know it) is 2900+ feet, that it may 1-3 MILES off the coast?
I wonder if KOK did a scan that far away from the shore, and if so, were there any targets? Guess we may find out.
Title: Re: Confidence
Post by: Randy Conrad on July 20, 2012, 12:16:15 PM
Okay...help me out...how far down have they gone Tom?...and is it deeper than they are led to believe? I guess I feel that we havent made it down to the bottom completely...or have we? Anyway, my hunches are she floated for minutes, maybe half hour to an hour and then sunk. If you have waves coming from all over. She might have even hit the sides of the Norwich City, causing damage, and possibly opening parts of the Electra to the point of internal flooding. But, I don't believe she floated for miles. Especially, when you have windows, doors, bottom of plane exposed to water from motor area, hatch, and etc. Let's not forget we also have additional weight we have to consider. Yeah, she might have broke one part of the landing gear off, but if you have one side unstable, she's gonna tip on ya. I still think the magnitude with the size of the electra tires, would have sunk her anyway, if given the chance. In the picture I posted, did you see where the top of that tire comes to in adjacent to the maintenance guy. I mean cmon, its gotta be heavy!!! Anyway, if your reading this Ric...before you pack your bags...give it one more sweep my friend...but as Tom's mentioned it may be out just a little further than we are led to believe!!!! You might try going out just a tad further!!! We're all pulling for you on this final day!!!!
Title: Re: Confidence
Post by: Tom Swearengen on July 20, 2012, 02:02:56 PM
Randy----2900+ feet, and did not find the bottom. 3000 was the tether length of the ROV I think----some one correct me if Im wrong on this. I saw at one time some soundings from a nautical map around Niku that showed 3200+ feet, but I assume the bottom falls away to whereever. We know that depths out there can be 15000+, so thats why I said the electra may be 1-3 miles off the reef. All conjecture on my part---but a deep dive submirsible sure would have been nice. Next time-
Title: Re: Confidence
Post by: Ed Rosales on July 22, 2012, 09:40:18 PM
My feel for this is that the plane didn't initially go very far. Lets say that the plane landed relatively intact. This is what I believe happened. As the waves come in, the plane begins to float, but at the same time, water begins to flood the fuselage thru small openings. The weight of the water inside the plane increases and the pounding of the waves outside of the plane begin to break it apart. First, the landing gear fails, and the plane drops. Water now washes over the plane, smashing out the windows, further flooding the plane. The plane is dragged across the reef, further opening the plane to the sea. Any hope for it to "float away" is no longer possible as it breaks up. Lets not forget that there had been eyewitness accounts of a plane in the reef by the first settlers to arrive on the island some years later. If this is correct, the plane did not wash out to sea, it remained on the reef.

My theory of where did the plane go is this. The plane broke up into large pieces and was semi sunk on the reef where it remained for a few years. Some of it was salvaged by the locals, but much of it simply corroded away or was encased in a tomb of barnacles. If any part of the plane did wash down the reef slope, it likely had done so sometime after the island was settled, during some strong tidal force, but it would not had drifted miles off shore. It wouldn't had been possible, and the eyewitness accounts do not support the Electra drifting away before they had arrived. I believe, the plane had already spent years submerged or semi submerged on the reef, where it continued to break up and corrode. The fate of the plane was no different than it's neighbor, The Norwich City. If anything, I believe that some small parts could have been washed over the reef, but the pieces may not be that large or encased in some sort of biological marine organism.

Several years ago, as a kid, we junked a couple of vehicles in a saltwater inlet, not far from the sea. I visited the location over the next few years and witnessed the disappearance of both vehicles. After a couple of years, the engine blocks of both were rusted into unidentifiable chunks of metal, and the aluminum transmissions were so far gone that you could put your finger thru them. After a few years, the body of both vehicles was gone, Today some 25yrs later, neither vehicle remains, even the heavier parts like engines, axles, etc have completely rusted away. 

Ed
Title: Re: Confidence
Post by: Zach Reed on July 22, 2012, 11:30:29 PM
Some compelling comments, particularly Ed's.

I would just point out that the Navy flyover was five days after the disappearance, so the plane must have broken up very quickly and substantially (with the help of the storm on Day 3) to where three pilots flying in circles over the island wouldn't have recognized it. Understood that they weren't looking for a half-submerged plane on a reef, but you would think something would have triggered recognition. Perhaps the larger pieces were "mentally assigned" to the debris field of the Norwhich City...
Title: Re: Confidence
Post by: Malcolm McKay on July 22, 2012, 11:57:14 PM
Lets not forget that there had been eyewitness accounts of a plane in the reef by the first settlers to arrive on the island some years later. If this is correct, the plane did not wash out to sea, it remained on the reef.

If so why didn't Maude and Bevington see it when they arrived on the island a few months after the disappearance? The "Nessie" picture was taken by them and they spent time in that area of the island. Therefore "Nessie" whatever it was clearly wasn't an aircraft part (Glickman's "enhanced" photo purports to show a wheel with tire) so why would a plainly apparent wheel and tire be missed by Maude and Bevington (they weren't amateurs - they were there to do a survey), and a couple of years later when Gallagher investigated the castaway skeleton why wasn't he aware of this so-called plainly apparent wreckage that all the islanders claim to have seen? The whole aircraft wreckage/undercarriage leg story has more holes in it than a sieve and more than its fair share of modern wishful thinking. 
Title: Re: Confidence
Post by: Ed Rosales on July 23, 2012, 03:29:07 AM
Some compelling comments, particularly Ed's.

I would just point out that the Navy flyover was five days after the disappearance, so the plane must have broken up very quickly and substantially (with the help of the storm on Day 3) to where three pilots flying in circles over the island wouldn't have recognized it. Understood that they weren't looking for a half-submerged plane on a reef, but you would think something would have triggered recognition. Perhaps the larger pieces were "mentally assigned" to the debris field of the Norwhich City...

No one can really be sure why three pilots weren't able to see a partly submerged plane, we also don't know why AE & FN weren't able to see Howland island.


If so why didn't Maude and Bevington see it when they arrived on the island a few months after the disappearance?

Again, no one can be sure, but I can tell you, if you're floating on the water, or standing on a beach, it's very hard, if not impossible to see a submerged object. The best vantage point to see submerged objects is either from above or from below the surface of the water.

 
Quote
The "Nessie" picture was taken by them and they spent time in that area of the island. Therefore "Nessie" whatever it was clearly wasn't an aircraft part (Glickman's "enhanced" photo purports to show a wheel with tire) so why would a plainly apparent wheel and tire be missed by Maude and Bevington (they weren't amateurs - they were there to do a survey), and a couple of years later when Gallagher investigated the castaway skeleton why wasn't he aware of this so-called plainly apparent wreckage that all the islanders claim to have seen? The whole aircraft wreckage/undercarriage leg story has more holes in it than a sieve and more than its fair share of modern wishful thinking.

If my theory is correct and the plane was submerged on the reef, it's not going to be easy to see and it's likely broken up and beginning to corrode away making it harder to identify as a plane. The NC wreck had a debris field already on the beach. Parts of the plane could had been mistaken as parts of the ship. We have no clue if the photo of Nessie was part of the Electra, part of the NC or simply a speck of dust on the lens at the time the photo was taken, but the landing gear was made of metal, and it was exposed to the corroding effects of salt water and it wouldn't take long for it to rust away, leaving only the rubber tire behind. We don't know why Gallagher did not report the existence of a plane submerged on the reef, but we are left with eyewitness accounts of a plane by the locals who pinpointed it's location in the vicinity of the Norwich City

Ed
Title: Re: Confidence
Post by: John Perks on July 23, 2012, 05:44:32 AM

If so why didn't Maude and Bevington see it when they arrived on the island a few months after the disappearance? The "Nessie" picture was taken by them and they spent time in that area of the island. Therefore "Nessie" whatever it was clearly wasn't an aircraft part (Glickman's "enhanced" photo purports to show a wheel with tire) so why would a plainly apparent wheel and tire be missed by Maude and Bevington (they weren't amateurs - they were there to do a survey), and a couple of years later when Gallagher investigated the castaway skeleton why wasn't he aware of this so-called plainly apparent wreckage that all the islanders claim to have seen? The whole aircraft wreckage/undercarriage leg story has more holes in it than a sieve and more than its fair share of modern wishful thinking.

Hi there - first post so I hope I don't cause offence by diving into a long discussion:
Absence of information only proves absence of information; we only know that we do not have any evidence that Maude and Bevington saw the aircraft, this could mean:
It is a long stretch to infer that because we do not have any evidence that they saw the aircraft then it was not there. I didn't see any evidence that they were professional wrecked aircraft finders, so they were amateurs and may not have recognised a wrecked aircraft if they did find it (but that is speculation).

I also note that Maude and Bevington did not explicitly state that they found breathable air. Does this mean that there isn't any? Or just that it was so prosaic that it is not worthy of comment? We can also speculate that everybody knew the wreck was there, so nobody ever commented. Historical documents commonly only ever document the things that the author found worthy of comment.

This is equally true for the various overflights and ships passing, all we can actually say is "they didn't see it", not "it wasn't there".

May I suggest that we start from the statement "We do not have any evidence that Maude and Bevington recognised any aircraft wreckage worthy of note".

...Therefore "Nessie" whatever it was clearly wasn't an aircraft part...

now becomes ..."We do not have any evidence that Maude and Bevington recognised "Nessie" as aircraft wreckage worthy of note". But we then have to question if "Nessie" would have been significant to them?
Title: Re: Confidence
Post by: Tom Swearengen on July 23, 2012, 07:12:18 AM
Hi all. I took a step back over the weekend, to contemplate the events of the past several weeks. Alot of attention was given to the Bevington Object, and IMHO, for some pretty good reasons. I was determined, but not prove, that it was consitant with an Electra landing gear. The expedition went to Niku to look for it, as well as potentially other parts. They werent found, at least not yet. That doesnt mean that they were never there. They presently are not in the location they were. Or, more honestly, not in the same configuration as they were. 75 years of batheing in sea water obviously has taken its toll. We have that evidence from the Norwich City, which was a much stonger structure than the Electra.
The other notion is that its there, and we havent found the right location yet. I tend to think that is correct. As we have found out, the underwater topography is pretty hostile. Lots of places to hide, and to destroy evidence. Imagine for a moment, that you are an aluminum skinned aircraft, sliding vertically down a slope. Granted, the water would slow the decent some, but the coral outcroppings would be VERY unforgiving. Lots of cuts, bruises, broken limbs. Some of us know about aircraft structures, and how seeming little damage there can be to the first glance, only to find a significant amount during inspection, Imagine the violence of that act.
Do we know where the ocean bottom is? Maybe not. Perhaps, the slope just keeps on going into an abyss, gradual, but still decending to a depth greater than we can see at this time. And, perhaps again, our evidence, is there, lying on the bottom, waiting fro Ric to come for it.
75 years is a long time between events to find things. Our friend Dr. Malcolm would day 2000 years is a long time. Both are correct. From my perspective, if I may, I believe that parts we are looking for are there, around Nikumarroro. Small enough to hide, and not attract the attention of AUV;s and ROVs, and side scan.
I have the confidence that TIGHAR will find the evidence we are looking for. How that is, I dont know. Perhaps that is for a new thread to discuss----. But certainly, worth developing, funding, and doing.
Title: Re: Confidence
Post by: Rafael Krasnodebski on July 23, 2012, 09:55:02 AM
As the Ruttles once sang  .... "All You Need is Cash". They way forward I suppose is back on the island .. unless someone out there is really chummy with either Bill Gates or Warren Buffet. Excluding that possibility, Tighar will have to look for more artefacts on land, chasing that elusive serial number or readable DNA sample. Finding one of these these will, I'm sure, reinvigorate the bank roll, but digging up the meagre half a million to fund another archeological trip ain't a bag of laughs either. Maybe we should start a thread under the title 'fund raising ideas' and use the combined intellectual prowess of this forum to help Ric in the way he really needs. Of course once the team's tired eyes are rested and the world stops swaying under their feet, they could realise that the footage of that large coral boulder they saw has spark plugs, tie rods and a couple of piston rings hanging out of it ... that too would do the trick. Failing that, is anyone here pals with John Travolta? He likes flying and rumour has it he's not short of a penny or two.     
Title: Re: Confidence
Post by: Gary LaPook on July 23, 2012, 10:53:50 AM
As the Ruttles once sang  .... "All You Need is Cash". They way forward I suppose is back on the island .. unless someone out there is really chummy with either Bill Gates or Warren Buffet. Excluding that possibility, Tighar will have to look for more artefacts on land, chasing that elusive serial number or readable DNA sample. Finding one of these these will, I'm sure, reinvigorate the bank roll, but digging up the meagre half a million to fund another archeological trip ain't a bag of laughs either. Maybe we should start a thread under the title 'fund raising ideas' and use the combined intellectual prowess of this forum to help Ric in the way he really needs. Of course once the team's tired eyes are rested and the world stops swaying under their feet, they could realise that the footage of that large coral boulder they saw has spark plugs, tie rods and a couple of piston rings hanging out of it ... that too would do the trick. Failing that, is anyone here pals with John Travolta? He likes flying and rumour has it he's not short of a penny or two.   
The recent search was based on the "search box" being manageably  small based on the location of nessie. Now we have found that, even though small, due to the terrain it can't be searched effectively so even if the wreckage is there it can't be found. If the plane floated or was washed further out to sea, then the "search box" is too large to search. It looks like the last possibility to prove the TIGHAR theory is to find an object of unquestionable pedigree, the "smoking gun," somewhere on the dry land of Gardner.

gl
Title: Re: Confidence
Post by: Rafael Krasnodebski on July 23, 2012, 11:23:44 AM
A ha! That assumes we apply today's technology to the search, but as scanning and sounding technology progresses we may be in a position in the not too distant future to scan the depths in detail from the sky or even space ... so there.
Title: Re: Confidence
Post by: JNev on July 23, 2012, 11:37:31 AM
Any way you cut it, it's a tough equation.  IMHO I believe Gary's summation is pretty close to the workable truth.

Gardner / Niku doesn't give up her secrets easily; father time and mother nature conspire with the island to make whatever may be there that much harder to find, above and below the water line. 

Tidy search boxes are best; bigger ones are expensive if not prohibitive.  It'll take a while for the next effort to emerge in whatever form it takes. 

I am left wondering about further land search - Gary may be wise on that point as well.

LTM -
Title: Re: Confidence
Post by: Rafael Krasnodebski on July 23, 2012, 11:49:03 AM
I was refering to the cost of another archeological land dig to finish the work already done at the seven site and elsewhere on the island, not another off-shore expedition. In any case, I still think pooling our resources to come up with money raising ideas has its merits. Some of them may be as daft as the Saipan hypothesis (and yes, I know my tongue in cheek ideas above belong in that category), but all it takes is a couple of good ideas to move things along.
Title: Re: Confidence
Post by: Rafael Krasnodebski on July 23, 2012, 01:01:20 PM
Okay, okay. Blimey, I didn't know I'd be audited .... I pinched the $0.5m number from some ancient post of Ric's (I think), where he wrote that it costs $0.5m to keep a group on Niku for a month, but that may have been in 1989 for all I know. My point is that those of us who aren't archeologists, navigators, radio technicians, lab technicians or image specialists can put our efforts to good use by helping raise what we in the UK affectionally call 'spondoolies' ... or in our transatlantic bretheren's parlance ... moolah, frogskins, greenbacks etc ...  regardless of the fuel consumption of a pacific research boat. I'm sure every bit will help.
Title: Re: Confidence
Post by: Malcolm McKay on July 23, 2012, 06:39:57 PM
Sorry folks - hate to bust the bubble. The "enhanced" photo is just that, enhanced to show what is claimed to be an u/c leg - not what it actually is. So let's drop "enhancement" as a indicator of what is there - it is rather like the claims that Earhart and Noonan were there because those supposedly incompetent Navy observers couldn't see them.

The claims of some of the PISS settlers to have seen aircraft wreckage are amazing in that the further the distance in time the stronger the acceptance of the claim. Gallagher who was actually trying to ascertain if the castaway skeleton was that of Earhart was not told of the wreckage by the settlers, and yet he was the island administrator and very popular with the settlers he leading. Do any of you seriously think that a conscientious administrator like Gallagher would have ignored aircraft wreckage or that the islanders would have kept the knowledge from him - after all they reported the skeleton to him. These people were not unwilling migrants - they had come to the island to create a better future for themselves than they had at home with its overcrowding.

If the "enhanced" pic is to be believed then the Bevington object was in plain view in an area where Maude, Bevington and the team they led in 1937 spent considerable time. It wasn't lying down under water, it was, as the Bevington photo shows standing clear of the water, yet no one saw it, or if they did then they were able recognise that it was unworthy of attention. That tells me something about its nature, don't know about you.

Harry Maude was one of the most experienced Pacific specialists of the early 20th century. If anyone is in doubt I suggest reading his book Of Islands and Men. He was sent to the island to do a survey and undoubtedly would also have been aware of Earhart's recent disappearance so a tire on the end of a u/c leg sticking out of the water would have been noticed. Claims that they weren't trained to recognise aircraft wreckage just don't wash - they were there to assess the island's features and resources - I suspect that a little thing like aluminium aircraft wreckage in the shallows near to the rusting iron wreckage of the Norwich City would have rather stood out - don't you. If the natives of the PISS scheme recognised it immediately then why wouldn't Maude or Bevington, after all they would have had greater experience of aircraft and western technology than the islanders. Then of course there are the subsequent surveys of the island as a possible landing area for flying boats - again nothing seen, that time the wreckage is not spotted by people in the aviation business. As I said the story has more holes than a sieve or the Norwich City   

If this undercarriage leg which in that pic of some lumps of coral was given great play a while back was further "evidence" why wasn't it investigated on this trip - after all as we know there was time to give everyone a few hours ashore (there are posts by people here speculating that the black squiggly line is oil or hydraulic fluid). As the "enhancement" of the Bevington object was good enough to provide a suitable size estimation it must have involved accurate triangulation of its location so finding it would have been quick work. That would have been the "smoking gun", yet it was not relocated. Something odd there I would say or was it always considered to be borderline.

Has anyone heard what Hilary Clinton has had to say?
Title: Re: Confidence
Post by: richie conroy on July 23, 2012, 07:14:46 PM
Malcolm can you show me then what the image really shows, As you seem to be expert on the object ?

If as you imply, Gallagher was as conscientious as you make out, Why would settlers need to inform him ? As to wreckage on reef, As HE should of known about it without being informed Right?

Harry Maude went to survey the island not the reef, From the distance the photo was taken how and why is there no mention of this object sticking out the water in the report's, As you say Earhart went missing in area, so Maude should be aware that Earhart have Landed on Niku so should be checking reef an forest for wreckage, But then if you are not looking for something why would a object sticking out water be out of place if you did notice it ? 

 

Title: Re: Confidence
Post by: John Balderston on July 23, 2012, 07:21:20 PM
Has anyone heard what Hilary Clinton has had to say?

Dr. McKay, in the interest of relations between our two nations, you might properly refer to our Secretary of State as "Secretary Clinton".  Or if you are on a first-name basis with the Secretary, you might take the time to ensure her name is spelled correctly. 
Title: Re: Confidence
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on July 23, 2012, 07:41:35 PM
Maybe Marty can weigh in on this as I don't have the numbers but I am sure he can get them.

When it comes to numbers, I never repeat anything I've heard at EPAC unless TIGHAR publishes it for all to see.

I don't think the costs for land expeditions is a secret, but I don't remember any of the numbers offhand.  I'm checking in from a cottage in the Muskokas, so I don't have a lot of time to see what kind of numbers have been published for the more recent Nai'a expeditions.
Title: Re: Confidence
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on July 23, 2012, 07:46:08 PM
The "enhanced" photo is just that, enhanced to show what is claimed to be an u/c leg ...

I would be grateful if you would try to stick a little closer to the facts, Malcolm.

The photo in question was not "enhanced" to show a u/c leg.

It was taken with a high-resolution camera in order to retrieve the information that is in the photo.  Using that image, Jeff showed how various parts of what is in the photo were consistent with parts of the Electra landing gear.

He did not "enhance" the photograph.

He did not claim that no other interpretations were possible.

He did not go beyond the bounds of his science, in which he holds proper credentials for the kind of work that he did.
Title: Re: Confidence
Post by: Malcolm McKay on July 23, 2012, 08:02:49 PM
Malcolm can you show me then what the image really shows, As you seem to be expert on the object ?

If as you imply, Gallagher was as conscientious as you make out, Why would settlers need to inform him ? As to wreckage on reef, As HE should of known about it without being informed Right?

Harry Maude went to survey the island not the reef, From the distance the photo was taken how and why is there no mention of this object sticking out the water in the report's, As you say Earhart went missing in area, so Maude should be aware that Earhart have Landed on Niku so should be checking reef an forest for wreckage, But then if you are not looking for something why would a object sticking out water be out of place if you did notice it ?

Richie, for Glickman to have "reconstructed" or "enhanced" that pic to show the u/c he would have had to triangulate from objects of known size and location which therefore would give an accurate location. As so far this is the closest to a "smoking gun" that TIGHAR has come up with then it should have been a top priority to relocate the object, which I presume was that thing "enhanced" with yellow lines that was "found" in the photo of the coral in the shallows and which was released to the media. We all remember the confident suggestions made here that the black line around it was leaking oil or hydraulic fluid - what's happened to those I wonder?

If the islanders were happy to chatter to each other about aircraft wreckage then they were obviously aware that the source of that wreckage would have been a plane flown by the owner of the skeleton that was reported to Gallagher and which he thought might be Earhart's. As they didn't report the wreckage to him then it naturally follows that it wasn't there to be reported and as Gallagher himself makes no mention, despite his clear interest in the skeleton possibly being Earhart's, then it follows that there was no wreckage.

Maude arrived several months after the disappearance - the US Navy had overflown the island and found nothing. No wreckage seen, no survivors only traces of the Arundel and Norwich City occupations. If there had been anything like a plane wreck there Maude would have seen it. If the Bevington object was of interest they would have noted it - it was in plain view the entire time. As would have the later surveys by the teams researching the island as a flying boat base.
Title: Re: Confidence
Post by: Malcolm McKay on July 23, 2012, 08:08:25 PM
The "enhanced" photo is just that, enhanced to show what is claimed to be an u/c leg ...

I would be grateful if you would try to stick a little closer to the facts, Malcolm.

The photo in question was not "enhanced" to show a u/c leg.

It was taken with a high-resolution camera in order to retrieve the information that is in the photo.  Using that image, Jeff showed how various parts of what is in the photo were consistent with parts of the Electra landing gear.

He did not "enhance" the photograph.

He did not claim that no other interpretations were possible.

He did not go beyond the bounds of his science, in which he holds proper credentials for the kind of work that he did.

Isn't Glickman the person who claims that the Sasquatch film is kosher?

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/biology/nasi.htm

And you didn't answer the comment about the need to properly triangulate the object to allow some sort of size estimation. If that wasn't done then the exercise was a waste of time and money.
Title: Re: Confidence
Post by: Zach Reed on July 23, 2012, 08:27:58 PM
Malcolm, you say "visible at all times", but isn't it likely that the tide obscured the "Nessie" object for much of the time? And while Maude searched the entire island, after all A) didn't they miss the skeleton, and B) weren't they only on the island for two-and-a-half days, with a full working agenda? 

http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Bevington_Diary.html


Moving on...I agree that naturally Gallagher would have been told by the natives about the plane wreck. I think you make a good point...I was pondering that a few nights ago. But if we entertain a scenario where the aircraft quickly disintegrates (again, by the surf and especially by the Day 3 storm) into a chaotic bundle of pieces large and small, which then become mixed in with the NC debris field...it might have taken the natives awhile to determine that it was indeed a plane. A skeleton is a skeleton-no guesswork there-but to arrive at a new island, and mentally reconstitute a subset of the NC debris field into a plane...I would expect that to take some time for both discovery and mental processing. And Gallagher was only magistrate for a short time before an early death, and then the war intervened, etc.
Title: Re: Confidence
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on July 23, 2012, 08:42:28 PM
Isn't Glickman the person who claims that the Sasquatch film is kosher?

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/biology/nasi.htm (http://www.bigfootencounters.com/biology/nasi.htm)


You seem to have trouble reading texts, Malcolm.

He says in the last sentence that he has not been able to falsify the film.

"Not falsified" does not equal "kosher."

I've been aware of Jeff's work on Bigfoot since March 29 of this year (http://tighar.org/aw/mediawiki/index.php?title=Jeff_Glickman&oldid=7130).  That is when I added the link to the full-length article (http://www.photekimaging.com/Support/rptcol2.pdf), which has a suitably modest conclusion.

Quote
And you didn't answer the comment about the need to properly triangulate the object to allow some sort of size estimation. If that wasn't done then the exercise was a waste of time and money.

I figured I would start with the most easily accessible and demonstrable facts, which you passed over in silence.

Jeff did triangulation.  In his one-hour presentation in DC, he did not have time to show all of the steps in the process.
Title: Re: Confidence
Post by: Greg Daspit on July 23, 2012, 09:10:16 PM
Here are some of the pictures Irv Donald posted of the Glickman presentation at DC.
Title: Re: Confidence
Post by: Malcolm McKay on July 23, 2012, 09:39:51 PM
That is when I added the link to the full-length article (http://www.photekimaging.com/Support/rptcol2.pdf), which has a suitably modest conclusion.

Modest conclusion? I suggest you read it more closely or else you do not have sufficient grounding in hominid physiology to be able to understand the nuances in the text. We are talking Big Foot here, popular "science" for the tinfoil hat brigade.

As for the triangulation of the Bevington object  - now that the balloon has deflated and we are seeing much more modest claims for it (give it a month or two and it will have been officially forgotten), how about all details being made available. Wasn't this the thing that won the audience with the Secretary of State, and Ballard's imprimatur or was that a different object that no one seems to want to revisit to confirm it is that wonderful thing outlined in the photo.
Title: Re: Confidence
Post by: Malcolm McKay on July 23, 2012, 09:44:43 PM
... didn't they miss the skeleton, and B) weren't they only on the island for two-and-a-half days, with a full working agenda? 

Might it be possible that the skeleton post dates the Maude survey? That skeleton is more convenient by its absence than its presence.
Title: Re: Confidence
Post by: Zach Reed on July 23, 2012, 11:44:12 PM
Well it's certainly possible, but that's a narrow window: Maude/Bevington toured the island in October 1937, and Gallagher relocated there in September 1940. Note that the first wave of colonists were already there by March 1940.

http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/25_GallagherNiku/25_GallagherNiku.html

So if the skeleton post-dates Maude, then there is at most a three year window between Maude and its discovery. Moreover, this skeleton apparently kept handy a benadictine bottle, a sextant box, a lens, and assorted women's cosmetics from America. When the Earhart scenario is the least improbable of two scenarios, then the alternative scenario is one heckuva humdinger.

Speaking for myself, I enjoy some of your needling and skepticism...I think that's healthy. I just disagree with you on this point.
Title: Re: Confidence
Post by: Zach Reed on July 24, 2012, 12:16:59 AM
Just a small point of clarification: the skeleton was discovered by a working party of native colonists in April 1940; Gallagher would not arrive until that September. So the window for your scenario would be 2.5 years.

http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Bones_Chronology.html
Title: Re: Confidence
Post by: Chris Johnson on July 24, 2012, 05:57:24 AM
Zach Reed Said

Quote
Moving on...I agree that naturally Gallagher would have been told by the natives about the plane wreck.

This might not be the case, will need to check out the reference but have read recently that most islanders were 'retisent' (my wording) to approach Gallageher due to initial language difficulties.

Also my opinion but what value would they put to the aircraft in terms of "I must tell Mr Gallagher about this" or was it just another resource to be used?
Title: Re: Confidence
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on July 24, 2012, 06:36:19 AM
Modest conclusion? I suggest you read it more closely or else you do not have sufficient grounding in hominid physiology to be able to understand the nuances in the text.

For a man so sensitive about being quoted accurately, you have no trouble putting words into Glickman's mouth ("Bigfoot is kosher") that are not warranted by the text.  Here is an excerpt from the conclusion of the paper (http://www.photekimaging.com/Support/rptcol2.pdf):

"Proof of the source of the Bigfoot phenomenon that is acceptable to the scientific community is the objective of this research. This may come from social science or psychological research into manufacturing and perceptual failure. In the event the phenomenon originates from an uncataloged animal, it is unfortunate, but nonetheless true, that anthropologists will demand a type specimen. By definition, the taxonomy of an uncataloged animal is unknown, which raises complex ethical and moral questions. To date, no type specimen of Bigfoot has been discovered, perhaps because it does not exist, but possibly because of the millions of acres of habitat and the natural disposal system in the montane environment – carcasses of known animals, such as bear, are rarely found."

Quote
We are talking Big Foot here, popular "science" for the tinfoil hat brigade.

Name-calling is not a substitute for argument.  By categorizing Jeff's article as part of the "tinfoil hat brigade," you do not come to grips with any of his methods for collecting and analyzing data.  It seems to me that he is trying to keep an open mind; you are not.  I don't see a single syllable in what you have written that reflects an objection to Glickman's work from your familiarity with hominid physiology.  "Bigfoot supporters are idiots" is not a finding from hominid physiology.

Quote
As for the triangulation of the Bevington object  - now that the balloon has deflated and we are seeing much more modest claims for it (give it a month or two and it will have been officially forgotten), ...

Do they teach prophecy in your trade?  That seems to be a fact-free declaration of belief, not a scientific conclusion from data.

Quote
... how about all details being made available?

I suppose the decision about how and when to publish his argument is up to Jeff.  He certainly did make his argument "available" in the Symposium.

Quote
Wasn't this the thing that won the audience with the Secretary of State, and Ballard's imprimatur or was that a different object that no one seems to want to revisit to confirm it is that wonderful thing outlined in the photo.

Yes, Jeff's analysis is what catalyzed the event at the State Department.

Nothing has changed.  It is an error in logic to say that because nothing was found with the time and equipment available that we now know that the Bevington Object was not from the Electra.  I believe several searches for the Titanic failed before Ballard picked up the trail of debris that led to the wreck site.

In fact, as others have pointed out, the boat is still in transit to Hawaii.  Time will tell whether there is anything of interest in the tapes brought back that may have escaped the notice of the crew during the search. 

Here are the logical possibilities consistent with Niku VII not finding any identifiable artifacts from the Electra:
Title: Re: Confidence
Post by: Tom Swearengen on July 24, 2012, 06:37:30 AM
Ok--i'm older than I was in June in DC, but I seem to recall the discussion about the Bevington object, and Jeff's presentation. My friend Irv captured it. My recollection was that the object was "CONSISTANT" with a 10E landing gear. Some of us, ME INCLUDED, saw it as a pretty good facsimile of a landing gear. NO one ever said positively tht it was for sure a landing gear. But, seeing what I SAW, ruled out alot of things.
Jeff, the professional that he is, was NON COMMITTAL on what the object was. He left that to us, showing us different options, ans leaving it up to US to make our own determinations.
Malcolm, seeing things in person is different that seeing them in a supposed enhanced picture. IT was specifically stated the the pic inquestion was a HD version of the one in Oxford, taken by Jeff, with Ric in attendance. Yeah, with a computer, you can make the moon look like Hawaii. There was , and IS too much at stake for the pic to be 'doctored'.
I know what I saw, and what I think. And I know that the others in attendance have their own recollections, and thoughts.
Guess you just had to be there.
Title: Re: Confidence
Post by: Lauren Palmer on July 24, 2012, 09:20:39 AM
Also, what's the next step on Fiji to locate the remains?  That may turn out to be easier to find than the aircraft after all.  Second, someone claimed to have seen a tire-less airplane wheel somewhere on Niku, washed up in some storm I guess then covered up or washed back out - more future hunts?
Title: Re: Confidence
Post by: Ed Rosales on July 24, 2012, 03:01:42 PM
.....The claims of some of the PISS settlers to have seen aircraft wreckage are amazing in that the further the distance in time the stronger the acceptance of the claim. Gallagher who was actually trying to ascertain if the castaway skeleton was that of Earhart was not told of the wreckage by the settlers, and yet he was the island administrator and very popular with the settlers he leading. Do any of you seriously think that a conscientious administrator like Gallagher would have ignored aircraft wreckage or that the islanders would have kept the knowledge from him - after all they reported the skeleton to him. These people were not unwilling migrants - they had come to the island to create a better future for themselves than they had at home with its overcrowding......

The problem here, we don't know what Gallagher was told or knew. What we do is, he didn't report anything about aircraft wreckage. Besides the testimonials of wreckage on the reef by some of the locals, aircraft parts (of unknown origin) were discovered in the settlement. The islanders were using aircraft material for embellishments and as various tools. Gallagher did not mention this either in his reports and yet such material has been recovered and cataloged. It's possible that Gallagher did not want to report, rumors, stories of wreckage, or theories, without evidence. He had a skeleton, that was physical evidence, but he didn't have a plane or evidence that one existed. Even the settlers who said that they saw the wreckage, didn't know where it went. That my friend is the big mystery. Personally based on the eyewitness accounts, possibly the evidence of aircraft parts found in the settlement that may indicate a breakup of the plane in the surf, leads me to believe, that, the plane laid to rest submerged on the reef where it rusted and corroded away, with perhaps small fragments going over the edge and into deep water, much as the wreckage of the NC had.

Quote
If the "enhanced" pic is to be believed then the Bevington object was in plain view in an area where Maude, Bevington and the team they led in 1937 spent considerable time. It wasn't lying down under water, it was, as the Bevington photo shows standing clear of the water, yet no one saw it, or if they did then they were able recognise that it was unworthy of attention. That tells me something about its nature, don't know about you.

Personally, I find it difficult to believe a landing gear strut would have managed to remain in an upright position, if the aircraft was wrenched out above it. I tend to believe that when the surf came in, the plane began to flood. The weight of the water inside the fuselage and the force of the waves against the outside of the fuselage would have broken up the plane, further the waves would had tried to push the plane, in many directions, and if such was the case, then the landing gear would had collapsed. I don't believe that the waves could have stood a landing leg up, unless there was another larger and heavier component still attached to it. If any part may had been washed out to sea, it should be the landing gear leg. The tire, a fully sealed and pressurized tire of a significant volume would probably have enough buoyancy to float a landing gear leg. The landing gear could have floated away, if the landing gear broke free of the rest of the plane. The object in the photo could be anything including dust on the lens, at the time the photo was taken, or something was on the film at the time of development.

Ed
Title: Re: Confidence
Post by: Bill Roe on July 24, 2012, 03:39:27 PM

Quote
If the "enhanced" pic is to be believed then the Bevington object was in plain view in an area where Maude, Bevington and the team they led in 1937 spent considerable time. It wasn't lying down under water, it was, as the Bevington photo shows standing clear of the water, yet no one saw it, or if they did then they were able recognise that it was unworthy of attention. That tells me something about its nature, don't know about you.

Personally, I find it difficult to believe a landing gear strut would have managed to remain in an upright position, if the aircraft was wrenched out above it.
Ed

I'm having problems believing that the object is a landing gear.  Airplanes land and land hard.  They land using landing gear.  And landing gear survives landings.  To have the landing gear wrenched from the airplane, to me, indicates a fatal crash destroying the aircraft.  And in a crash that would wrench the landing gear off it's supports would probably be a fiery crash. But, again, my experience has been flying A-1's and landing on Lima Sites and PSP (outside the normal realm of paved runways).......

.........also, I never, ever stalled the airplane in.  It was always flown in.  AE could very well have stayed above stall speed planning to possibly abort a landing on coral if need be.

Title: Re: Confidence
Post by: Bill Roe on July 24, 2012, 04:04:47 PM
Naw.

Her airplane was slow.  A belly in could take a landing gear off.  Or a real rough landing - and still have airplane to show for it.

And my experience with the typical native in that area, at least back in the 60's, they could make use of anything.  I've seen them worry man made objects apart to make further and unrelated use of the materials of construction.
Title: Re: Confidence
Post by: Randy Conrad on July 24, 2012, 04:39:34 PM
Okay! Guys!!! I was in the very same room as Tom and Irv! I too saw the Bevington photo, but with better clarity! As a matter of fact we saw the new version and then took it too a new level by having Irv take a picture of it with his high-powered zoom. Guess what!!! The mud flap was definately crystal clear! We saw what we saw! As with Jeff's presentation on the landing gear, there is no doubt that this is what it is! So my question is...and I have to agree with Ed...Yeah, its possible that the landing gear did break off, and yes maybe a wing along with a landing gear also...They can float, assuming that the tire wasnt that heavy. I believe that the Electra is there. Now considering what we find with the new data being analyzed. It may have deterioated over the years, and maybe, it went over the edge, and maybe over time large coral boulders buried parts and pieces of her! What I'm interested in asking is how much of the island did the Bevington party search, and wouldn't you see a tire sticking out on the reef's edge if you just came from there. I mean cmon...If we see it in this photograph, someone should have seen it up and close personally. Did they have a log or journal about any findings? Also, we have a photograph, we have eyewitness accounts from villagers, we have a jar, airplane skin, cosmetics, and alot more. She is here guys!!! But where? Also, and this is geared to Ric if he is reading this...Is there any spot on the island that the islanders used for refuse or a pit for dumping metals, and etc. Is it possible that the Electra was buried by the islanders? Anyway, I know alot of you express the same frustration as I do, but I'm not giving up on this search and I hope you don't either! Also, the couple from the conference that had been to the island and took the awesome pictures of the beach...My question to you is and help me out on this...(you told us that the beach was like a runway when the tide is low. That the surface was almost like asphalt, and very firm. Is this surface like this all the time? Does the heighth of the beach stay consistent because of its coral texture, or has it eroded over time? Reason I ask this is, overtime, matter of years, artifacts can become lodged in crevices, holes, and you name it. The tide goes in and out, and eventually takes sand with it or brings it in and leaves it there. Kinda of like archeology or paleontology. What I'm curious to know is...how many sub layers of the beach are there, and is it possible, that pieces of the Electra are hidden below the surface? Now I know Ric has done several metal detectors searches, but does the coral interefere with such searches? Questions to answer!!!! Love to hear your feedback!!!!
Title: Re: Confidence
Post by: Tom Swearengen on July 24, 2012, 05:37:11 PM
Randy---I agree with your assessment of the pic. Irv has it blown up pretty well. Alot of us were in that room, and alot of us ,'I think" came to the same conclusion. Those that wrent ther, have a differnet  position.
I think the Electra is down there too, and I have stated such here, and to others that have asked me about it. WE'll find her. \
OK---I feel better now
Title: Re: Confidence
Post by: Zach Reed on July 24, 2012, 06:33:46 PM
Quote
What I'm interested in asking is how much of the island did the Bevington party search, and wouldn't you see a tire sticking out on the reef's edge if you just came from there. I mean cmon...If we see it in this photograph, someone should have seen it up and close personally. Did they have a log or journal about any findings?

The link to Bevington's journal is upstream (on the previous page). They were there for 2.5 days. Keep in mind that "Nessie" was A) probably hidden by water a good deal of the time, and B) quite a way from shore, out near the reef's edge.
Title: Re: Confidence
Post by: Malcolm McKay on July 24, 2012, 06:50:46 PM
Keep in mind that "Nessie" was A) probably hidden by water a good deal of the time, and B) quite a way from shore, out near the reef's edge.

Which brings us all back to my question - why if the Bevington object after Glickman's "enhancement" (and that purported u/c component in the coral) was so important to getting the State Department visit didn't the last trip concentrate on finding that? That, if it is a component of the Electra, is the "smoking gun" yet TIGHAR blithely ignores it after all the years of hype and runs this highly expensive underwater search. Surely if Glickman could enhance it as he did he must have had an accurate position triangulation so that he could work out relative component sizes.

I note now that along with the Navy searchers failure to find Earhart and the Electra due to incompetence we now are saying that the Maude survey team was also incompetent or blind. Isn't it time that TIGHAR supporters stopped blaming everyone else for TIGHAR's inability to find its "smoking gun".
Title: Re: Confidence
Post by: Malcolm McKay on July 24, 2012, 06:58:08 PM
Here are the logical possibilities consistent with Niku VII not finding any identifiable artifacts from the Electra:
  • The Electra was never on Niku.  The Niku hypothesis is false.
  • The Electra has been pulverized (Howard's Hypothesis); the Niku Hypothesis is true, but cannot be proven from underwater searches.
  • The Electra parts are in the area searched, but are hidden in crevices or caves, or are mingled with parts of the Norwich City.
  • Identifiable parts are to be found outside the area that was searched on this expedition.

Good try on the Sasquatch argument Marty but no cigar - that statement of Glickman's you quote can be read both ways. Helpful if one wants to attract funding from either side.

Your final para which I have quoted sums up the current options quite well. I note that as others have pointed out that there was a significant edit of the last release on the daily log. Does this mean that the tapes have something on them or that the original put paid to any further fund raising activities - we wait and see. Given current press coverage, including out here, the original text was a definite downer and noted as such. I wonder if the press will follow up on the revised version?
Title: Re: Confidence
Post by: C.W. Herndon on July 24, 2012, 08:16:06 PM

I'm having problems believing that the object is a landing gear.  Airplanes land and land hard.  They land using landing gear.  And landing gear survives landings.  To have the landing gear wrenched from the airplane, to me, indicates a fatal crash destroying the aircraft.  And in a crash that would wrench the landing gear off it's supports would probably be a fiery crash. But, again, my experience has been flying A-1's and landing on Lima Sites and PSP (outside the normal realm of paved runways).......

.........also, I never, ever stalled the airplane in.  It was always flown in.  AE could very well have stayed above stall speed planning to possibly abort a landing on coral if need be.

Bill, the A-1s you flew were much heavier than the Electra but were not as overloaded. When the Electra crashed at Luke Field, both landing gear were "wrenched" from the aircraft but there was not a "fiery crash" (perhaps very lucky here) and no one was injured. See pictures.

How was the fishing? ;)
Title: Re: Confidence
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on July 24, 2012, 08:45:49 PM
Also, what's the next step on Fiji to locate the remains?

I'm not conscious of anything more to do on Fiji.

The three bones expeditions have covered a lot of ground.

If there is a fourth, it will probably be in response to some initiative from someone in Fiji.
Title: Re: Confidence
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on July 24, 2012, 08:51:59 PM
... after Glickman's "enhancement" ...

Glickman didn't "enhance" the photo.

He obtained the best possible close-up of the section of the original print using an extremely high resolution Nikon camera.

You should show Jeff the courtesy of describing his work accurately, even if you disagree with his conclusions.

Title: Re: Confidence
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on July 24, 2012, 08:53:56 PM
Good try on the Sasquatch argument Marty but no cigar - that statement of Glickman's you quote can be read both ways. Helpful if one wants to attract funding from either side.


Thank you for conceding that your original characterization of Glickman's work did not declare Bigfoot "kosher."
Title: Re: Confidence
Post by: Zach Reed on July 24, 2012, 09:01:17 PM
Quote
I note now that along with the Navy searchers failure to find Earhart and the Electra due to incompetence we now are saying that the Maude survey team was also incompetent or blind. Isn't it time that TIGHAR supporters stopped blaming everyone else for TIGHAR's inability to find its "smoking gun".

A) IMO the smoking gun was the official telegrams passed between a dozen British colonial administrators and staff, recounting the discovery of a skeleton in a castaway setting, with immediate suspicion by two of them (Gallagher and Harry) that this was Amelia, at a site where the remnants of 30's era women's cosmetics was later found.
B) I'm not calling Maude blind or incompetent. I'm calling them busy: they had a full working agenda, with the emphasis being to drill test wells for water, not take in the scenery. And keep perspective, when we're talking about the wheel, we're talking about a relatively small instrument, periodically submerged, well away from the beach itself, compared to all the sights and sound of the larger island.

BTW: I'm unclear from your comments Malcolm...do you still believe the skeleton belongs to the 2.5 year time frame that is post-Maude and pre-settlement?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As an aside, in those telegrams it recounts a bit of a political fight at one point, when one of the staff doctors (Isaac) blocks shipping traffic because...of the skeleton? I didn't quite understand what was going on there. If anyone else does, please post a short comment when you have time. Thx
Title: Re: Confidence
Post by: Malcolm McKay on July 24, 2012, 09:34:00 PM
Quote
I note now that along with the Navy searchers failure to find Earhart and the Electra due to incompetence we now are saying that the Maude survey team was also incompetent or blind. Isn't it time that TIGHAR supporters stopped blaming everyone else for TIGHAR's inability to find its "smoking gun".

A) IMO the smoking gun was the official telegrams passed between a dozen British colonial administrators and staff, recounting the discovery of a skeleton in a castaway setting, with immediate suspicion by two of them (Gallagher and Harry) that this was Amelia, at a site where the remnants of 30's era women's cosmetics was later found.
B) I'm not calling Maude blind or incompetent. I'm calling them busy: they had a full working agenda, with the emphasis being to drill test wells for water, not take in the scenery. And keep perspective, when we're talking about the wheel, we're talking about a relatively small instrument, periodically submerged, well away from the beach itself, compared to all the sights and sound of the larger island.

Aaah yes the famous skeleton which managed to disappear. No denying there was a skeleton but when did it arrive and who was it. So far we have a stocky person of islander descent and after reanalysis a tall woman who quelle surprise! just happens to match a certain 30's aviatrix. Mind you it would help everyone quite a lot if that skeleton was found.  ;D

As for the Maude survey it is convenient, given the strange reluctance of TIGHAR to actually see if the Bevington object is in the same place on the reef as that object in the famous pic they released with all the yellow lines showing that, if you held one shut and squinted with the other, in a dim light it was clearly, well possibly, the undercarriage leg off of a Lockheed Electra, to blame Maude for being blind because in the time he was there he failed to recognise that this object which is in the Bevington photo was an undercarriage leg.

Mind you maybe the Maude team actually did go and look at it and because it was some driftwood or a chunk off the Norwich City they recognised that it was of no relevance whatsoever to the PISS survey - that is the logical conclusion given all the evidence and the various visits and flyovers after the PISS survey and before the islanders arrived in late 1939.

So when is someone from the TIGHAR management actually going to explain why this object which attracted so much attention as to get an audience with Mrs Clinton (the United States' Secretary of State) wasn't subjected to a investigation in that area on the trip just finished. After all we do know that everyone got shore leave for a few hours. Knowing that Glickman must have had the proper coordinates to be able to create that "enhancement" then it would only be a matter of a few hours work with a hand held GPS wouldn't it?
Title: Re: Confidence
Post by: Zach Reed on July 24, 2012, 10:16:10 PM
I believe they already looked for the spot on a previous expedition, and found a place they thought matched the photo, but weren't sure. Correct me if I'm wrong.

The pages and pages of telegrams regarding the skeleton are a part of the official British record of colonialization of the island. There's no disputing them. The gender and ethnicity was thought dubious at the time-so noted. Again, based on when the skeleton was found, the items it was found with, the state it was found in, and subsequent cosmetics found in the near vicinity, I consider that fairly solid backing. Alternative theories as to the nature of the skeleton would have to be even more exotic than it being Amelia.

So I'm just trying to nail this down: do you believe the skeleton was from the 2.5 year time period post-Maude and pre-settlement? Or do you believe it was there when Maude & co toured the island?
Title: Re: Confidence
Post by: Malcolm McKay on July 24, 2012, 11:27:49 PM

So I'm just trying to nail this down: do you believe the skeleton was from the 2.5 year time period post-Maude and pre-settlement? Or do you believe it was there when Maude & co toured the island?

I accept that there was a skeleton there. I have no idea, nor I stress does anyone else have any idea when the person who owned it arrived except that it was prior to its discovery by the PISS settlers. Therefore given that even though the island was visited for short periods in 1892 (Arundel Settlement), 1929 (Norwich City), 1937 PISS survey then various surveys in 1938 and then the settlement in 1939 which lasted until 1965 there is any number of plausible times. These are prior to 1892; between 1892 and 1929; between 1929 and 1937; then at at any time in the unoccupied months in each year from 1937 to 1939. Decay of the flesh and bone dispersal is fairly quick in that environment.

There was no proper excavation of the skeleton at the time so it is a mistake to claim that artifacts were found with it. All anyone can say with certainty is that at various times artifacts were found in the area where the skeleton was found. Some of which have their most likely source in the wanderings of the Norwich City survivors, the PISS settlers and the inhabitants of the LORAN station and that doesn't rule out a possibility that some came from the Arundel settlement or a stray unrecorded visit. That is why it is important, as an archaeologist, for me to continually point out that none of those artifacts are clearly associated with either the skeleton or any other presence on the island. People will keep using them to create castles in the air then starting to believe that what they want to believe is what happened.

So take your pick and also remember that there is a long history of Pacific islander fishermen being carried out to sea and drifting for weeks at sea until they strike land. Gallagher was aware of Earhart's disappearance which is why he gave the skeleton more attention than it otherwise would have warranted - or to put it another way if Earhart hadn't been lost the skeleton would simply have been recorded and buried along with any of the skeletal material from the Norwich City.   
Title: Re: Confidence
Post by: Ed Rosales on July 25, 2012, 03:31:59 AM
... after Glickman's "enhancement" ...

Glickman didn't "enhance" the photo.

He obtained the best possible close-up of the section of the original print using an extremely high resolution Nikon camera.

You should show Jeff the courtesy of describing his work accurately, even if you disagree with his conclusions.

Which extremely high resolution Nikon camera was used? The reason I ask is, if this high resolution Nikon camera happens to be digital, at present, film cameras have higher resolution than all but some very high end medium format digital cameras.

Ed
Title: Re: Confidence
Post by: Malcolm McKay on July 25, 2012, 04:17:17 AM

Glickman didn't "enhance" the photo.

He obtained the best possible close-up of the section of the original print using an extremely high resolution Nikon camera.


In other words he took a photograph of a photograph then made a guess - then TIGHAR took this to the State Department. Well I'll give you one thing - that's chutzpah. The Secretary of State must have had other things on her mind that day - I sincerely hope US foreign policy isn't hanging on similar levels of "evidence". I've seen the video presentation - it is now very revealing to see just how intangible the basis for it is.
Title: Re: Confidence
Post by: C.W. Herndon on July 25, 2012, 04:22:42 AM

Which extremely high resolution Nikon camera was used? The reason I ask is, if this high resolution Nikon camera happens to be digital, at present, film cameras have higher resolution than all but some very high end medium format digital cameras.

Ed

Ed, here is one of Irvine John Donald's pictures from the Symposium showing Jeff Glickman taking a picture of the original Bevington photograph. Maybe you can determine what type of Nikon camera Jeff used by looking at the photo.
Title: Re: Confidence
Post by: Bruce Thomas on July 25, 2012, 05:10:37 AM
Which extremely high resolution Nikon camera was used? The reason I ask is, if this high resolution Nikon camera happens to be digital, at present, film cameras have higher resolution than all but some very high end medium format digital cameras.

Ed

Simply using "Nikon" to search the TIGHAR website, I found Ric's words (as reported in a Forum posting by Marty on April 24, 2012 (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,217.msg12769.html#msg12769)), which gives the details of the Nikon camera that Jeff Glickman used in England.
Title: Re: Confidence
Post by: Tom Swearengen on July 25, 2012, 05:12:19 AM
Malcolm----get a life----The bevington object was triangluated to plot its postion in 1937. OBVIOUSLY it isnt there now, or along the reef ledge near that location. And, after 75 years, may not be there anyway, as much I think it is. I gather that it isnt in the imagery that was taken, but I bet it will take several weeks to go over the data. It didnt jump out and say here I am.
The positon was discussed in DC---oh thats right ---you were absent when we were talking about it. If you think that Ric would sail on the luxury liner KOK to Niku, without having a really good idea where to search, well its like you telling us to search for the New Brittan wreck site without a map.
I'm going to get spanked---but give Ric a break.
Title: Re: Confidence
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on July 25, 2012, 06:17:06 AM
Don't weasel out Marty - you and I both know what a statement that contains the means of being read whichever way suits the reader means.

The statement "Bigfoot is kosher" is not logically equivalent to Glickman's position that in 1998 he had not found a scientific standard by which to settle the question of whether Bigfoot did or did not exist.

In other words, the interpretation you gave of his text is demonstrably incorrect.

In other words, now that you have adopted a different position, you have abandoned your original position.
Title: Re: Confidence
Post by: Bruce Thomas on July 25, 2012, 07:47:50 AM
Keep in mind that "Nessie" was A) probably hidden by water a good deal of the time, and B) quite a way from shore, out near the reef's edge.

Which brings us all back to my question - why if the Bevington object after Glickman's "enhancement" (and that purported u/c component in the coral) was so important to getting the State Department visit didn't the last trip concentrate on finding that? That, if it is a component of the Electra, is the "smoking gun" yet TIGHAR blithely ignores it after all the years of hype and runs this highly expensive underwater search. Surely if Glickman could enhance it as he did he must have had an accurate position triangulation so that he could work out relative component sizes.

I note now that along with the Navy searchers failure to find Earhart and the Electra due to incompetence we now are saying that the Maude survey team was also incompetent or blind. Isn't it time that TIGHAR supporters stopped blaming everyone else for TIGHAR's inability to find its "smoking gun".

Ah, but if you would only read for content, Malcolm, you'd know that your strawman question
Quote
... why if the Bevington object after Glickman's "enhancement" (and that purported u/c component in the coral) was so important to getting the State Department visit didn't the last trip concentrate on finding that? That, if it is a component of the Electra, is the "smoking gun" yet TIGHAR blithely ignores it after all the years of hype and runs this highly expensive underwater search.
is specious nonsense. 

I know -- from exposure to them daily in the classroom -- that today's university students are loathe to read anything but emails and twitter feeds, but a man of your advanced years and education can be expected to do a bit of reading of research logs and results.  Here, I'll help you with a link: the relevant daily report from the Niku VI expedition in 2010 (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Expeditions/NikuVI/Niku6dailiesweek1.html#n528) that shows your strawman question to be the quatsch that it is.  Do a little reading, Malcolm.  It'll do you good.  Read the entire set of daily reports from that expedition.  You are a scientist, man.  Do what scientists do: continually educate yourself by reading all available information.  Speak from a wealth of background knowledge, and not from the abyss of ignorance.

Otherwise, you will just continue to be a master at framing nonsense strawman questions that are full of false words, insults, and gratuitous misdirection. You have a lot to contribute to this forum; you have already shown the value of healthy skepticism.  Please stop shooting yourself in the foot by turning into simply a verbal bully who uses this free forum to pound your chest and clutter the environment with dreck
Title: Re: Confidence
Post by: C.W. Herndon on July 25, 2012, 08:16:01 AM
May we clap now?? :o
Title: Re: Confidence
Post by: Dave McDaniel on July 25, 2012, 08:23:12 AM
Ditto!!
LTM,
Dave
Title: Re: Confidence
Post by: JC Sain on July 25, 2012, 09:10:03 AM
/E Clap
Title: Re: Confidence
Post by: Dave Potratz on July 25, 2012, 10:35:59 AM
Hear that?  ..............that's the sound of one hand clapping in the middle of the desert............... ;)
Title: Re: Confidence
Post by: Rafael Krasnodebski on July 25, 2012, 11:10:25 AM
Of course once the team's tired eyes are rested and the world stops swaying under their feet, they could realise that the footage of that large coral boulder they saw has spark plugs, tie rods and a couple of piston rings hanging out of it ... that too would do the trick.

Just remember where you first heard it folks ... ;D
Title: Re: Confidence
Post by: Tom Swearengen on July 25, 2012, 11:42:38 AM
 ;D
Title: Re: Confidence
Post by: Malcolm McKay on July 25, 2012, 07:13:57 PM

Ah, but if you would only read for content, Malcolm, you'd know that your strawman question
Quote
... why if the Bevington object after Glickman's "enhancement" (and that purported u/c component in the coral) was so important to getting the State Department visit didn't the last trip concentrate on finding that? That, if it is a component of the Electra, is the "smoking gun" yet TIGHAR blithely ignores it after all the years of hype and runs this highly expensive underwater search.
is specious nonsense. 

relevant daily report from the Niku VI expedition in 2010 (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Expeditions/NikuVI/Niku6dailiesweek1.html#n528) that shows your strawman question to be the quatsch that it is.  Do a little reading, Malcolm.  It'll do you good.  Read the entire set of daily reports from that expedition.  You are a scientist, man.  Do what scientists do: continually educate yourself by reading all available information.  Speak from a wealth of background knowledge, and not from the abyss of ignorance.

Otherwise, you will just continue to be a master at framing nonsense strawman questions that are full of false words, insults, and gratuitous misdirection. You have a lot to contribute to this forum; you have already shown the value of healthy skepticism.  Please stop shooting yourself in the foot by turning into simply a verbal bully who uses this free forum to pound your chest and clutter the environment with dreck.

So apart from that outburst which is probably explained by frustration at what this trip achieved you still haven't explained why that wonderfully enhanced photo of the object in the coral which was flashed around as "evidence" (you know the one- the one that is suggested is part of the Electra u/c replete with explanatory yellow lines) wasn't investigated this trip. Now if the Bevington object was indeed part of the Electra wouldn't it and that part most likely be the same? Or did the Electra lose both u/c legs in the coral? Isn't going back and actually looking at that feature in the coral of which you have quite modern photos more conducive to providing a smoking gun?

Now I realise that there is a certain amount of sensitivity here given the results of the trip. However I do think that simple questioning of assumptions that are made here about very inconclusive evidence; artifacts which could have origins other than Earhart or Noonan; somewhat imaginative propositions as to what the Bevington object is (that video presentation is imaginative at best); the excuses offered as to why Maude and Bevington didn't spot it or, if they did, dare I suggest wrote it off after investigation as a natural feature like driftwood; the rather vacuous explanations offered to explain why the Navy searchers found nothing; the post-loss radio messages etc. are not verbal bullying but that skepticism you find so praiseworthy.

The title of this thread is Confidence and I freely admit that, after seeing the evidence offered so far, I have absolutely none that the Nikumaroro hypothesis is valid, because I have never seen so much shoehorning of disparate, unrelated and imaginary objects into a hypothesis since von Daniken and Chariots of the Gods?. When did this wild goose chase begin - 1989? Since 1989 all over the world many historic aircraft have been found and recovered - its happening with steady regularity. Recently there have been two recoveries of WW2 Il2 attack aircraft in Russia, then there is the very recently found P40 in Libya; a couple of years ago a complete P39 from a lake in northern Russia, a rare early model FW190 recovered and restored, few years back a Canadian group recovered and restored a unique MkIII Halifax, etc. etc. All of these occurred with much less media coverage and public calls for funds. So isn't it about time that TIGHAR stopped beating around the bush and either validated the hypothesis or moved on. TIGHAR list a TBD, the P38 in Wales and the L'Oiseau Blanc in their site, what about work on those. Then if those aren't attractive there are numerous recoverable historic aircraft at the bottom of Lake Michigan from WW2. Or has TIGHAR ceased to pay lip service to historic aircraft recovery and simply become the Find Amelia Earhart Foundation, in which case wouldn't a name change be appropriate. After all the money expended isn't it time something, anything, conclusive was recovered or demonstrated.

And if anyone feels bullied by that then I suggest that they may have led very sheltered lives. 
Title: Re: Confidence
Post by: Adam Marsland on July 25, 2012, 08:21:39 PM

Ah, but if you would only read for content, Malcolm, you'd know that your strawman question
Quote
... why if the Bevington object after Glickman's "enhancement" (and that purported u/c component in the coral) was so important to getting the State Department visit didn't the last trip concentrate on finding that? That, if it is a component of the Electra, is the "smoking gun" yet TIGHAR blithely ignores it after all the years of hype and runs this highly expensive underwater search.
is specious nonsense. 

relevant daily report from the Niku VI expedition in 2010 (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Expeditions/NikuVI/Niku6dailiesweek1.html#n528) that shows your strawman question to be the quatsch that it is.  Do a little reading, Malcolm.  It'll do you good.  Read the entire set of daily reports from that expedition.  You are a scientist, man.  Do what scientists do: continually educate yourself by reading all available information.  Speak from a wealth of background knowledge, and not from the abyss of ignorance.

Otherwise, you will just continue to be a master at framing nonsense strawman questions that are full of false words, insults, and gratuitous misdirection. You have a lot to contribute to this forum; you have already shown the value of healthy skepticism.  Please stop shooting yourself in the foot by turning into simply a verbal bully who uses this free forum to pound your chest and clutter the environment with dreck.

So apart from that outburst which is probably explained by frustration at what this trip achieved you still haven't explained why that wonderfully enhanced photo of the object in the coral which was flashed around as "evidence" (you know the one- the one that is suggested is part of the Electra u/c replete with explanatory yellow lines) wasn't investigated this trip. Now if the Bevington object was indeed part of the Electra wouldn't it and that part most likely be the same? Or did the Electra lose both u/c legs in the coral? Isn't going back and actually looking at that feature in the coral of which you have quite modern photos more conducive to providing a smoking gun?

Now I realise that there is a certain amount of sensitivity here given the results of the trip. However I do think that simple questioning of assumptions that are made here about very inconclusive evidence; artifacts which could have origins other than Earhart or Noonan; somewhat imaginative propositions as to what the Bevington object is (that video presentation is imaginative at best); the excuses offered as to why Maude and Bevington didn't spot it or, if they did, dare I suggest wrote it off after investigation as a natural feature like driftwood; the rather vacuous explanations offered to explain why the Navy searchers found nothing; the post-loss radio messages etc. are not verbal bullying but that skepticism you find so praiseworthy.

The title of this thread is Confidence and I freely admit that, after seeing the evidence offered so far, I have absolutely none that the Nikumaroro hypothesis is valid, because I have never seen so much shoehorning of disparate, unrelated and imaginary objects into a hypothesis since von Daniken and Chariots of the Gods?. When did this wild goose chase begin - 1989? Since 1989 all over the world many historic aircraft have been found and recovered - its happening with steady regularity. Recently there have been two recoveries of WW2 Il2 attack aircraft in Russia, then there is the very recently found P40 in Libya; a couple of years ago a complete P39 from a lake in northern Russia, a rare early model FW190 recovered and restored, few years back a Canadian group recovered and restored a unique MkIII Halifax, etc. etc. All of these occurred with much less media coverage and public calls for funds. So isn't it about time that TIGHAR stopped beating around the bush and either validated the hypothesis or moved on. TIGHAR list a TBD, the P38 in Wales and the L'Oiseau Blanc in their site, what about work on those. Then if those aren't attractive there are numerous recoverable historic aircraft at the bottom of Lake Michigan from WW2. Or has TIGHAR ceased to pay lip service to historic aircraft recovery and simply become the Find Amelia Earhart Foundation, in which case wouldn't a name change be appropriate. After all the money expended isn't it time something, anything, conclusive was recovered or demonstrated.

And if anyone feels bullied by that then I suggest that they may have led very sheltered lives.

Rule #1 of evidence:  a vigorous assertion of one's opinion is not evidence.
Rule #2 of evidence:  selectively restating and/or mischaracterizing facts to suit one's agenda is not an intellectually honest argument, nor is it in any way scientific.  It is, however, what one does when one is building a partisan case....which, since science is built around objective evaluation, is also inherently unscientific.

Bruce has your number, Malcolm.  You shoot off about flaws in TIGHAR's theory without bothering to research for, or acknowledge the existence of, or casually dismiss if brought to your attention, answers to your questions.  That says nothing about TIGHAR's credibility, only yours.  And might I add, your post betrays more frustration than does Bruce's.

No one is cowering from bullying; we're (admittedly possibly wrongly speaking for others here) just tired of you not contributing anything particularly useful, when you have the intellectual capacity and experience to do so, if only you didn't have an obvious axe to continually grind.
Title: Re: Confidence
Post by: Malcolm McKay on July 25, 2012, 09:39:31 PM

No one is cowering from bullying; we're (admittedly possibly wrongly speaking for others here) just tired of you not contributing anything particularly useful, when you have the intellectual capacity and experience to do so, if only you didn't have an obvious axe to continually grind.

I would have thought that a healthy dose of scepticism would be the most useful thing anyone with my "intellectual capacity and experience" could contribute to the discussion of the Nikumaroro hypothesis. You may rest assured I will continue to do so. I note your comments about what constitute and what do not constitute evidence, I'm glad you mentioned those because they highlight the faults I find in the arguments put forward for the Nikumaroro hypothesis.

On a positive level I do note that once again TIGHAR have ended this expedition with a hook for next year's episodes. But I would like to ask why if it is called The International Group for Historic Aircraft Recovery the last part seems never to have occurred. Wouldn't it be a good idea  for TIGHAR to take a year or so off from the Pacific and go to Wales and recover that P38 which is in pretty plain view - that at least would save the need for cliff hanger hooks at the end of each season.   
Title: Re: Confidence
Post by: Tom Swearengen on July 26, 2012, 07:12:01 AM
malcolm----obviously you havent been paying attention. Recovering the P38 is the easy part. WHERE YOU GOING TO PUT IT? Who is going to to the restoration? What will be left of it once its removed from the sand?
Its called logistics. I would have thought that someone with your vast knowledge of archaeology would know that. Gee---lets go look for some Egyptian treasure. Oh-----who is going to do the work? See---it isnt as easy as putting it on paper and doing it.
Same thing for the Devestator.
The Hunley was recovered from Charleston Harbor quite a few years ago. Many millions were spent on just the logistics of getting it raised. Now----its in a conservatory in Charleston, where scientists---yes scientists of piece by piece restoring it for public display. 12 years. Lots of work.
So as a scientist, you sau lets go get the P38. Then what do you do?
Fund it and TIGHAR will go do it.
Title: Re: Confidence
Post by: Malcolm McKay on July 26, 2012, 09:50:43 PM
malcolm----obviously you havent been paying attention. Recovering the P38 is the easy part. WHERE YOU GOING TO PUT IT? Who is going to to the restoration? What will be left of it once its removed from the sand?
Its called logistics. I would have thought that someone with your vast knowledge of archaeology would know that. Gee---lets go look for some Egyptian treasure. Oh-----who is going to do the work? See---it isnt as easy as putting it on paper and doing it.
Same thing for the Devestator.

Well at the risk of inflaming more passions TIGHAR does stand for the The International Group for Historic Aircraft Recovery so a little matter like being able stabilize objects that have been immersed in salt water should have been factored into the mission statement and business model. TIGHAR was apparently not just created to find Amelia Earhart - I for one see the search for the L'Oiseau Blanc as being of greater significance to aviation history than the Electra.
Title: Re: Confidence
Post by: Tom Swearengen on July 27, 2012, 06:24:29 AM
Hum---I think stabilizing objects that have been submerged in salt water isnt a big deal either------unless its an intact P38. Would have to be a BIG tank. I saw the salvage operation of a B25 from Lake Moultrie near Columbia several years ago. Their intent was to disassemble it and truck it to Alabama for restoration. The P38, I would think, would be a different story. Removing the wings and verticals for transport may do more damage than moving it intact. I'll defer that to others more knowledgeable than me. i do understand that there are governmental issues involved with the P38 recovery, as well as money.
Title: Re: Confidence
Post by: Andrew M McKenna on July 27, 2012, 07:26:34 AM
Malcolm says;
Quote
Well at the risk of inflaming more passions TIGHAR does stand for the The International Group for Historic Aircraft Recovery so a little matter like being able stabilize objects that have been immersed in salt water should have been factored into the mission statement and business model. TIGHAR was apparently not just created to find Amelia Earhart - I for one see the search for the L'Oiseau Blanc as being of greater significance to aviation history than the Electra.

Malcolm,

Yup, the name has Recovery in it.  Got started that way in 1985, some 27 years ago, when the plan for the organization was a bit different.  Yes, things have morphed a bit in near 30 years, but recovery of historic aircraft is still very much part of the agenda, we're just focused on a few specific aircraft.  I think Ric has considered updating the name, but he likes the acronym TIGHAR and simply prefers to keep it.

Unfortunately, as an independent non-profit organization whose goal is preservation as opposed to reconstruction, recovery of aircraft is extremely difficult for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is funding.  Most of the aircraft that are recovered these days are headed for a complete reconstruction project so they can be made airworthy again to satisfy somebody's personal desire to have a flying example of a historic aircraft.  This also takes money and many personal fortunes are being put to this use, but in the end, the goal is to have a valuable asset with which to make money, as an investment, or as a revenue generator.

If you can make money with the end product - a flyable aircraft - you can attract quite a bit of private equity up front willing to buy a piece of the action.  Several groups have taken this approach to the Earhart Electra, hoping to make money on it.  A great example of this approach is the research and recovery of Glacier Girl from under the ice in Greenland.  The aircraft had to be substantially reconstructed (something like 80% new parts) to get it airworthy again as it had been crushed under 200+ ft of ice.  In the process, they took what was one of the few authentic WWII examples and essentially stripped it of all the original materials, so it has lost its importance as a resource example of original WWII techniques and materials.  Don't get me wrong, I love to see P-38s fly, but seems a shame to take an authentic time capsule and not think about it's significance as a time capsule. 

TIGHAR, on the other hand, does not have such reconstruction plans.  If found and recovered by TIGHAR, the Electra would get conserved in the condition found rather than reconstructed.  Yes, it would probably be on tour for a while, but would ultimately most likely end up being "donated" by its owner, the nation of Kiribati, to the Smithsonian.  Not much of a money maker for TIGHAR and certainly one that doesn't attract private equity investments.  Instead, we have to raise funds without a promise of ownership, a much harder proposition.

We could have yanked the P-38 out of the sand, or the TBDs off out of the lagoon long ago and easily sold them into the reconstruction market if that was the type of recovery we were interested in, but it is not.  (OK, not the TBDs, but the involvement of the US Navy just illustrates the complexity of recovering historic aircraft)

We have done a lot of research on the stabilization of aircraft immersed in salt water, and the conservation of such is not a simple matter.  TIGHAR probably knows more about it now than most aviation archaeology groups.  Until one is ready to deal with the considerable conservation measures, funding required, and a proper museum to house the artifact, it is actually better to leave the aircraft where they are in the water.  Until we can do it right, we'd rather not do something that would in the end be detrimental to the aircraft.  This was not well understood 30 years ago, and many recoveries have turned to disaster for the aircraft as those folks were unprepared to conserve them once out of salt water.

We've narrowed the focus to a few main projects, two with known positions for the aircraft, and two with unknown positions.  There certainly are plans to recover all of them, but it is hard to recover any of them without the right resources, and more importantly, the right plan to conserve, preserve, and house them as genuine historic artifacts, rather than recover them for the private reconstruction market.

What I don't understand is that any understanding of the complexity TIGHAR faces recovering the aircraft we're interested in, you seem intent on criticizing TIGHAR for the lack of actually recovering an intact aircraft to date because the 30 year old name of the organization has the word "Recovery" in it. 

Really, have you nothing more to contribute?

Andrew


Title: Re: Confidence
Post by: Tom Swearengen on July 27, 2012, 07:47:44 AM
Andrew, having been to the 'Maid" site, can tell us alot of its condition. Well, at the time he dove on it anyway. I would think that removing the wings for transport would probably cause more damage. Seems like I remember the P38's had a 50+ foot wingspan. So---to conserve the entire plane intact ---you might as well have an olympic sized pool.
Recovery is the easier part-----the conserving of the aircraft would be an enormous task. The Hunley that I mentioned earlier is a good example. 12 years, MILLIONS of dollars, to get us to the point to be able to see it. How one does that with a submerged aircraft is beyond me.

TIGHAR is doing this right, IMHO.
Title: Re: Confidence
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on July 27, 2012, 08:27:26 AM
So isn't it about time that TIGHAR stopped beating around the bush and either validated the hypothesis or moved on.

The time to stop searching is when an area has been thoroughly searched.

Then, and only then, can one say, "I have not found what I was looking for."

The search areas under water and on land have not been thoroughly searched by any means.

Even if they had been, it does not follow that the failure of the search means that the Niku hypothesis is false.  It means that the belief that a different proposition is false, namely that "if the Niku hypothesis is true, then we should be able to find evidence of its truth." 

Ceasing search operations on Niku, therefore, does not logically entail beginning them elsewhere.
Title: Re: Confidence
Post by: Malcolm McKay on July 27, 2012, 06:40:25 PM
Really, have you nothing more to contribute?
Andrew

Well yes, it will only create more inflamed passions, however I will ask it. If recovery seems to be a dead issue as far as TIGHAR is concerned then why bother with continuing the P38 and the TBD as TIGHAR projects. I am fully aware of the difficulties connected with recovering US Navy aircraft as the US Navy never relinquishes ownership, something which has stymied many efforts by people to recover the Lake Michigan aircraft. While the P38 was actually known about for quite a while so TIGHAR's involvement is moot at best given that recovery is now not a part of the business plan. Wouldn't be best simply to divert funding into the search for the Electra and as a second string to the bow keep looking for L'Oiseau Blanc which is a very important aviation artifact.
Title: Re: Confidence
Post by: john a delsing on July 27, 2012, 10:36:50 PM
Malcolm,
      Please,  what is the l xxxx blance ?
             Thanks.
Title: Re: Confidence
Post by: Greg Daspit on July 27, 2012, 10:52:51 PM
RE: L'Oiseau Blanc  (http://tighar.org/Projects/PMG/PMG.html)
A few months ago I was trying to think of other planes that would be important to find and in researching this one found that Tighar already had it as one of its projects.
Title: Re: Confidence
Post by: Malcolm McKay on July 27, 2012, 11:18:52 PM
Malcolm,
      Please,  what is the l xxxx blance ?
             Thanks.

Quite important because its pilots Nungesser and Coli may have been the first people to fly from Paris to New York. The aircraft and crew disappeared but reports were received of people in Newfoundland and Maine hearing an aircraft fly over at the time it would have reached America. The pair's flight predated Lindbergh by about a fortnight.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_White_Bird
Title: Re: Confidence
Post by: C.W. Herndon on July 29, 2012, 05:17:32 AM
Malcolm,
      Please,  what is the l xxxx blance ?
             Thanks.

Quite important because its pilots Nungesser and Coli may have been the first people to fly from Paris to New York. The aircraft and crew disappeared but reports were received of people in Newfoundland and Maine hearing an aircraft fly over at the time it would have reached America. The pair's flight predated Lindbergh by about a fortnight.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_White_Bird

Malcolm, I fail to understand your reasoning here. You cite anecdotal evidence, which you have on several occasions declared to be unreliable, as possible proof that the French crew may have been the first to fly from Paris to New York. Since they did not reach New York how can the reports be proof of something that did not happen? (my emphasis added)
Title: Re: Confidence
Post by: John Joseph Barrett on July 29, 2012, 06:43:48 AM
Anecdotal "evidence", in and of itself, has little to no value in proving anything. What it does though is make a person think "what if?". The what if's is why humans have explored the globe, created wondrous inventions, cured disease, etc. Without the anedotal evidence that people in Newfoundland, along the planned flight path of the White Bird, heard a plane fly over about when it should have, there would be no reason to suspect that they ever made land fall and, therefore, no reason for anyone to go look for the wreckage. Did they make it? Based on the number of reports of a plane flying over when and where it was supposed to, I would say yes. Where did they come down? Who knows, the possible area is huge and rather uninviting and not exactly an easy place to search. Much like Niku and the surrounding area where AE/FN disappeared. The proof is there, somewhere, and will only be found if someone is looking for it as no one is likely to just stumble upon it. The White Bird may yet be found by someone passing through the area, and may have been, yet gone unrecognized for what it is. Much as visitors to Niku may have seen parts of the Electra and not recognized what it truly was. As to the "Recovery" in TIGHAR, if you feel it isn't appropriate how about "Relocation" instead? Me, I'm fine with "recovery". It doesn't have to be recovered by TIGHAR. If they find it so someone else with the mean$ can recover and conserve it, what's the difference? I believe in TIGHAR's purpose and I believe that AE/FN made it to Niku, either by planning or luck. The proof is there and will be found.  LTM. - John
Title: Re: Confidence
Post by: Andrew M McKenna on July 29, 2012, 08:37:36 AM
Malcolm Says:
Quote

Well yes, it will only create more inflamed passions, however I will ask it. If recovery seems to be a dead issue as far as TIGHAR is concerned then why bother with continuing the P38 and the TBD as TIGHAR projects. I am fully aware of the difficulties connected with recovering US Navy aircraft as the US Navy never relinquishes ownership, something which has stymied many efforts by people to recover the Lake Michigan aircraft. While the P38 was actually known about for quite a while so TIGHAR's involvement is moot at best given that recovery is now not a part of the business plan. Wouldn't be best simply to divert funding into the search for the Electra and as a second string to the bow keep looking for L'Oiseau Blanc which is a very important aviation artifact.

Malcolm. 

Who said that recovery was a "dead issue"?

Who said that "recovery is now not part of the business plan"?

You did, not I.

You've either completely missed the point of my post, or you're intentionally misconstruing what I said. 

What I said was "There certainly are plans to recover all of them, but it is hard to recover any of them without the right resources, and more importantly, the right plan to conserve, preserve, and house them as genuine historic artifacts..."

In my mind, until there is a qualified home for the artifacts, the right plan for conservation, and the right amount of funding to accomplish both, it would be criminal to simply yank the aircraft out of the salt water simply because we can.

Just because it is difficult to do it right doesn't mean we've abandoned those plans.

Andrew

Title: Re: Confidence
Post by: Bill Roe on July 29, 2012, 02:00:50 PM
Well yes, it will only create more inflamed passions, however I will ask it. If recovery seems to be a dead issue as far as TIGHAR is concerned then why bother with continuing the P38 and the TBD as TIGHAR projects. I am fully aware of the difficulties connected with recovering US Navy aircraft as the US Navy never relinquishes ownership, something which has stymied many efforts by people to recover the Lake Michigan aircraft. While the P38 was actually known about for quite a while so TIGHAR's involvement is moot at best given that recovery is now not a part of the business plan. Wouldn't be best simply to divert funding into the search for the Electra and as a second string to the bow keep looking for L'Oiseau Blanc which is a very important aviation artifact.

You know, I like, very much, a lot of what you contribute here.  And keep contributing even with the blistering attacks as a result of ......I dunno - perhaps the lack of comprehension?

-OR-

Has this Earhart thing become an obsession rather than a scientific goal?  TIGHAR - "The International Group For Historic Aircraft Recovery".  Has it been proven that the Electra probably does not exist for recovery?  Aren't there historic aircraft sitting out there waiting to be recovered?  How about the Devastator?  It seems to me that this airplane should have priority as there are none in existence.  When does a group of intelligent, dedicated individuals say:  "It doesn't exist - let's stop wasting time and bucks".
Title: Re: Confidence
Post by: Bruce Thomas on July 29, 2012, 02:27:44 PM
Aren't there historic aircraft sitting out there waiting to be recovered?  How about the Devastator?  It seems to me that this airplane should have priority as there are none in existence.

Sounds like the time is ripe for someone who sincerely believes that to start posting in the section of the TIGHAR Forum devoted to the Devastator (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php?action=collapse;c=4;sa=collapse;e39bca90f08a=65f51e61c745b155691c5ff8498ff1ff#c4) ... there hasn't been anything posted there since April 2011!  Compare that to the overwhelming volume of postings for the AE project.
Title: Re: Confidence
Post by: Bill Roe on July 29, 2012, 02:33:54 PM
... there hasn't been anything posted there since April 2011!  Compare that to the overwhelming volume of postings for the AE project.

Due to a coupla good reasons.....
1.)  All Tighar activity has been involved with AE
2.)  AE appears to be the obsession of the decade
Title: Re: Confidence
Post by: Bruce Thomas on July 29, 2012, 02:43:24 PM
... there hasn't been anything posted there since April 2011!  Compare that to the overwhelming volume of postings for the AE project.

Due to a coupla good reasons.....
1.)  All Tighar activity has been involved with AE
2.)  AE appears to be the obsession of the decade

1.) False
2.) True.
Title: Re: Confidence
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on July 29, 2012, 03:18:47 PM
When does a group of intelligent, dedicated individuals say:  "It doesn't exist - let's stop wasting time and bucks".

When they have searched all likely places and not found what they are looking for.

The KOK is due back in port some time today.

Would it be OK with you to allow them some time to review the high-definition tapes they are bringing home with them before declaring "it doesn't exist"?  Or would examining the data somehow be unintelligent and a sign of a lack of commitment to you?
Title: Re: Confidence
Post by: Greg Daspit on July 29, 2012, 05:03:58 PM
When does a group of intelligent, dedicated individuals say:  "It doesn't exist - let's stop wasting time and bucks".

Bill,
Respectfully,
Why do you want to know when someone will claim"it doesn't exist"?
If you beleive it does exist then why ask a question wanting to know when someone will claim the opposite?

Title: Re: Confidence
Post by: Bill Roe on July 29, 2012, 05:46:51 PM
Hi Greg -
The question was rhetorical.
I was merely pointing out that it is apparent that the electra no longer exists therefore not recoverable.  At the same time assets continue to be exhausted when they may be more productive, in tune with the Tighar mission, on other projects.

When does a group of intelligent, dedicated individuals say:  "It doesn't exist - let's stop wasting time and bucks".

Bill,
Respectfully,
Why do you want to know when someone will claim"it doesn't exist"?
If you beleive it does exist then why ask a question wanting to know when someone will claim the opposite?
Title: Re: Confidence
Post by: Tom Swearengen on July 29, 2012, 05:52:29 PM
Bill----I think there have been an outline of plans to recover the Devestator. I believe the museum in Pensacola has expressed interest. Ok-----but its a long way from Truk lagoon to Pensacola, and the Navy still owns the plane, unless I'm wrong.
I would think after 65+ years underwater, that some sort of conservation woul dhave to take place IMMEDIATELY  after being raised. All of that is expensive, and frankly, I doubt if the museum is ready for it. But-----you can bet that when they are, TIGHAR well get the job.
Title: Re: Confidence
Post by: Bruce Thomas on July 29, 2012, 06:09:43 PM
Back in April 2011 Monte Fowler posted a short crisp message in the portion of this Forum for the Devastator project, simply saying  "Bummer - looks like the NNAM has given up on the Majuro Devastator."   [NNAM=National Naval Aviation Museum (NNAM, in Pensacola)] 

Perhaps Monte will see this, and post an update in the General Discussion area for the Devastator project (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/board,7.0.html) elaborating on what he learned back then, and any subsequent G2 he's come up with. 
Title: Re: Confidence
Post by: Malcolm McKay on July 29, 2012, 11:24:57 PM
Malcolm, I fail to understand your reasoning here. You cite anecdotal evidence, which you have on several occasions declared to be unreliable, as possible proof that the French crew may have been the first to fly from Paris to New York. Since they did not reach New York how can the reports be proof of something that did not happen? (my emphasis added)

Well actually it was TIGHAR who were the ones who started looking for that aircraft based on the anecdotal evidence, not I. But there is also a lot of anecdotal evidence used in TIGHAR's search for the Electra (Betty's notebook, the supposed aircraft wreckage sighted by the islanders on Nikumaroro, etc.) however I do find it rather a disappointment that nothing came of the TIGHAR search for the L'Oiseau Blanc despite TIGHAR's excellent efforts as it is an aircraft of great historical importance. 
Title: Re: Confidence
Post by: Malcolm McKay on July 29, 2012, 11:29:23 PM

How important that is remains for the individual, I suppose.  I'm still intrigued by the loss of Paul Redfern  (http://www.earlyaviators.com/eredfern.htm) in his Stinson Detroiter 'Port of Brunswick' on his way to Rio from the coast of Georgia (but have little confidence in finding him or his airplane). 


Thanks Jeff - I'd forgotten Redfern. That was a brave effort, and you are right about how difficult locating any trace would be. It wasn't called the Golden Age of Flying for nothing.
Title: Re: Confidence
Post by: Malcolm McKay on July 30, 2012, 12:11:05 AM

What I said was "There certainly are plans to recover all of them, but it is hard to recover any of them without the right resources, and more importantly, the right plan to conserve, preserve, and house them as genuine historic artifacts..."

In my mind, until there is a qualified home for the artifacts, the right plan for conservation, and the right amount of funding to accomplish both, it would be criminal to simply yank the aircraft out of the salt water simply because we can.

Just because it is difficult to do it right doesn't mean we've abandoned those plans.

Andrew

Well I must admit I took that as meaning that as TIGHAR didn't have the facilities to process and stabilize recovered parts then recovery was no longer an objective. But there is nothing wrong with simply locating and allowing others who have the facilities to do the recovery - although these days with national governments becoming more heritage conscious then the waters become murkier (pardon the pun).
Title: Re: Confidence
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on July 30, 2012, 06:01:48 AM
I don't think that Bill was saying that at all - he was simply asking a question.

Is it possible to make statements in question form?

Are some questions more loaded than others?

Do you know how to play the question game?

Could I go on like this for some time, without ever using a declarative sentence?

Do you suppose people would get my meaning?

Did you notice that my reply to Bill was also nothing but questions?

When does a group of intelligent, dedicated individuals say:  "It doesn't exist - let's stop wasting time and bucks"?

... Would it be OK with you to allow them some time to review the high-definition tapes they are bringing home with them before declaring "it doesn't exist"?  Or would examining the data somehow be unintelligent and a sign of a lack of commitment to you?

If asking questions means making no commitments, why do you support Bill's questions and criticize mine?
Title: Re: Confidence
Post by: C.W. Herndon on July 30, 2012, 07:15:28 AM
Malcolm, I fail to understand your reasoning here. You cite anecdotal evidence, which you have on several occasions declared to be unreliable, as possible proof that the French crew may have been the first to fly from Paris to New York. Since they did not reach New York how can the reports be proof of something that did not happen? (my emphasis added)

Well actually it was TIGHAR who were the ones who started looking for that aircraft based on the anecdotal evidence, not I. But there is also a lot of anecdotal evidence used in TIGHAR's search for the Electra (Betty's notebook, the supposed aircraft wreckage sighted by the islanders on Nikumaroro, etc.) however I do find it rather a disappointment that nothing came of the TIGHAR search for the L'Oiseau Blanc despite TIGHAR's excellent efforts as it is an aircraft of great historical importance.

Malcolm, although it was very simple, you didn't answer my question.
Title: Re: Confidence
Post by: Michael HALL on July 30, 2012, 07:42:12 AM
I have not had time to read all the thread just the last page, but from the angle I am reading I think there is an assumption that if the plane was not found its game over, roll over, waste of cash move on.

If so this is not the case, the search is to PROVE AE landed there, not to bring up a decaying old plane in the hopes to find FN bones embedded in the back of the pilots seat.

Looking for a golden nugget of undisputible evidence is way more important in historic terms than bringing up whats left of a plane. This is not a salvage operation, its an operation to once and for allow AE's and FN memory to be laid to rest with diginity.
Title: Re: Confidence
Post by: Malcolm McKay on July 30, 2012, 07:56:21 AM

Malcolm, although it was very simple, you didn't answer my question.

My apologies - you are right it didn't reach New York, well not in any recognised way, but its historic importance lies in the idea that it may have actually crossed the Atlantic from Europe and reached the United States. It is that that would be interesting to ascertain. An incredibly brave endeavour.
Title: Re: Confidence
Post by: Malcolm McKay on July 30, 2012, 08:00:18 AM

Looking for a golden nugget of undisputible evidence is way more important in historic terms than bringing up whats left of a plane. This is not a salvage operation, its an operation to once and for allow AE's and FN memory to be laid to rest with diginity.

I think, given the chances of finding recognizable parts of the aircraft are pretty slim, that you may be right. Still we wait to see what the film shows.
Title: Re: Confidence
Post by: Malcolm McKay on July 30, 2012, 08:24:18 AM

My apologies - you are right it didn't reach New York, well not in any recognised way, but its historic importance lies in the idea that it may have actually crossed the Atlantic from Europe and reached the United States. It is that that would be interesting to ascertain. An incredibly brave endeavour.

Malcolm, you still hedged a bit here (my emphasis again), but I agree with most of what you say.

Thanks.
[/quote]

Well that was intended to be a bit tongue in cheek  ;D
Title: Re: Confidence
Post by: Andrew M McKenna on July 30, 2012, 08:45:55 AM
Malcolm Said
<<<<<
Quote
Well I must admit I took that as meaning that as TIGHAR didn't have the facilities to process and stabilize recovered parts then recovery was no longer an objective. But there is nothing wrong with simply locating and allowing others who have the facilities to do the recovery - although these days with national governments becoming more heritage conscious then the waters become murkier (pardon the pun).
>>>>>>

TIGHAR certainly does not itself have the facilities at the moment to process and stabilize an aircraft any more than we own a ship capable of conducting deep water searches, but as we've seen in Niku VII, they can be obtained for the right price.  We have done much research on the process that is required, consulting with the best experts on the subject worldwide that we can find, so we know what has to happen to prevent aircraft that have been in salt water for a long period from crumbling into bits once they're brought out of the salt water environment.
 
There are many museums willing to take possession of the P-38 once it has been recovered and conserved.  This presents the problem of just who is going to recover and conserve the aircraft - something that could take a couple of years and cost millions of dollars - just so it can be donated to the right home.  No museum is currently willing to pony up the money and risk having the conservation not work out as well as they'd like.  While the P-38 is historic - an authentic 8th Airforce combat aircraft - it simply hasn't been compelling enough to attract the kind of donations needed like the pursuit of some other aircraft have.

You are suggesting that we "allow others who have the facilities do the recovery" however there is no one yet with the right expertise and facilities who has stepped forward with the cash, but who is also willing to have the aircraft end up in a museum in its conserved state.  I'm not even sure that the private recovery world would be willing to spend what it will take, so in fact there may not be anyone who has the right facilities including expertise, technology, and cash to recover this aircraft and conserve it.  There are plenty of folks who would be willing to salvage the P-38, take what parts they can use including the all important data plate, and rebuild a flying P-38 around the data plate, which they would then claim was the "authentic" and "original" WWII aircraft.  Great for entertainment, bad for historic preservation.  Would be easy enough for TIGHAR to salvage it and sell the parts, but the end result doesn't match up with the founding mission and goals of the organization.

Just to complicate things further, the aircraft lies in the intertidal zone that experiences tidal swings of several meters which would make recovery challenging, and it happens to sit on the border between two nature preserves, one marine and the other shoreward, each controlled by a different governmental entity, so there are many jurisdictions that would all have to be in alignment before anything could move forward.  Oh, and the best place for conservation is in the US, but the Brits are a bit loath to let it leave their shores for fear it will never come back.  Murky waters indeed.

The P-38 in particular will be a very complex recovery and conservation.  Until all the moons are in alignment, it will probably stay where it is.  Thankfully that happens to be out of sight except for the occasional odd circumstances that result in her revealing herself.

All of this is to illustrate that TIGHAR hasn't abandoned planning of aircraft recoveries, we just want to do it professionally, and for the right reasons.

Andrew

Title: Re: Confidence
Post by: Malcolm McKay on July 30, 2012, 06:52:51 PM

All of this is to illustrate that TIGHAR hasn't abandoned planning of aircraft recoveries, we just want to do it professionally, and for the right reasons.

Andrew

Thanks Andrew - I'm glad that is clarified.
Title: Re: Confidence
Post by: Lauren Palmer on August 08, 2012, 03:15:02 PM
To clarify, I do NOT mean the possible strut/assembly whatever that's pictured in the surf on the reef in the 30's - I was referring to some one else's claim that they found another different airplane part (claim to be wheel without tire) washed up higher (on the inlet to the lagoon?) and since vanished.  Said person claimed he didn't mention it previously because he thought TIGHAR already had been notified of it's presence (!)  And now I can't find the reference, it's still hard for me navigating around this fascinating site ...
Title: Re: Confidence
Post by: Bruce Thomas on August 08, 2012, 04:26:49 PM
To clarify, I do NOT mean the possible strut/assembly whatever that's pictured in the surf on the reef in the 30's - I was referring to some one else's claim that they found another different airplane part (claim to be wheel without tire) washed up higher (on the inlet to the lagoon?) and since vanished.  Said person claimed he didn't mention it previously because he thought TIGHAR already had been notified of it's presence (!)  And now I can't find the reference, it's still hard for me navigating around this fascinating site ...
Lauren, there's an entry in Ameliapedia (http://tighar.org/wiki/Niku_VP_%28WOF--2003%29) that mentions the so-called "Wheel of Fortune" that you're referring to.  Also, TIGHAR Research Bulletin #31 (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/41_WheelofFortune/41_Wheel.html) in 2003 gave the details about that vanished wheel.
Title: Re: Confidence
Post by: don hirth on August 11, 2012, 10:34:26 AM
Well, Lauren......Thanks for refreshing my aging memory regarding the WOF! 9 more days until the Discovery program and since we are in a bit of a 'limbo' until then, all are asked to humor my
thoughts/beliefs about the Niku landing. 1. The reef was definitely 'landable.' 2. Betty and the young man from Montana were sufficiently credible regarding their radio receptions. 3. Other
post loss signal monitors pretty much zeroed in, on Niku. 4. There was 'enough' remaining fuel
after "we're lost" to make Niku. 5. Dr. Stone's, WOF has a DISTINCT probability of being an
Electra component. 6. Various aluminum artifacts although not ABSOLUTELY proveable as Electra
connected are never the less, strong circumstantial evidence. 7. Emily Sikili's recollection of a
wrecked aircraft scenario is compelling. 8. The nessie photo (to me, at least) represents another
"compelling" factor. It would be interesting, if it could be done, to assemble and present this
compilation to a panel of judges or jury and see what the verdict would be.