Perhaps Discovery is planning two shows. Two shows for the price of One? Makes sense in some ways. At $1M per hour, cutting your costs in half is not a bad idea for them. I'm frustrated too, but as one of the "Camel in clouds magical thinking" guys, I've got to say it. It sure feels like the plane is there ...
L
My initial reaction is that the word "might" appears so perhaps it is just a hook in the long tradition of such programs and aimed at getting viewers.
I will wait and see what the full story will be.
You have shocked me Malcolm :o out of the video an photo's available on discovery website, You pick up on the word MIGHT
And not "it looks like coral to me phrase" :)
You have shocked me Malcolm :o out of the video an photo's available on discovery website, You pick up on the word MIGHT
And not "it looks like coral to me phrase" :)
Well "might" covers a multitude of possible meanings. I admit that coral did cross my mind also but as ever I'll await further information - which in this case is probably the wisest approach. :-\
The post immediately above, Reply 16, says it perfectly for me as well.I expect that the frames taken overlap as the ROV goes by so there shouldn't be much of a mystery as the changing aspect should make any object clear. So I am suspicious that this is just a "hook" to get viewers.
I suspect the Huffington video is common or garden variety Discovery showmanship, and is adequately explained by an earlier specific report of non-AE things found (see my earlier post (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,751.msg18190.html#msg18190)). Today's "breaking news" snapshot is difficult to judge from the 895 x 595 web image, we don't get to see the HD resolution. After much zooming and squinting I would not be shocked if there is a man-made object or two at the upper left; on the right side not so much. Joining the chorus: all we can do is have patience.
I expect that the frames taken overlap as the ROV goes by so there shouldn't be much of a mystery as the changing aspect should make any object clear.
So I am suspicious that this is just a "hook" to get viewers.
Guess only RIC and Jeff know for sure.
Not on TIGHAR's part but The Discovery Channel putting out that press release worded the way is is to attract viewers and advertizing revenue. That's what I meant by "hook," just like I said.So I am suspicious that this is just a "hook" to get viewers.
What you are suggesting? Do you really think that we would make something up? Good grief Gary, you know us better than that.
New member here from Tokyo. Hi to all. Photography and image manipulation is my game. Found that a manipulated B&W filtered image is much easier to see. The object spotted by Randy is interesting.I have programmed both of the DVRs in my house to record the show and have set an alarm on my smart phone to make sure that I am sitting in front of my TV tomorrow night so maybe by doubts will be dispelled then. But, at this point, I do have a question based on having done a lot of diving on reefs in the pacific. IF the objects pointed out in the video still are portions of the object previously identified as "Nessie" and IF the still was taken in deep water then why, since "Nessie" was a complete assembly, are we not seeing the complete assembly in the photo? The obvious answer to this question is that it was broken up but then you have to tell us by what force. The most obvious answer to this is that it was broken up in the surf zone where it was subjected to the great forces of the waves but then you have to answer the question as to why these pieces are then found in close proximity to each other. It is very unlikely that an intact "Nessie" was broken up as it slid down the reef face once it was below the surf zone as turbulence does not extend down very far, ask any diver how quickly the water gets smooth as you descend. So, it must have broken apart far away from the spot where this photo was taken so why would these different components of different shapes and specific gravities end up so close to each other this far away from the point where the breakup occurred?
(http://home.att.ne.jp/green/etherbod/Zoomblackandwhite.JPG)
Guess only RIC and Jeff know for sure.
Ric and Jeff don't know for sure. We're not keeping any great secrets. We tell you as much as we can as soon as we can. That's what TIGHAR is all about.
So I am suspicious that this is just a "hook" to get viewers.Not on TIGHAR's part but The Discovery Channel putting out that press release worded the way is is to attract viewers and advertizing revenue. That's what I meant by "hook," just like I said.
Cause these still pictures are a lot like seeing faces on Mars. We can make them into what we want.
Ok----do you think its where we thought it was, or somewhere else, and does that by chance match any locations from the previous video that Richie and Jeff Victor worked on?
You said you were suspicious that "this is just a 'hook' to get viewers." It's the "just" that I find offensive. We gave Discovery the information. They used it to attract more viewers to the show. I don't have a problem with that as long as they don't misrepresent the information we gave them. I don't think they did.
I do plan to watch the TIGHAR show but I expect, in the end, to see the standard 'NO" answer to the question posed in the title.
What channel is that on Ric? But no, that is not all I am interested in, I am also looking forward to seeing how the expedition worked. I don't take that away from you guys, a lot of planning, worry, and work. My hat's off to you and your fellows on that score.I do plan to watch the TIGHAR show but I expect, in the end, to see the standard 'NO" answer to the question posed in the title.
I can save you the trouble. You already have as much or more information than is in the show about whether the mystery has been solved. If that's all you're interested in you'll probably enjoy something else more. What Not To Wear is often amusing.
What channel is that on Ric?
New member here from Tokyo. Hi to all. Photography and image manipulation is my game. Found that a manipulated B&W filtered image is much easier to see. The object spotted by Randy is interesting.
(http://home.att.ne.jp/green/etherbod/Zoomblackandwhite.JPG)
Ric---can you tell us the depth that the picture (Time stamp 10:14) was taken?
New member here from Tokyo. Hi to all. Photography and image manipulation is my game. Found that a manipulated B&W filtered image is much easier to see. The object spotted by Randy is interesting.why would these different components of different shapes and specific gravities end up so close to each other this far away from the point where the breakup occurred?
(http://home.att.ne.jp/green/etherbod/Zoomblackandwhite.JPG)
gl
"Paging Doctor Rorschach...........paging Doctor Rorschach!"
gl
"Paging Doctor Rorschach...........paging Doctor Rorschach!"Why don't you guys try your luck with these images?
gl
I would guess we are all disappointed. :'(somewhat. The show was crafted well enough, but I was hoping for more in the debris field. There was something seen later that was going to be analyzed - what was that about?
I would guess we are all disappointed. :'(
Wasn't much of a debris field on the Discovery show, just "one color glossy 8x10 picture with circles and arrows and a paragraph under each one describing how it was to be used as evidence.."
Why don't you guys try your luck with these images?
gl
These guys would look at two photos taken seconds apart by an airplane camera, using a little viewing object, oh yeah - a "stereoscope". They would line the aerial pictures up just right for viewing through these stereo-optic lenses. Things on the ground would appear in 3D. AAA Sites! SAM Sites! Military targets of opportunity! They'd stand right out in 3D.Bill, wasn't it that both pictures were taken at the same time but the camera positions were varied enough to develop the 3D situation? I was just looking back through a couple of threads trying to find the thing about the expert that was to analyze an item in the debris field - haven't found it but I came across your 3D comment.
These guys would look at two photos taken seconds apart by an airplane camera, using a little viewing object, oh yeah - a "stereoscope". They would line the aerial pictures up just right for viewing through these stereo-optic lenses. Things on the ground would appear in 3D. AAA Sites! SAM Sites! Military targets of opportunity! They'd stand right out in 3D.Bill, wasn't it that both pictures were taken at the same time but the camera positions were varied enough to develop the 3D situation? I was just looking back through a couple of threads trying to find the thing about the expert that was to analyze an item in the debris field - haven't found it but I came across your 3D comment.
That is indeed Alice's restaurant. :DI would guess we are all disappointed. :'(
Wasn't much of a debris field on the Discovery show, just "one color glossy 8x10 picture with circles and arrows and a paragraph under each one describing how it was to be used as evidence.."
Wait . . . is that from "Alice's Restaurant" or am I way out in left field here??
I would say the production values exceeded my expectations and the content was a bit below expectation. I had hoped there could be more last-minute rearrangement to show a little more of the ongoing HD video review. But given the realities of producing a prime-time show I suppose my hope was somewhat unrealistic. The strongest emotion I felt was empathy/sympathy for someone standing on a boat watching thousands of dollars per minute being urinated away on stuck AUVs and the like.
I would guess we are all disappointed. :'(And The seeing-eye dog sat down. Officer Opie looked at the seeing eye dog and knew that justice was blind.
Wasn't much of a debris field on the Discovery show, just "one color glossy 8x10 picture with circles and arrows and a paragraph under each one describing how it was to be used as evidence.."
What channel is that on Ric? But no, that is not all I am interested in, I am also looking forward to seeing how the expedition worked. I don't take that away from you guys, a lot of planning, worry, and work. My hat's off to you and your fellows on that score.I do plan to watch the TIGHAR show but I expect, in the end, to see the standard 'NO" answer to the question posed in the title.
I can save you the trouble. You already have as much or more information than is in the show about whether the mystery has been solved. If that's all you're interested in you'll probably enjoy something else more. What Not To Wear is often amusing.
gl
I made the same point earlier. (https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,913.msg18304.html#msg18304) Let's see the frames before and after the posted frame. Other frames should show the objects from other angles and make it possible to discern whether what is indicated in the one posted frame are natural or man-made. Being a lawyer, I get suspicious when a party doesn't produce stronger evidence (such as views from different sides and aspects) that should help his case and instead offers weaker evidence (like just one image.) So in this case, as in the Betty notebook case, I'm still sticking with standard jury instruction 203 (https://tighar.org/smf/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=836.0;attach=3340).These guys would look at two photos taken seconds apart by an airplane camera, using a little viewing object, oh yeah - a "stereoscope". They would line the aerial pictures up just right for viewing through these stereo-optic lenses. Things on the ground would appear in 3D. AAA Sites! SAM Sites! Military targets of opportunity! They'd stand right out in 3D.Bill, wasn't it that both pictures were taken at the same time but the camera positions were varied enough to develop the 3D situation? I was just looking back through a couple of threads trying to find the thing about the expert that was to analyze an item in the debris field - haven't found it but I came across your 3D comment.
I saw a PBS show about this not long ago. The British derived a huge benefit in WW2 using stereo images to identify bombing targets and figure out the "what and where" of new things like V-1's and V-2's. They had special Spitfires or Hurricanes, I forget which, fitted out with a big aerial camera that took multiple overlapping images as the plane flew along (Bill was right about that). It drove the pilots nuts because they had to fly in harm's way low, slow, and at constant heading and speed or the images didn't work. I believe something like the same effect is possible with the underwater images because they overlap and you can see changing perspective on the target object. But I don't really have any knowledge/experience here.
Let's see the frames before and after the posted frame. Other frames should show the objects from other angles and make it possible to discern whether what is indicated in the one posted frame are natural or man-made. Being a lawyer, I get suspicious when a party doesn't produce stronger evidence (such as views from different sides and aspects) that should help his case and instead offers weaker evidence (like just one image.)
Gary I think you need to cut Ric a little slack on this one , if he was a lawyer he would of asked for a postponement of his court date due to the late arrival of the evidence, Discovery did not give that option.
I made the same point earlier. (https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,913.msg18304.html#msg18304) Let's see the frames before and after the posted frame. Other frames should show the objects from other angles and make it possible to discern whether what is indicated in the one posted frame are natural or man-made. Being a lawyer, I get suspicious when a party doesn't produce stronger evidence (such as views from different sides and aspects) that should help his case and instead offers weaker evidence (like just one image.) So in this case, as in the Betty notebook case, I'm still sticking with standard jury instruction 203 (https://tighar.org/smf/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=836.0;attach=3340).
gl
Has the contractual obligation to Discovery been fulfilled now or is TIGHAR still constrained in what it can release to the media as it goes through all of the data?
Also can you say if the pictured debris field was separated far enough from the NC wreck to exclude it as the source?
The "debris field" had to be close to the NC.
The reason is that in the show at the very end a frustrated Ric decides to search off shore in quote "shallow water" directly out from the famous nessie picture. Which was within a few hundred yards of the NC.
Great, thanks Ric.Let's see the frames before and after the posted frame. Other frames should show the objects from other angles and make it possible to discern whether what is indicated in the one posted frame are natural or man-made. Being a lawyer, I get suspicious when a party doesn't produce stronger evidence (such as views from different sides and aspects) that should help his case and instead offers weaker evidence (like just one image.)
Gary, it was a television show, not a scientific paper or a closing argument. They scrambled to get any mention of the new discovery into the show.
Late yesterday, for the first time, I saw the high-definiton frames on either side of the posted frame. Despite your assurances, I was not able to easily discern whether the objects are natural or man-made - but I'm neither a forensic imaging specialist nor am I a lawyer.
My plan is to put a two minute clip spanning the entire pass past the objects up on YouTube so that every lawyer and other self-proclaimed expert can announce what is or isn't there. Meanwhile, we'll continue to work with the imagery using genuine analytical tools and, as we've done in the past, seek second opinions from disinterested experts.
I just dont think 400 meters is that far away to preclude this debris field from being NC steel.
When you found that object that looked like a wing but was the keel, wasnt that over 400 meters away from the wreck?
The TV show indicates that the AUV's sonar was used to locate possible man-made objects and then the ROV followed up with visual inspection.
I am unclear, however, whether the sonar provided any indication of a man-made object at the location of the latest debris find being discussed here?
Did the sonar cover this area, and if so, what did it indicate?
Is the most recent analysis based solely on the photo evidence?
Why don't you guys try your luck with these images?
gl
"Paging Doctor Rorschach...........paging Doctor Rorschach!"Why don't you guys try your luck with these images?
gl
gl
Do we yet have a map of the NC debris field in relation to other suspected man-made objects that have been discovered?
| The “Treasure Map” article in the June issue of TIGHAR Tracks ended with an assurance that “…even if someone with lots of money and no ethics were convinced that we finally had the answer (to the whereabouts of the Earhart wreckage), it would be extremely difficult to get there ahead us.” True enough, but what if a lowly ocean-going salvage tug just happened to be trying to recover a grounded fishing boat at McKean Island 60 miles away, and what if the captain saw our “Treasure Map” article (which is also posted on the TIGHAR website), and what if the captain read that comment and said to himself “We’ll just see about that”? Captain Jürgen Ruh has neither a lot of money nor does he seem to be at all unethical, but he does enjoy a challenge and he is, after all, a salvager by trade. Having had no luck with the fishing boat at McKean Island he stopped by Nikumaroro on his way home and put three divers in the water for about 30 minutes along the reef edge north of the shipwreck. They didn’t find anything but they did recover a piece of metal debris from up on the reef flat. Jürgen emailed a photo of the piece to us along with a description of what they had done, where they had looked, and what they had found and not found. We, of course, expressed our regret that he had chosen to interfere with an archaeological site and pointed out that, had he actually found and recovered aircraft wreckage, important information would unquestionably have been lost. In the end, no harm was done. The recovered object is quite obviously a piece of shipwreck debris and Jürgen, having made his point, is hoping that we’ll call on him should we ever need the capabilities of a salvage tug–but the incident does point up how complete the worldwide communications revolution has been and teaches us not to make assumptions about the remoteness of Nikumaroro. |
...from the first version I swore to myself I was looking at a shackle connected to something...
Anyway, how far was this particular wreckage from the debris field that Jeff pointed out in the single photo now being looked at? Are we talking yards, feet, quarter mile, half mile? Curious!!!!
Anyway, I am writing today to see if Jeff Glickman knows anything bout this little black box in the left to middle-center. I pointed this out the other night on the forum, but the picture I used was more bluer than this awesome black and white picture. Anyway, I picked this out of everything else, except for the tires in the upper left-hand picture. Also, Ric as you mentioned in the film last night you showed images of the keel that sank during the shipwreck. But, I caught something as the ROV panned across the wreckage. Don't know if your guys missed this or not, but most wreckage is usually rusted and brown and broken, etc. In part of this wreckage I noticed a straight line of grey! This grey did not fit into this picture of wreckage for some reason. But, found it very odd! Anyway, how far was this particular wreckage from the debris field that Jeff pointed out in the single photo now being looked at? Are we talking yards, feet, quarter mile, half mile? Curious!!!!
Anyway, I am writing today to see if Jeff Glickman knows anything bout this little black box in the left to middle-center. I pointed this out the other night on the forum, but the picture I used was more bluer than this awesome black and white picture. Anyway, I picked this out of everything else, except for the tires in the upper left-hand picture. Also, Ric as you mentioned in the film last night you showed images of the keel that sank during the shipwreck. But, I caught something as the ROV panned across the wreckage. Don't know if your guys missed this or not, but most wreckage is usually rusted and brown and broken, etc. In part of this wreckage I noticed a straight line of grey! This grey did not fit into this picture of wreckage for some reason. But, found it very odd! Anyway, how far was this particular wreckage from the debris field that Jeff pointed out in the single photo now being looked at? Are we talking yards, feet, quarter mile, half mile? Curious!!!!
Great eyes. Right in the area I thought there was a wheel. Your object definitely looks man made. Mine looks less like a wheel in your photo in black and
Why don't you guys try your luck with these images?
gl
Gary, you know this is a family-friendly site, and you should be ashamed of yourself for posting such obviously sexual, filthy, smutty pictures.
;D
Well, my mommy told me that "actions speak louder than words." Obviously TIGHAR believed that the two debris fields overlap as shown by their sending the valuable and expensive to operate ROV off to photograph what turned out to be a section of the NC. This section of the NC must be in the NC debris field and if the two debris fields did not overlap then there would have been no reason to investigate that hit since its location would have ruled it out as being a piece of the Electra.Also can you say if the pictured debris field was separated far enough from the NC wreck to exclude it as the source?
Yes and yes.
Well, my mommy told me that "actions speak louder than words." Obviously TIGHAR believed that the two debris fields overlap as shown by their sending the valuable and expensive to operate ROV off to photograph what turned out to be a section of the NC.
Marty, you missed my point which is that they went to look at that piece of the NC which proves that they believed at the time that that piece of the NC was located in the computed Electra debris distribution field because otherwise it would have been ruled out as a possible Electra piece and they would not have sent the ROV to look at it. So it appears equally possible that additional pieces of the NC also lie in the computed Electra debris distribution field such as the things that Jeff spotted later.Well, my mommy told me that "actions speak louder than words." Obviously TIGHAR believed that the two debris fields overlap as shown by their sending the valuable and expensive to operate ROV off to photograph what turned out to be a section of the NC.
At the time they used the ROV to explore Norwich City wreckage, they did not have any idea that Jeff would find possible objects of interest ten days after the KoK returned to port.
So it appears equally possible that additional pieces of the NC also lie in the computed Electra debris distribution field such as the things that Jeff spotted later.
gl
Marty, you missed my point which is that they went to look at that piece of the NC which proves that they believed at the time that that piece of the NC was located in the computed Electra debris distribution field ...
Oh, now this is interesting. I thought that that image was just caught by serendipity, that the ROV was on its way to carefully examine some other object and accidentaly got this image which wasn't recognized later so that they did not get complete imaging of the object. But if obtaining that image was purposeful then there should many other images of the object from different angles so that the objects should be clear and there should not have been the delay in identifying just as there was no delay in identifying the section of the NC hull which was done real-time.
AFTER Glickman found some interesting objects in the HD video, THEN and only then were they able to say that the interesting objects were not part of the NC debris field.
I don't think Ric has ever said that it's impossible for aircraft remains to mix with pieces of the NC.
They saw something that looked interesting on sonar, and they went to look for it.
What objection do you have to that?
Oh, now this is interesting. I thought that that image was just caught by serendipity, that the ROV was on its way to carefully examine some other object and accidentaly got this image which wasn't recognized later so that they did not get complete imaging of the object. But if obtaining that image was purposeful then there should many other images of the object from different angles so that the objects should be clear and there should not have been the delay in identifying just as there was no delay in identifying the section of the NC hull which was done real-time.
gl
Oh, now this is interesting. I thought that that image was just caught by serendipity, that the ROV was on its way to carefully examine some other object and accidentally got this image which wasn't recognized later so that they did not get complete imaging of the object.
But if obtaining that image was purposeful ...
Well no, the keel was in deep water and the Jeff object is stated to be in shallow water.Oh, now this is interesting. I thought that that image was just caught by serendipity, that the ROV was on its way to carefully examine some other object and accidentaly got this image which wasn't recognized later so that they did not get complete imaging of the object. But if obtaining that image was purposeful then there should many other images of the object from different angles so that the objects should be clear and there should not have been the delay in identifying just as there was no delay in identifying the section of the NC hull which was done real-time.
gl
I believe marty was referring to the ships keel as being the interesting object that was being investigated.....
edit: Gary if you really are a lawyer you picked the right profession. you love to argue for arguments sake!
Your statement could have been clearer ;). "They saw something that looked interesting on sonar, and they went to look for it." How about "on the way to investigate an interesting object on sonar, the ROV captured this frame in a different location.."Oh, now this is interesting. I thought that that image was just caught by serendipity, that the ROV was on its way to carefully examine some other object and accidentally got this image which wasn't recognized later so that they did not get complete imaging of the object.
If you've read the dailies (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Niku7/niku7dailies.html), you know as much as I do about the searches that were done.
The things that Jeff have found were not targets identified by the AUV and then studied by the ROV.QuoteBut if obtaining that image was purposeful ...
They went to the Pacific on purpose.
They sent down the AUV and ROV on purpose.
They did not inspect this particular spot on purpose.
Your premise is false, so your conclusion is false.
Your statement could have been clearer ;). "They saw something that looked interesting on sonar, and they went to look for it." How about "on the way to investigate an interesting object on sonar, the ROV captured this frame in a different location.."
gl
Ric interview on CNN (http://www.cnn.com/video/standard.html#/video/bestoftv/2012/08/20/exp-early-gillespie-earhart-clues.cnn?iref=allsearch).
Also for some humor.
(http://www.flyingmag.com/blogs/going-direct/amelia-earhart-plane-may-have-been-discovered-behind-my-barbeque)
gl
Your statement could have been clearer ;) . "They saw something that looked interesting on sonar, and they went to look for it." How about "on the way to investigate an interesting object on sonar, the ROV captured this frame in a different location.."
We know what TIGHAR went through just getting the tools into the work area and looking around; now we know a bit more about how that environment might treat something deposited there and tend to hide it.
As I understand what Ric said on CNN, the large object in the ROV image under discussion could be one of the Electra's curved undercarriage fenders. For my old eyes to see that better, I outlined the edges in red and inserted white lines to indicate the object's obvious concave nature, which means that the curved fender has to be lying upside down. That is when I ran into a problem.etc...
Shouldn't this have been able to be done w/in 48 hours of the underwater still having been taken?
I think about this when I read some of the posts and criticism about TIGHAR's expedition and methodology, and about Ric Gillespie personally.
I think about it a lot.
To put to rest the questions and conspiracy theories about why Discovery chose to air the show so soon, let me clear up that mystery.
The air date for the show was set weeks before we left Honolulu. Like all networks, the bottom line for Discovery is ratings - delivering viewers for sponsors. August 19th comes at the end of Shark Week - Discovery's biggest audience grabber. Airing our show at the end of Shark Week is nothing more than Discovery's attempt to hold onto that big audience for one more day.
Discovery didn't know if we'd find anything but based on previous experience they knew that TIGHAR expeditions make great television. The public loves Earhart, we do good science, we deliver vicarious adventure, and we're absolutely authentic. Obviously, we all hoped for a big, dramatic, conclusive find but we also knew that rarely happens.
At the end of the expedition all we knew is that we had not seen anything interesting in the standard definition video. I hoped, but didn't honestly expect, that something would turn up in the HD video, but just getting it processed and ready to review turned out to be a time-consuming process. It was this past Monday before the first five and a half hour batch of video reached Jeff Glickman. Jeff spotted the debris field stuff late on Tuesday. He worked on it all day on Wednesday while I matched the time-code on the video to the ROV logs to pin down where the debris is. By 04:00 Thursday morning Jeff had his initial report ready. On Thursday we worked out with Discovery how to break the news and on Friday they were able to insert it in the show (way past the supposed deadline for changes).
So there was no "showmanship" beyond the desire to present the best, most accurate show to the biggest possible audience.
Martin,
It's not a still photo.
It is a frame from the High Defintion (HD) video.
The crew on board the KoK didn't have a chance to review the 19 hours of HD video until AFTER leaving the search site.
My point is that it's a photo now and the object has been scrutinized for over a week. what is the progress and the reason for a hold-up (if it can accurately be called a hold-up at this point) in getting proper photos of actual Electra parts so a side by side analysis can be done?
... I don't know if I can post URLs here.
So: how much do you need to pay the bills and launch Niku VIII? -- Bill Warren, #3480
pardon my crude rushed artistic additions, but this is the object that I am seeing. An aluminum framework encrusted with coral
If you mean, "Why is a man whose profession is photo analysis and who works as an unpaid volunteer on behalf of TIGHAR not submitting all of his raw materials for the inspection and criticism by members of the Forum?", then you will have to ask that question of Glickman himself.marty,
yeah... no, that wasnt the nature of my question whatsoever. i think the meaning behind my queery was fairly self evident.
... my point is that it's a photo now and the object has been scrutinized for over a week. what is the progress and the reason for a hold-up (if it can accurately be called a hold-up at this point) in getting proper photos of actual Electra parts so a side by side analysis can be done?
it isn't a race it is just a search for an answer. Those answers cannot be found if the basic hypothesis has flaws.
Are pix permitted or not? (a 'yes' or 'no' question.)
Just to clarify, there are no public funds involved here; I think I understand your point - that a public appeal is made for private donations to support this effort: but the monies TIGHAR gets are from private sources, for sure. The distinction? Each donor can make a choice whether to support or not and cannot be 'taxed' into 'donating' without choice as would be the case with 'public' funds (which I could nearly read 'public donation' as meaning).
It is very hard getting old ;D
The people who visit this forum have a very wide range of expertise and I doubt that you can seriously expect anyone with scientific training and professional knowledge of areas of the research to simply swoon in a gushing worshiping heap at the persistence of TIGHAR. And I would also respectfully suggest that perhaps some of them had a fair battle to achieve what they have.
I'm guessing that means we have 2 or more debris fields.
The Landing gear with fender is what I am confident about.
The reason being that ships are not comprised solely of large chunks of iron plates and girders.
James,
Please show us the landing gear . . . I think you have found the ' smoking gun' Case closed, mystery solved ? congrads...
The reason being that ships are not comprised solely of large chunks of iron plates and girders.
Yeah Malcolm, but how many ships have Electra type landing gear? ::)
Malcolm when will the additional video footage mentioned earlier in the week be released?
I must say I find your last statement a bit of a shock that no aircraft components were seen (that will fire up the troops!), I may agree with the mixed content though. .....
Thanks Rob
In this post I asked if the extent of the Norwich City debris field is properly understood https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,913.msg18492.html#msg18492 .
The reason being that ships are not comprised solely of large chunks of iron plates and girders. There are a myriad of small parts which are tubular like pipes, davits, railing etc. and when we get to the bridge, radio room and engine room areas instruments, switches etc. Any one of these smaller objects if covered in silt and marine growth could easily mimic an aircraft component. I grant that a distinctive item like a radial engine would be easy to spot but if we are dealing with a dispersed and fragmented debris field like that which appears to result from the Norwich City then I suggest that a proper step in the search is to first define that. That photo from the kite of the debris on the reef at low tide offers clear evidence of just how varied the shapes of the wreckage fragments can be. One wonders what it is like beneath the surface on the reef slopes.
I think you have found the ' smoking gun' Case closed, mystery solved ? congrads...Shhhh... Don't tell Ric. We're gonna let him think he solved it.
:D Congrats to you, John . . . good one! :DDon't encourage him Alan. Seinfeld he ain't. ;)
Hello James, I have looked at the manipulated image you have posted...I haven't posted any images, manipulated or otherwise Malcolm.
... what we haven't had is a single image that shows a verified aircraft component.
In answer to your question about the additional video footage I have no idea, you better ask the good people at TIGHAR.
my bad - it was the 985 - fat fingered it, which i do too often.
L
my bad - it was the 985 - fat fingered it, which i do too often.
L
Does PM stand for private mail?
there are even things on a ship which looks amazingly like electra landing gear.....
The problem remains that unless there is clear data on the extent of the Norwich City debris field, and importantly what is in it, vis-à-vis that of the hypothesised debris field of the Electra then I do not think that any clear conclusions can be reached.
I think that is why TIGHAR is not planning to declare victory on the basis of photo interpretation.
If I'm not mistaken, the plan is to go pick things up on Niku VIII.
It's a kind of archaeology, except that it takes place underwater.
That is why it would be a complex archaeological undertaking if artifact recovery was considered. It would be hard enough on land - underwater in that environment would be many times more difficult.
Hey Malcolm
Yes that would be delicate work for a full recovery. In the oil fields ROVs can now do amazing tasks and preform almost to human diver standards. Machines are up to 15' to 20' in size. If the seabed is soft enough a water jet nozzle can gently excavate the silt and sand away to expose objects. Getting the piece rigged to move into some kind of lifting basket would be a challange as well. 1000' and even a little deeper is still within human saturation diving range, but not cheap. A small work class ROV and the right pilots "should" be able to rig the strut and tire for a quick snatch and grab easily in order to provide a serial number for final proof. 4 guys, 2 zodiacs, ROV system, generators, rigging, small winch, small lift bags, small compressor, lift bag whips, living supplies and it's done, LOL. Of course traveling there and back can't be cheap. And then there is always the Glomar Explorer for fine work!
Thanks Rob
Malcolm,
I tend to agree, leave any wreckage in peace.
However even if that was TIGHARS stance then unless the nation of Kiribati could station a suitable security unit on and near the island then i'm affraid someone with less morals and desire to make a quick buck will just come along and releive the island of its treasures.
That would also be fore the seven site as proof of the plane being there would make it more likely that AE/FN ended up on the island and the seven site would be just the place for souvenier (sp) hunters.
... There are more privately owned submarines nowadays as well, if someone had the money and desire to take it they could and it would end up in Vegas. ...
Okay, anybody see where in the video the grab with the objects was taken? I couldn't pick it out from the post on Youtube.
Ric has just posted a High Definition (HD) ROV video on YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cmz2m0jSUTE&feature=em-uploademail).
The note beneath it says: "This short clip demonstrates the quality of the video image recorded on the HD camera aboard the ROV during the Niku VII expedition. We were not able to view this imagery until after the expedition."
Given enough time, I'm afraid that is a very real risk, Malcolm. This is where the 'race' part comes in that has been mentioned a time or two in the past - no, we're not in a race with those who search elsewhere, but mother nature wins the race given enough time by destroying what might be left of artifacts.
It could be too late for many parts of the Electra, etc. - no doubt that is a danger.
(And my apologies, Malcolm - you might notice that I 'edited' your post above - by accident I hit 'modify' when I intended to 'quote' - but retracted my 'edit' to your post and placed it here, properly. Very sorry!)
Dr. King doesn't think, other than the engines, there is little to nothing left of the Electra. Ric and Jeff G. seem to think they have discovered a debris field, composed of 'man made objects' and this field is not part of the Norwich City's field. And of course from this debris field some members have already identified over 50% of the Electra, along with at least one of Amelia's suit cases.
If Dr. King is correct we are probably wasting time and money re searching the ocean. We should go back and 'dig' at the site that most of us think AE and FN spent their first five or six days.
However, since both ideas can't be correct, it seems that one or the other idea is quite far off base and if we follow the wrong one, it will cost us millions of dollars and atleast a couple years of looking in the wrong area.
Does any one have Julia's telphone number ?
I am afraid that in the still entirely hypothetical situation that the Electra actually landed on the reef and was washed off, then it is undeniable that it was subjected to the same prevailing current conditions as the Norwich City wreckage, and given its proximity there will be intermingling of whatever debris remains. Also, as I have pointed out before, ships like the Norwich City have a myriad of components like railing, davits, instruments, electrical circuitry, switches and control boxes that are of a size to mimic putative aircraft wreckage. The same applies to radio components - the Norwich City had one as we know.
I am afraid that in the still entirely hypothetical situation that the Electra actually landed on the reef and was washed off, then it is undeniable that it was subjected to the same prevailing current conditions as the Norwich City wreckage,
and given its proximity there will be intermingling of whatever debris remains.
Also, as I have pointed out before, ships like the Norwich City have a myriad of components like railing, davits, instruments, electrical circuitry, switches and control boxes that are of a size to mimic putative aircraft wreckage. The same applies to radio components - the Norwich City had one as we know.
Now the one certainty is that we have absolute 100% proof that the Norwich City wound up on the outer reef and then distributed parts down the outer face of the reef as wave action, tidal forces and corrosion have taken their toll. But for the Electra we have, as yet, zero proof that it ended up on the reef and then accordingly distributed parts down the outer face of the reef. But if it had then given its position and the prevailing conditions then there is more than a strong possibility that parts are intermingled.
So far, I would add, there is absolutely no evidence in the video of a single identifiable ship part, let alone that of an aircraft.
And I would go further and, with respect to those involved, say that some of the suggested identities, like radio parts, switches etc. for what appear to be simply natural features fly in the face of we know about the corrosive effects of sea water and the dynamic environment in which they are purported to lie.
Dr King himself has expressed doubt as to the survival of parts http://ameliaearhartarchaeology.blogspot.com.au/2010/12/why-i-dont-think-well-find-airplane-and.html (http://ameliaearhartarchaeology.blogspot.com.au/2010/12/why-i-dont-think-well-find-airplane-and.html) and I see no evidence in that video to doubt him.
But we come again to the essential difficulty which is that so far, as I said above, while we have demonstrable evidence of a shipwreck we have none of an aircraft.
Now searching the video might find something identifiable as man made but it is a very long way from there to demonstrating that it is an Electra part and not a part of the Norwich City or a more recent piece of jetsam.
That is why a task like ascertaining the exact parameters of the Norwich City debris field is the primary task, after that you at least can identify those parts of the outer reef slope that offer the best places to find aircraft wreckage uncontaminated by the debris of the Norwich City.
I am afraid that in the still entirely hypothetical situation that the Electra actually landed on the reef and was washed off, then it is undeniable that it was subjected to the same prevailing current conditions as the Norwich City wreckage,
True.
and given its proximity there will be intermingling of whatever debris remains.
False.Also, as I have pointed out before, ships like the Norwich City have a myriad of components like railing, davits, instruments, electrical circuitry, switches and control boxes that are of a size to mimic putative aircraft wreckage. The same applies to radio components - the Norwich City had one as we know.
Now you're an expert on both ships and airplanes.Now the one certainty is that we have absolute 100% proof that the Norwich City wound up on the outer reef and then distributed parts down the outer face of the reef as wave action, tidal forces and corrosion have taken their toll. But for the Electra we have, as yet, zero proof that it ended up on the reef and then accordingly distributed parts down the outer face of the reef. But if it had then given its position and the prevailing conditions then there is more than a strong possibility that parts are intermingled.
Is it "undeniably true" that "there will be intermingling of whatever debris remains" or is there "more than a strong possibility that parts are intermingled."? How about, "Based on what little I know, it seems to me there is a possibility that parts could have become intermingled."
So far, I would add, there is absolutely no evidence in the video of a single identifiable ship part, let alone that of an aircraft.
Opinion stated as fact. Surely somewhere in your archaeological training you were taught not to do that.And I would go further and, with respect to those involved, say that some of the suggested identities, like radio parts, switches etc. for what appear to be simply natural features fly in the face of we know about the corrosive effects of sea water and the dynamic environment in which they are purported to lie.
And what exactly do you know about the corrosive effects of sea water and the dynamic environment in which they are purported to lie?Dr King himself has expressed doubt as to the survival of parts http://ameliaearhartarchaeology.blogspot.com.au/2010/12/why-i-dont-think-well-find-airplane-and.html (http://ameliaearhartarchaeology.blogspot.com.au/2010/12/why-i-dont-think-well-find-airplane-and.html) and I see no evidence in that video to doubt him.
To my knowledge, neither you nor Tom King is schooled in photo interpretation or forensic imaging.But we come again to the essential difficulty which is that so far, as I said above, while we have demonstrable evidence of a shipwreck we have none of an aircraft.
The fact that your opinion differs from that of scientists trained in forensic imaging does not make them wrong.Now searching the video might find something identifiable as man made but it is a very long way from there to demonstrating that it is an Electra part and not a part of the Norwich City or a more recent piece of jetsam.
True.That is why a task like ascertaining the exact parameters of the Norwich City debris field is the primary task, after that you at least can identify those parts of the outer reef slope that offer the best places to find aircraft wreckage uncontaminated by the debris of the Norwich City.
And what makes you think we haven't done that?
It also recognises that TIGHAR really do not have to find all remaining Electra debris - they need only find one artifact that can be given absolute provenance linking it to Earhart's Electra and you case is proven.
QuoteIt also recognises that TIGHAR really do not have to find all remaining Electra debris - they need only find one artifact that can be given absolute provenance linking it to Earhart's Electra and you case is proven.
The most likeliest identifiable parts Malcolm will have numbers stamped into them, part numbers, assembly numbers, inspection numbers etc.. These are not applied to every part on an aircraft, only the significant parts and, ones which are 'servicables' that can be removed, repaired and swapped onto other aircraft of the same type/model/years. Good examples would be engines, engine mounts (New Britain?) and landing gear but, they all tend to be the heavier parts of the aircraft so would prefer to sink down the seamount as opposed to be washed along it. The lighter stuff may well get mixed up in the Norwich City debris though, wouldn't be surprised.
IMHO of course
Malcolm, I had the same concerns as you, and I think you have expressed the "overlap question" well. Ric said the the two fields don't overlap a couple pages back, I believe he has stated it a few times over the last weeks, and also said that the NC wreckage was mapped in direct response to you.
He seems confident the debris fields don't overlap.
Therefore anything found, and subsequently recovered, should be a unique artifact not related to the NC.
Combine such a gentler descent with the low oxygen content at depth and the consequent retardation of corrosion and there is a possibility that the wreck could be in better condition.
QuoteCombine such a gentler descent with the low oxygen content at depth and the consequent retardation of corrosion and there is a possibility that the wreck could be in better condition.
Malcolm, oxygen is needed for aluminium to build up an aluminium oxide layer which is what prevents further corrosion. This is one of the factors in preserving the tourists blue lagoon aircraft wrecks, they are close enough to the surface for oxygen to react and create the aluminium oxide layer needed to protect the aluminium.
This technical paper will clear up any further misunderstandings...
http://www.sheetpileeurope.com/uploads/CMI%20technische%20documenten%20(engels)/aluminum_corrosion.pdf (http://www.sheetpileeurope.com/uploads/CMI%20technische%20documenten%20(engels)/aluminum_corrosion.pdf)
Dave the problem is that the Norwich City wreck and debris field is known to exist. The debris field of the Electra is purely hypothetical as it has not been established that the aircraft landed on the reef or, to put it bluntly, anywhere near Nikumaroro. Therefore with respect it is a logical fallacy to say with certainty that an existing debris field is not overlapped by a purely hypothetical debris field. :) . Accordingly I would submit, with respect, that my question remains unanswered.
Malcolm, oxygen is needed for aluminium to build up an aluminium oxide layer which is what prevents further corrosion. This is one of the factors in preserving the tourists blue lagoon aircraft wrecks, they are close enough to the surface for oxygen to react and create the aluminium oxide layer needed to protect the aluminium.
Malcolm is correct in stating that the Electra debris field has not been established and, therefore, it is impossible to state that it does not overlap with that of the Norwich City. I think the point that Ric has been trying to make is that there is a second debris field which IS separate from the first, which is the known debris from the Norwich City. The key question to be answered is what is the source of the second debris field? Is it the Electra? Some other aircraft? General debris tossed into the ocean by the colonists to dispose of it? A portion of the Norwich City which somehow broke off and floated against the prevailing currents until it broke up and sunk there? All that can be stated is that there are two distinct debris fields that do not appear to overlap. One has a known source, the other does not. Until the second area is identified as to its source and both are thouroughly examined and mapped it is impossible to state 100 percent what is there. LTM- John
Malcolm is correct in stating that the Electra debris field has not been established and, therefore, it is impossible to state that it does not overlap with that of the Norwich City. I think the point that Ric has been trying to make is that there is a second debris field which IS separate from the first, which is the known debris from the Norwich City. The key question to be answered is what is the source of the second debris field? Is it the Electra? Some other aircraft? General debris tossed into the ocean by the colonists to dispose of it? A portion of the Norwich City which somehow broke off and floated against the prevailing currents until it broke up and sunk there? All that can be stated is that there are two distinct debris fields that do not appear to overlap. One has a known source, the other does not. Until the second area is identified as to its source and both are thouroughly examined and mapped it is impossible to state 100 percent what is there. LTM- John
Hello John - you may well be right but I have yet to see that this putative second debris field defined and my original point remains that you cannot argue that an unknown field is free of contamination from a known one. Otherwise the unknown field is by definition known and that hasn't been shown.
Dave the problem is that the Norwich City wreck and debris field is known to exist. The debris field of the Electra is purely hypothetical as it has not been established that the aircraft landed on the reef or, to put it bluntly, anywhere near Nikumaroro. Therefore with respect it is a logical fallacy to say with certainty that an existing debris field is not overlapped by a purely hypothetical debris field. :) . Accordingly I would submit, with respect, that my question remains unanswered.
Pictures of Norwich City debris were taken in one location.
The pictures under consideration were taken somewhere else.
These are observations.
They are "facts."
In other words, your question has been answered already, and you keep reposting it as if it hadn't been answered.
What is in the second area is not known, and won't be known, until after Niku VIII.
Man made object's have been found, By Jeff G and Tighar. They are currently identifying these objects And in Due time the research paper will be released.
In other words if people wish to claim that my assessment of the current film is wrong and my assessment of the field contamination argument is wrong then show me the evidence that contradicts me.
Do you think, Your that important that Tighar should concentrate on convincing YOU.
Sorry But Tighar at present, Have more important thing's to deal with than Turning you into a believer :)
Dr Moleski - in that second video there is no identified debris as yet.
Now by any logical standards for the use of current data it cannot therefore be referred to as a debris field.
If at some time in the future something man made is positively identified then the next part of the process is to determine what it is, then if it is an aircraft part you must show that it is from the Electra, if you do that there is absolutely no need for another trip.
Nothing so far has been identified positively as alien to the natural sea bed material - organic or otherwise.
In other words if people wish to claim that my assessment of the current film is wrong and my assessment of the field contamination argument is wrong then show me the evidence that contradicts me.
I can't show you the evidence, because it can't be obtained from looking at the pictures. I think someone will have to go back to Niku and examine the area where the pictures under consideration were taken. TIGHAR might be able to do it. They have some experience in doing underwater exploration of the Pacific atolls. If and when they go take a closer look, there may be evidence that will verify or falsify your opinion. Until then, it seems to be that it is an open question what the pictures under consideration show, if anything.
Dr Moleski - in that second video there is no identified debris as yet.
Yes. That is why I spoke in terms of the "pictures under consideration."
Pictures of Norwich City debris were taken in one location.
The "pictures under consideration" were in a different location.QuoteNow by any logical standards for the use of current data it cannot therefore be referred to as a debris field.
We won't know whether it is aircraft debris until after Niku VIII. I'm pretty sure I've mentioned this thought to at least twice before.QuoteIf at some time in the future something man made is positively identified then the next part of the process is to determine what it is, then if it is an aircraft part you must show that it is from the Electra, if you do that there is absolutely no need for another trip.
You have more faith in photographic analysis than I do.
I think TIGHAR will not know for sure what is in the photographs under consideration until after Niku VIII.QuoteNothing so far has been identified positively as alien to the natural sea bed material - organic or otherwise.
We are in complete agreement. I think the only way to find out what it is is by observation. Observations cannot be made from the comfort of one's own home. The place to make the observations is in and near the location where the pictures under consideration were taken. That is why I recommend that TIGHAR undertake another expedition to the island. I should think they might call it Niku VIII.QuoteIn other words if people wish to claim that my assessment of the current film is wrong and my assessment of the field contamination argument is wrong then show me the evidence that contradicts me.
I can't show you the evidence, because it can't be obtained from looking at the pictures. I think someone will have to go back to Niku and examine the area where the pictures under consideration were taken. TIGHAR might be able to do it. They have some experience in doing underwater exploration of the Pacific atolls. If and when they go take a closer look, there may be evidence that will verify or falsify your opinion. Until then, it seems to be that it is an open question what the pictures under consideration show, if anything.
Well I agree with you that I can't see anything man made in the video, but how can we then say it is a video of a debris field.
Not speaking for Malcolm,Well I agree with you that I can't see anything man made in the video, but how can we then say it is a video of a debris field.
I don't say that. I say that to find out what was photographed in that location will take another expedition--one designed to examine the location using methods not available on Niku VII.
I note that the subject of this thread is "Debris Field Found?" It has a question mark in it. That means it is a question. I think the question might be answered by making new observations in and near the region where the pictures of interest were taken.
I would think that the ships radio equipment could not have survived in the condition in which possible radio equipment in the debris field is being observed.
Rob
Well I agree with you that I can't see anything man made in the video, but how can we then say it is a video of a debris field.
I don't say that. I say that to find out what was photographed in that location will take another expedition--one designed to examine the location using methods not available on Niku VII.
I note that the subject of this thread is "Debris Field Found?" It has a question mark in it. That means it is a question. I think the question might be answered by making new observations in and near the region where the pictures of interest were taken.
Is there a question mark in the mind of you, Ric, and Tighar? The breaking news link that started this thread has no question mark. It says Debris field found. No question mark.
And I agree with you - in fact that would be the obvious option if there are anomalies in that video that can be shown with certainty to be outside of the variations that one would expect from coral chunks, sand, fish or marine growth.
It is amazing how your minds eye can cheat itself into believing something is there that may not be. I found this picture in a link on the Arno Atoll. Does anyone see a face or skull in the circle?why stop there? how about the two legs, left arm, and withered right arm!
It is amazing how your minds eye can cheat itself into believing something is there that may not be. I found this picture in a link on the Arno Atoll. Does anyone see a face or skull in the circle?
Holy cow, Bob - that's FN's skull! I can tell by the dent in the cranium... ;D
LTM -
In 1996 we went to that spot and found the water collection device.
Where can I find a picture of that device?
Some good points raised by Malcolm and John. The exact location of the second debris field, the one in the HD video, is naturally not being disclosed. However on reading Rics report it gives you some idea of the terrain...
Multi-beam sonar maps of the underwater topography off the west end of Nikumaroro made during the Niku VII expedition show it to be a series of near-vertical cliffs interspersed in places with occasional shelves or moderations in the reef slope. Level sea floor is not reached until 40 kilometers (24 miles) offshore at a depth of 6,000 meters (nearly 20,000 feet). To make matters worse, we found large sections of the reef slope to be unstable and subject to frequent underwater landslides that could easily bury pieces of aircraft wreckage.
The ROV used during the Niku VII expedition had a maximum depth of about 850 meters (2,800 feet) so, in effect, we were looking for debris from the aircraft that came to rest on a shelf or moderate slope between cliffs and did not get covered by coral landslides that, naturally, tend to accumulate on shelves and moderate slopes. The debris field identified by Jeff Glickman is on a moderate slope near the base of a cliff amid apparent coral debris from landslides. For obvious security reasons, we’re not releasing the exact location and depth of the debris field.
http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/63_DebrisField/63_DebrisField.htm (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/63_DebrisField/63_DebrisField.htm)