TIGHAR
Amelia Earhart Search Forum => Join the search => Topic started by: don hirth on September 28, 2012, 05:08:31 PM
-
Hello, again, fellow 'forumers', It's been a while since my last post, however I visit the site daily.
I pose a question which may still be unanswerable, namely the approximate percentage of
video that has been thoroughly 'worked' and therefore relegated to the 'complete' bin. I wonder
if this is in the vicinity of 10%, 20% 30% or whatever. I've no doubt that to analyze properly,
sufficient time are the operative words but it would be great to publicize this figure and also to
mention the specific areas/depths currently 'complete' and their counterparts in the incomplete
area. BTW, the organization and the forum are still important. Perhaps some of the nit-picking
and bruised egos can be eliminated.
-
Don, I do feel that a lot of work is going on behind the scenes regarding the footage. Bearing in mind that whatever the debris field was, it has been there a number of years and, as you have probably noticed, it has seen better days. That said, there's a lot to be positive about regarding the last expedition. The location of the debris is now known, the quality and quantity of the footage is excellent and, it is where something was theorised to be. The only negatives? Time is against whatever the debris was and $$$. We can fix the $$$ (eventually), but time?
-
Don, I also have taken some "time off" from posting, and like you, I do still visit from time to time. I would say that there IS alot going on behind the scenes that we arent privey to. And thats ok. I'm sure Ric will have something to tell us soon.
Tom
-
New research bulletin - Update Debris Field Analysis (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/65_DebrisFieldAnalysis/65_DebrisFieldAnalysis.html) - is now up on the TIGHAR website.
-
Great news Ric.
Keep the good stuff coming!!
-
Couple off shots of the NC that i've not seen before. Fantastic, thanks Ric. Will have to read and re read a few times for it to sink in, waiting for the 'informed' debate ;)
-
Jeff N,
My simplified take on the NC debris is that it is 'down stream' of the new debris field. I believe this means that the majority of wreckage will be moving down towards the LORAN station end of the island. Lighter material would therefore have a greater chance of moving in that direction. Also I remember Ric gave an approximate distance between the two fields in a post reply to a statement by GLP to do with the fields being close by and possibly merged.
I'm sure Ric will be more than happy to give the official (less waffle, more fact) version ;D
-
I'm sure Ric will be more than happy to give the official (less waffle, more fact) version ;D
Yes, more than happy, but at the moment I'm preparing for the annular TIGHAR board of directors meeting this weekend at which we'll be addressing the question on everyone's mind - What is next for the Earhart Project? Stay tuned.
-
Jeff,
just to clarify when i said I didn't realize 'toward the Loran Station' was a part of that 'equation'
is was meaning in the general direction, i doubt that for one moment debris from the NC goes that far.
I'd probably agree that 100% is a bit of a bold statement as a good storm could chuck debris in any direction. However there does appear to be little wreckage from the NC north of its position so it could be a close call to 100%
-
Yes, I do understand that the prevailing currents, sea action and storms all suggest a predominately southwesterly flow;
The interesting thing about the currents is that, while on the surface they predominately flow from Northwest to Southeast (their strength being a function of the tidal phase, wind direction and strength), at depth they appeared to flow in the opposite direction (to the North). Therefore, I am sympathetic to Mr. Nevill's idea that the possibility exists that lighter materials from the shipwreck could, in fact, have been transported from the shipwreck to the North. However if this were the case, I find it much less likely that such materials would all have ended up in close proximity to one another in a "debris field".
-
Great images in the update. Most spectacular? The AUV rescue snail trail image. Just take a look at the angle of the side of the seamount, the spurs and grooves. Not a very hospitable environment at all, even worse than I imagined. Full marks for getting all the kit back in one piece. Great image of the Norwich City wreckage on the reef face as well, it looks heavy, robust and, still holding together unlike the debris field below the Nessie object area.
Great work.
-
The interesting thing about the currents is that, while on the surface they predominately flow from Northwest to Southeast (their strength being a function of the tidal phase, wind direction and strength), at depth they appeared to flow in the opposite direction (to the North).
Tim, please help me to see this conclusion about the flow "at depth." I'm not seeing how they appear to flow "in the opposite direction."
-
Bruce, it's just that I was there, watching the ROV camera in real time as it moved along the slope; particles of dead plankton were falling like snow, and the direction they fell slanted to the North, as snow flakes would be blown by the wind. For Wolfgang, the "pilot" of the ROV, it meant dealing with either a "headwind" or "tailwind", depending upon whether he was travelling South or North.
-
I noticed that in the first video footage from 2010 Tim. It looked as though it was snowing a lot of the time, dead plankton, calcium carbonate particles etc.. Worse when the ROV thrusters kicked up a storm of the stuff. 70+ years of this stuff raining down on the debris?
-
Logicaly if there is a reverse current then the debries field would also show movement Northward?
-
I am grateful to Jeff Nevill, because his last 3 posts have expressed my own thoughts almost perfectly. Thus, instead of me having to write a long post, and the forum having to read it, I can just say, "Right on, Jeff!". :)
Also I am always grateful to see photos of our 26th President, no matter what the occasion. Bully!
-
Logicaly if there is a reverse current then the debries field would also show movement Northward?
As Tim said, the northward current only occurs at depth. We first noticed it at around 800 feet. Therefore the northward current is only going to act on objects that have sunk to that depth and are still suspended in the water column or are so light that they can be moved along the bottom by the current.
Although we're not releasing specific depth information about the debris field behind Nessie, I will say that it is shallower than 800 feet. So, for the debris field behind Nessie to be something from Norwich City it had to either travel northward on the surface for a quarter mile against the current or sink to at least 800 feet before being carried northward by the deep current and then somehow ascend to rest at a shallower depth.
-
Question for Ric:
Is it possible to translate the entire 2 minute debris field HD video into the black-and-white format, without loosing any definition? One can see quite a bit more when motion is introduced, because of the three-dimensional flavor.
-
Is it possible to translate the entire 2 minute debris field HD video into the black-and-white format, without loosing any definition? One can see quite a bit more when motion is introduced, because of the three-dimensional flavor.
Good idea. Thanks. I'll ask Mark (TIGHAR cameraman and video guru Mark Smith) and also check with Jeff Glickman.
-
Ric, I noticed that there were a few more photo's of the wreck of the SS Norwich City in Eric Bevingtons album from your video 'A new copy of the Bevington photo'. Did any of these show any anomalies in the background as well, or is it just the one photograph that has the 'Nessie' anomaly?
-
Ric, I noticed that there were a few more photo's of the wreck of the SS Norwich City in Eric Bevingtons album from your video 'A new copy of the Bevington photo'. Did any of these show any anomalies in the background as well, or is it just the one photograph that has the 'Nessie' anomaly?
Unfortunately all of Bevington's other photos of the shipwreck were taken from directly astern and don't show the reef far enough north to include Nessie. Bevington took dozens of photos during his visit. Jeff Glickman has examined them all for anything that might be of use.
-
Can the ROV have high definition on the live feed on the next expedition? Also black and white, in stills taken periodically
-
Can the ROV have high definition on the live feed on the next expedition? Also black and white, in stills taken periodically
That technology is certainly available. We haven't yet decided what technology we want to deploy.
-
possible bare aluminum caught by light of rover
-
Hey everyone. After sitting back an thinking for a while about all of this, it seems that some very interesting things have popped into my head. The first is the ROV tracks graph is very interesting. Not necessarily the actual tracks, but the slope of the underwater terrain. Looks to me like an underwater Napali Coastline from Kauai, Hawaii, except ALOT higher! Also, the Lat/Long indicators can give us a good sense of location, but not depth (how do you do that?). Ric stated that the depth was classified, but shallower that 800 feet. So---I take it that if there is any Electra debris, is between ledges on the slope. Seems they went to 2800+- feet (?) and worked their way back towards the surface. So between 150 and 800, OR below 2800. We see some things in the HD footage the 'resemble' aircraft parts, so perhaps actually seeing these items in person would not be out of the question. Ric---if you're listening---Get Pat to get you a submirsible!
Tom
-
I know someone whose got a Diving Bell (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,895.0.html) ;D
-
Ric---if you're listening---Get Pat to get you a submirsible!
Tom
I may be asking a very stupid question here, but has TIGHAR ever asked James Cameron for assistance with transportation and equipment? Seems in many ways to be the most obvious person in the world to team up with.
-
I may be asking a very stupid question here, but has TIGHAR ever asked James Cameron for assistance with transportation and equipment? Seems in many ways to be the most obvious person in the world to team up with.
No, we haven't asked. Anybody have his email address?
-
Hello, i seem to remember in a book I read, the navy lending dr.ballard a tiny sub if he would take extended time first searching for a missing navy submarine. A trade off of sorts. Sounds like a rumor,as I cannot imagine the navy lending their equipment but it might be worth inquiring about.
-
Tom H
you are correct
In the summer of 1985, Ballard was aboard the French research ship Le Suroît, which was using the side scan sonar SAR to search for Titanic's wreck. When the French ship was recalled, Ballard transferred onto a ship from Woods Hole, the R/V Knorr. Unbeknownst to some, this trip was financed by the U.S. Navy for secret reconnaissance of the wreckage of two Navy nuclear powered attack submarines, the USS Scorpion and the USS Thresher, which sank in the 1960s, and not for Titanic. Back in 1982, Ballard approached the Navy about his new deep sea underwater robot craft, the Argo, and his search for Titanic.[4] The Navy was not interested in financing the search for the large ocean liner. However, they were interested in finding out what happened to their missing submarines and ultimately concluded that Argo was their best chance to do so.[4] The Navy agreed it would finance Ballard's Titanic search only if he first searched for and investigated the two sunken submarines,
From Mr Ballards Wikipedia entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Ballard#RMS_Titanic) (the font of all knowledge and truth but this one i've seen mentioned elsewhere)
-
Having the US Navy pick up the tab, that's the way to go. Hey Rick how many attack submarines would you guess sank off the coast of Niku?
LTM,
Don
-
Having the US Navy pick up the tab, that's the way to go.
That, Don, would be an interesting "historic" scenario. The order to investigate a plan to locate AE's aircraft off Niku. Isl. comes across my CINCPAC desk. I pass it to that Ensign who failed to read the uniform of the day posting last week. He, zippideezip, gets back to me that the word in the archives is that AE crashed and sank in 17,000 feet of Pacific Ocean near Howland Isl. Deja Vu all over again. JGF
-
Earlier this year we made a request through the State Dept. for USN support. They turned us down.
-
Couple off shots of the NC that i've not seen before. Fantastic, thanks Ric. Will have to read and re read a few times for it to sink in, waiting for the 'informed' debate ;)
I love the old photos of the wreck,
But may I ask chris what you are reading and re reading? Is there a formal written report stating measurments of objects and analysis of objects on the slope I am missing or are you talking about the short question and answers of Dr.Glickman? I dont want to miss anything.
-
Is there a formal written report stating measurments of objects and analysis of objects on the slope I am missing or are you talking about the short question and answers of Dr.Glickman? I dont want to miss anything.
No formal report yet. There is lots more analysis that must be done before we'll have formal reports stating measurements and analysis of objects
-
Couple off shots of the NC that i've not seen before. Fantastic, thanks Ric. Will have to read and re read a few times for it to sink in, waiting for the 'informed' debate ;)
I love the old photos of the wreck,
But may I ask chris what you are reading and re reading? Is there a formal written report stating measurments of objects and analysis of objects on the slope I am missing or are you talking about the short question and answers of Dr.Glickman? I dont want to miss anything.
Tom,
its the way my mind learns, read and re read till it sinks in, thats all :)
sorry forgot to say, the new bulleten and the Bevington object one.
-
Hi All
In attached images, Object A is speculated to be part of Electra landing gear along with surrounding debris.
My Question is were would object B, be located around landing gear area if that is what we are looking at ?
Both object's appear man made.
Any input welcomed :)
-
Re: Conroy's 'A' and 'B'. IMHO, the 'lengthy' metallic looking item is not natural. Item B appears to be non-natural, as well due to different texture, coloration and comparitively 'smooth' perimeter edge. My assumption is that there was no 'distance recording' technology on either
submersible. e.g. 8', 10', etc. etc.
-
My Question is were would object B, be located around landing gear area if that is what we are looking at ?
I'm afraid I don't have an answer to that. I'm somewhat handicapped in analyzing these images because I spent so many hours in the ROV "cockpit" looking at the reef slope in real time. After "finding" a part of the aircraft a few thousand times only to have it, on closer inspection, turn out to be just some funny looking coral - I've become pretty jaded. I have great respect for Jeff Glickman's expertise, but I'm a hard sell on the underwater imagery. Personally, I think Richie's "A" may be manmade. I'm less confident about the other stuff but I'm willing to be convinced if we can make a reasonable correlation between a thing underwater and some part of the airplane.
-
My assumption is that there was no 'distance recording' technology on either
submersible. e.g. 8', 10', etc. etc.
When we wanted to check the size of something we swam up to it and extended Esmerelda's manipulator arm. Her claw could be opened six inches so we opened her claw and held it up to the thing we wanted to measure. Of course, to that we had to notice what we wanted to measure while we were there.
-
Ric, are there a few items that you held to claw up to you can share so as to give a clue as to the scale of things down there? Preferably in the HD photos that have been released so far.
-
Ric, are there a few items that you held to claw up to you can share so as to give a clue as to the scale of things down there? Preferably in the HD photos that have been released so far.
I don't have time to do that right now and it wouldn't help anyone gauge the size of objects in the debris field anyway.
-
Hi all, I've been working on matching up the wreckage depicted in the Niku VII "Debris Field" video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EPds8vvYCoU&feature=plcp) with the 2010 Niku VI "Wire & Rope" video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tvHm3jZcME&feature=plcp), and so far have come up empty. However, my gut keeps telling me the area at the tail end of the "Debris Field" video is the same "neighborhood" because of what appear to be bigger pieces of structural wreckage, but probably either slightly further north and/or deeper because we can't see any rope.
Anyway, in scouring the "Debris Field" video, in the final seconds I'm seeing what appears to be a rectangular box-shaped object with a control panel on one end. I looked at every image of NR16020 flight deck and radio equipment I could find for a match and came up empty. Then in Mike Everette's research paper "NR16020 Radios: Technical Analysis" (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/ResearchPapers/ElectraRadios/ElectraRadios.htm) I noted the open question about whether a separate direction finding (DF) receiver was installed; if so likely the Bendix RA-1. I did a web search on RA-1 equipment and was intrigued with what I found.
Attached find a snapshot from the "Debris Field" video at the 2:00 minute point, and an image of the Bendix RA-1 receiver box (http://aafradio.org/flightdeck/bendix1.htm) and link to exerpts from the Bendix RA-1B manual (http://aafradio.org/docs/RA-1B.html) courtesy of the AAFRadio website (http://aafradio.org/). I believe the comparison is quite interesting and worthy of further study. What do you think?
-
Interesting John. What are you suggesting the orientation of the debris field object is lying in? Is the snapshot from the standard or HD clip?
-
Interesting John. What are you suggesting the orientation of the debris field object is lying in? Is the snapshot from the standard or HD clip?
Irv, thanks for your reply. I believe the ROV is generally running north to south along the reef slope with some maneuvering to position the camera aperture. I believe the "radio box" is faced almost perpendicular to the reef slope (facing west), and pointed somewhat downward. The ROV is headed south-southwest; the "box" is the ROV's 11 o'clock. We see a front quarter view of the box; the control panel is on the right.
The snapshot is from the HD video - the very end of the two-minute clip.
-
I noted the open question about whether a separate direction finding (DF) receiver was installed; if so likely the Bendix RA-1. I did a web search on RA-1 equipment and was intrigued with what I found.
I'm about as far as one can get from being a radio expert, but I think the current consensus is that there was not a complete separate receiver for DF installed; the DF function was accomplished via a DF Loop Coupler as shown in this post (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,770.msg15510.html#msg15510) and others near it in that thread. The Loop Coupler connected the loop antenna to the main–and only–receiver, the Western Electric 20B. The Coupler was an experimental unit produced in the Radio Research labs in Washington during the short time after that company's acquisition by Bendix and before manufacturing operations were moved to Baltimore. Because experimental, no company literature or photos are known to survive (people have looked). Its location in the Electra during the final flight is not a certainty, but there are photos showing it mounted back in the main cabin, on the starboard side, on top of the tall fuel tank. Others should jump in and correct the above if I have mis-stated something.
-
. . .I think the current consensus is that there was not a complete separate receiver for DF installed; the DF function was accomplished via a DF Loop Coupler as shown in this post (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,770.msg15510.html#msg15510) and others near it in that thread. . .
Thanks Alan - very interesting reading. Clearly many hours of brain power have been spent on receiver vs. coupler! On that topic it bugs me that Joe Gurr or whomever would have thought that a coupler was the answer - feeding the W-20B with two (or maybe three - upper, lower and the DF loop) antennas significantly reduces the signal to noise ratio in the receiver. So many factors conspiring against Amelia in the radio department!
That said, I'm still intrigued by what appears to be a 3-dimensional rectangular box in the video. Have a look as the "box" slides into view at about 1:34 - not a huge amount of paralax to judge from, but doesn't seem to be an optical illusion formed at a single point in time. It really looks like a 3-dimensional box with the right front corner oriented towards the ROV camera.
Cheers, John
-
Some of the 'objects'? that appear in the 2010 footage also make an appearance in the latest HD footage, if a little worse for wear, naturally. I posted some images earlier but, I have lots more I will put up later.
-
Re; 'Bendix' photo.......Definately NOT a normal, natural configuration, to my eye! A brief scan of the surrounding area reenforces this conclusion. Weigh in, guys.
-
Attached find a snapshot from the "Debris Field" video at the 2:00 minute point, and an image of the Bendix RA-1 receiver box (http://aafradio.org/flightdeck/bendix1.htm) and link to exerpts from the Bendix RA-1B manual (http://aafradio.org/docs/RA-1B.html) courtesy of the AAFRadio website (http://aafradio.org/). I believe the comparison is quite interesting and worthy of further study. What do you think?
Here's a closer look at the object under discussion. It's a few frames after the 2 minute video on the website ends.
-
Oh Lord. Thanks Ric - that is a revelation. :-[
-
Oh Lord. Thanks Ric - that is a revelation. :-[
This is the kind of thing that happened to us out there many times on each dive. An OMG moment followed by an Oh Lord moment.
-
I just read with great interest the new article "What's Next for TIGHAR?" (http://tighar.org/whatsnext.html) which includes some thoughts on the planned Niku VIII expedition.
Looks like a good approach for considering how to form that effort up depending on how the analysis of this video goes and with consideration to other searches (like land as well).
Good to see - thanks TIGHAR.
What is interesting in the article is the mention of sport/commercil divers! Is the Debries field at a level that can be dived i wonder?
-
I think the big clue about depth is that there is a lot of natural light in the video. With depth comes darkness and the need for manmade light. Also the fact that Ric is suggesting divers means the debris field is higher than lower on the reef slope. Im sure some smart diver type out there can say what the depth is for scuba without getting into exotic gas mixtures, depressurization tanks or diving suits like the spyder shown on another thread. These are likely not what Ric is talking about if the question is around commercial divers vs volunteers. Im not trying to guess the depth myself but the video shows the amount of natural sunlight and Ric's statements aren't exactly designed to keep the actual depth a big secret. The graphic images of the ROV passes on this forum, would show anyone where to look.
-
If you take a look at the non-high resolution/comparison video on the youtube Tighar channel it has the depth and orientation displays in real time. This was the camera used for real time navigation of the ROV as opposed to the HD camera on the ROV.
-
Ouch. I thought the depth of the field was supposed to be a secret? Seems like all the info is available to mark the spot with an "X".
-
SSSSSHHHHH!!!!
Don't tell everyone Irv ;)
-
Me bad!!
I think the "X" actually lies over Times Square in New York. (That should throw them off!)
-
There were many ROV dives and each dive spanned many depths. What makes you think the Standard Definition image that includes depth information is from the same dive or is anywhere near the debris field? As for the question of what sort of divers we might use to investigate targets seen in the HD video, don't assume we're talking about the targets we've released publicly. If we had targets at amateur scuba depth, how dumb would we have to be to release that information?
-
I seem to remember ric or someone saying the majority of the debris was around 800 feet. That is beyond amateur divers by a good bit. Pada recognizes 120 ft as the limit of regular amateur divers.
At 800 ft. You are talking recovery with mixed gases,rov claw, submersible, or one of the many ads suits. A lot of oil pipeline deep repair is now done with ads as it allows human objectivety in what to pull and how hard without damaging other areas. Also there is unlimited vertical movement and none of the issues with exotic gasses. Now that the rov has located the field I would lease a newt suit for examination and retrieval.
Of course a guy with a rope and grappling hook could mess things up as was previously pointed out.
-
Ric
On the map of objects found was number 22, object unknown a auv target that yous didn't get too see ? or were unable to identify it ?
Thanks Richie
-
Whats on the bottom--beyond 3200 feet?
-
Whats on the bottom--beyond 3200 feet?
From the charts that were available on the bridge of the K-O-K, the ocean floor in a wide area around Nikumaroro was at a depth in excess of 2500 fathoms (15000 feet). The island itself appeared to slope off in all directions at a reasonably consistent slope, equivalent to what you see in the HD videos. So what's on the bottom is probably volcanic material until you reach the level sea floor.
-
Thats right Tim, but they werent able to seach from 3200 to 15000. MAYBE its there.
-
:) IMHO, not.
-
Tim-I see several possibilities. IF there is wreckage:
A) its between the surf line and 800 feet, possibly under coral, boulders etc;
B) its between 3200 and the bottom-since the ROV passes between 800 and 3200 didnt identify targets, or
C) not there at all.
There are images in the video that show some things, but still inconclusive (?). Any other possibilities?
-
Tim-I see several possibilities. IF there is wreckage:
A) its between the surf line and 800 feet, possibly under coral, boulders etc;
B) its between 3200 and the bottom-since the ROV passes between 800 and 3200 didnt identify targets, or
C) not there at all.
There are images in the video that show some things, but still inconclusive (?). Any other possibilities?
Yes - still lots of rocks to turn over.
I'm still having trouble with this footage - just not seeing what others are seeing here other than one crusty shape that does resemble a fender; intriguing I'll grant you, plus I am certainly not an expert - but I just can't see all the 'man made' features I keep hearing about.
If this is worth going after it apparently is going to have to be on the word of the experts. I could 'see' more in the Bevington photo, for sure - and maybe that's not a fair comparison, but this one's pretty tough to be frank. The more I look, the more kelp and rock I see. I'd love to be proven wrong.
-
If this is worth going after it apparently is going to have to be on the word of the experts. I could 'see' more in the Bevington photo, for sure - and maybe that's not a fair comparison, but this one's pretty tough to be frank. The more I look, the more kelp and rock I see. I'd love to be proven wrong.
I'm pretty much where Jeff is on this. I'm going to have to be a lot more sure than I am now that we have something worth going after before I'll be willing to commit major assets to retrieving it.
-
-since the ROV passes between 800 and 3200 didnt identify targets, .... Any other possibilities?
The ROV spent most of its time above 800 feet, so I don't feel this precludes there being material between 800 feet and somewhat deeper. But I really don't think anything could have slid down to the ocean floor.
-
Am I misreading the tone or has things went bleak?
Everyone was so happy over this debris field and now Ric is not even sure there is anything worth going after?
What changed in the last couple of weeks?
The 2011 underwater cameras went to what 900ft? And nothing was found.
Now this new bigger dollar search was supposed to go beyond 300 meters and wider and a debris field is finally found by Dr Glickman despite it looking like just coral.
So two underwater rov searches and the debris field is no longer promising, is that what I am reading?
-
Tom Howard, Many "mixed" signals! It certainly LOOKS like things have gone bleak. Regardless of who's money is being spent (wasted) the tail is wagging the dog. The last effort would have been better served if it had been delayed until 2013 - 2014 and INCLUDING the proper
equipment and planning to RETRIEVE items. Even though in my time on this forum and few posts,
I've always believed that A.E. landed and perished on Niku, I firmly also believe that further
expeditions will be extremely difficult to occur, donations wise. The dead horse has been sufficiently beaten. I'm sure no one will mourn my loss but I will leave this forum, permanently. It's been great, at times but enough is enough.
-
Suppositions of bleakness are 180° out. Don't read my recent expressions of caution as anything more than an honest desire to communicate my own healthy skepticism. I'm not saying we don't have a debris field. I'm only saying that I'm going to need to see more than I've seen so far before I'll be willing to commit major asset to checking it out. To do otherwise would be irresponsible.
-
When watching the video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EPds8vvYCoU&feature=em-uploademail), remember to click on the 1080 definition option first so you can see more clearly. (it's the little gear icon that says change quality) The video is in 360 otherwise(at least on my computer)
In addition to what I think is the landing gear(Bevington object) in the original still image annotated with arrows, I see alot of things that I would like to look at closer but do not have the software to pull stills out of the video.
It may help if some of the bettter in-focus images are pulled out as a still, in hi def.,one for every 5 or 10 seconds or so, and posted. In black and white.
Here are my top 5 still request and what I see in them that I want to zoom in on to look closer.
:39 cut-open section with exposed tank at bottom right
:48 small cylinder w/ circular label or ring in middle at upper left
1:20 possible center post to landing gear strut at bottom center(really a few good ones from 1:18 to 1:21)
1:30 mass with flat panels and possible levers at center
1:49-1:57 flat horizontal shape with big shadow under it at top center
-
"I'm pretty much where Jeff is on this. I'm going to have to be a lot more sure than I am now that we have something worth going after before I'll be willing to commit major assets to retrieving it."
Hi Ric and all! I've been following Tighar for several months and have finally registered for the forum. Ric, I've a question: If you feel there's an 80% chance that debris you've located is related to the Bevington object, and if you feel there's an 80% chance that the Bevington object is related to an Electra, why isn't this enough to "commit major assets?" I appreciate your caution, but if I had the means, I'd be chartering a boat and buying sunscreen right about now... This is all very exciting stuff; keep up the great work!
-
Let's step back for a minute. Niku VII was our tenth trip to the island. After each trip it has taken us months, often years, to figure out what we learned. This trip is no different. Initially this one looked like a bust (we've had them before). Now it looks like we might have found what we were looking for - but we have to remain skeptical until we know more. We release the information we have as we get it. The picture always changes as new research results come in. Sometimes an artifact that looked promising gets shot down - usually by us. Sometimes, the closer we look, the better it looks. But it takes time and perseverance. People get impatient. They forget the long string of successes that brought us to this point in the investigation.
They say, "You said you were going to find the Earhart airplane. So show it to us." Well, no. That's not what we said. We said we were going to go look for the plane in the place where the available evidence suggests we should look. That's what we did. Now we have to figure out what we learned.
Meanwhile, there are many avenues of investigation that need further work. The Bevington Photo is a good example of a "sleeper" - something we've had for a long time but never realized it's importance. We're currently compiling a long list of topics that need attention. When it's done we'll put it out to the forum and ask for volunteers who will "champion," that is, lead the research effort on a particular topic. The forum is a powerful research tool. We want to use to its full potential.
-
If you feel there's an 80% chance that debris you've located is related to the Bevington object, and if you feel there's an 80% chance that the Bevington object is related to an Electra, why isn't this enough to "commit major assets?"
Welcome to the forum Mr. or Ms. Wallace (we need your full name). I think you misread the research bulletin. It was Jeff Glickman, not me, who expressed those percentages of confidence and he specifically cautioned that: "These are subjective and are based upon my knowledge and experience as opposed to being objective, calculated probabilities."
I appreciate your caution, but if I had the means, I'd be chartering a boat and buying sunscreen right about now... This is all very exciting stuff; keep up the great work!
What size boat would you charter? A boat that would support divers (roughly $10,000/day) or a boat that would support ROV operations (roughly $30,000/day)? The sunscreen is easy. Get the highest SPF you can find.
-
The sunscreen is easy. Get the highest SPF you can find.
[/quote]
Given the cost of sunscreen and my bald head, I'd run out of money LONG before I had a chance to charter a ship!
-Travis
-
hey guys, if i can weigh in here for a second. Ive wanted to believe the Electra was at Niku. I still do. After talking with alot of you in DC, I came to the conclusion that is a marathon, not a sprint race.
There was a statement made in "the Hunt for Red October " during the navy's search for her that they were going by so fast that there wasnt anyway their sonar could find her. After thinking about this for a while now, we have a similiar issue. We are looking for parts and pieces, not a submarine, or a 'intact 'ship. With the amount of HD data that was acquired, it may be a while before all of it can be broken down, frame by frame to look it over.
The ROV may have been in the right area, and missed it by 10 feet. Perhaps I was wrong, and alot of large pieces DID slide down the reef slope to where ever the bottom is. I Posted a pic several months ago of the Napali coast line on Kauai. From sea level pretty much vertical to 4000 feet. Lots of crevasses and jagged outcroppings. I suspect something similar below the surface to the bottom, wherever that is. I'm told that alot of the Pacific Islands and atolls are like that. IF that is the case, it is in fact a large haystack that we're searching.
I do have a suggestion, albeit alittle crazy. How about multiple researchers looking at the HD video. Yep crazy thought, but more eyes on target, and if something is found that looks promising, then more assets can investigate further. We have alot of capable members that given the opprotunity would like to help. Jeff Glickman is a great guy, but I dont see how he can possibly see everything. I'd think after a while those coral boulders would look like buffalo.
Think about it.
Tom
-
At Tim Mellon's suggestion, we've rendered the two-minute debris field clip as black & white video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SvHSWxmqIwk&feature=plcp). I think it's a big improvement.
-
Thanks for uploading the Debris Field in Black and White video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SvHSWxmqIwk&feature=youtu.be). I think it is an improvement too.
You may want to note in the description that it can be viewed in 1080p instead of 360p which may be the default setting. The little gear icon is where the quality can be changed.
-
You may want to note in the description that it can be viewed in 1080p instead of 360p which may be the default setting. The little gear icon is where the quality can be changed.
Done. Thanks.
-
Hi All
look were red arrows point to, There is 3 raised boxes with a wire connected to all just look behind boxes to see shadows
-
Bare in mind, These boxes, i speculate are no bigger than a car fuse box relay 20mm x 20mm
-
Thanks for uploading the black and white video. I think it is an improvement too.
Here is a link to the black-and-white video (http://youtu.be/SvHSWxmqIwk).
-
Here are two more "objects" from the black and white video for everyone to look at. Could the object within the yellow rectangle in picture 1 below, be the part of the lower instrument panel, outlined in yellow, under the yoke in picture 2 below? Could the object within the red rectangle in picture 1 be the turn and bank/slip indicator shown outlined in red in picture 3 below?
-
Ok---What does this look like in the white box?
-
Well, IMHO, it is not a fender from the landing gear, wrong shape. It might be a section of the leading edge of one of the wings or maybe a small part of the underside of the extreme rear fuselage. Just my thoughts. :-\
-
Or possibly the glare-shield for the instrument panel, given the proximity to the other items in question. The scale of it would seem reasonable with the marine growth and sediment...Dave
-
Another good possibility. :) Great points about proximity and scale!
-
One way to make the process of the underwater portion of Niku VIII easy is to use an AUV to examine the objects in the debris field seen during the Niku VII (that is, the debris field spotted by Jeff Glickman). If the objects come from the Electra, they should be recovered using the AUV's manipulator arm.
-
ROV has the arm, not the AUV.
And what particular objects are you referring to?
-
I Believe the object's the yellow lines point too in attached image, Are all man made object's
:-\
-
Richie,
What do think about the "blocky" objects in the upper left of the view? Think any of it might be a part of the Electra's superstructure - perhaps? Could also simply be blocky rock outcrops. :-X
-
Hi Will
Not sure of that area yet, But i think the object i have circled in black on the attached image, Could be the retractable landing gear mechanism.
If Tighar's speculation about what the man made object's are part of, The mechanism should fit into the place i have highlighted
Thanks Richie
-
Mellow out, lads. Jeff Glickman has done a good job looking for aircraft debris in the underwater video taken during Niku VII. I'm confident that the shape of the debris itself is consistent with the shape of the Bevington object because it was found north of the Norwich City. How does the aircraft debris seen in the Niku VII video compare with the landing gear of the B-24 that crashed at Kanton Island?
-
Mellow out, lads. Jeff Glickman has done a good job looking for aircraft debris in the underwater video taken during Niku VII. I'm confident that the shape of the debris itself is consistent with the shape of the Bevington object because it was found north of the Norwich City. How does the aircraft debris seen in the Niku VII video compare with the landing gear of the B-24 that crashed at Kanton Island?
Significantly larger and not even close. And let me further clarify, no one has identified a landing gear or part thereof in the debris field. Not even Jeff Glickman. Also, allow me to ask who you are, to tell we "lads" (and lassies) to mellow out?
-
.......... I'm confident that the shape of the debris itself is consistent with the shape of the Bevington object because it was found north of the Norwich City...........
Hmmmmm.......
A friend, a former USAF Intelligence Operations Specialist, a Photo Interpreter studied the enlargement of the photo of the Bevington object - independent without bias or clues. He saw white saltwater froth resulting from a fish or animal jumping or swimming in the water on the reef.
So I asked, "could this be part of an airplane?" Answer: "Highly unlikely. Too much whitewater froth for not enough wave/water action. It appears the object (fish?) is moving".
{I cannot attach the photo I used. A window claims the attachment can't be used..... Here is the photo title: Img_20121122_104201,jpg. It is the enlargement of the Bevington Object Glickman used during May 2012 for a presentation. It is against a maroon background.}
So, I argue that the object could be an Electra Main Gear or it could be a Fish. Or anything including a defect in the film. Another problem with the Bevington Photo that, to the best of my knowledge, has not been addressed - are the numerous anomalies on the photograph.
Now, for your statement: "Mellow out, lads. Jeff Glickman has done a good job........." Maybe so. But we cannot be certain. Mr. Glickman's analysis has been compromised as a result of biased input from the report owner. It is my sincere hope that the report owner enlists another, outside photo expert to analyze the photograph in order to determine another, independent opinion. And in order to properly/professionally promote TIGHAR's opinion of authenticity of a main landing gear of an Electra L10E, a second unbiased analysis should be accomplished.
-
A fish? You'd have to ask Jeff.
-
{I cannot attach the photo I used. A window claims the attachment can't be used..... Here is the photo title: Img_20121122_104201,jpg.}
The comma is out of place.
The convention is ".jpg", not ",jpg".
-
A fish? You'd have to ask Jeff.
.
A fish?
That would explain why Tom Sw and I could both find a landing gear mechanism (in different locations) in the 2010 debris field.
By the way, any idea what kind of fish?
:)
-
That would explain why Tom Sw and I could both find a landing gear mechanism (in different locations) in the 2010 debris field.
:)
You did? - could you post the pics that show these things. I mean something that shows it clearly not those rocks you keep posting.
-
It is the enlargement of the Bevington Object Glickman used during May 2012 for a presentation. It is against a maroon background.
Bill, by chance, is it one of the series taken at the Symposium? Example below. I see a maroon background and the whitewater splash that you mention.
-
Bill, by chance, is it one of the series taken at the Symposium? Example below. I see a maroon background and the whitewater splash that you mention.
Sure looks like it - a big fish jumping and caught just as Bevington clicked the shutter. I've seen sharks in shallow water doing that when they are chasing fish shoals.
-
It is the enlargement of the Bevington Object Glickman used during May 2012 for a presentation. It is against a maroon background.
Bill, by chance, is it one of the series taken at the Symposium? Example below. I see a maroon background and the whitewater splash that you mention.
That's the one. Thank you Alan Harris.
That photo also clearly shows Jeff Glickman's company signature clearly indicating he is acting as a professional.
-
Not acting as a 'professional' if I take a quick look at the photo above it appears to be either an object moving inshore leaving a wake or alternativly a fixed object on a receding tide leaving a wake.
Its whats below that counts :)
-
alternativly a fixed object on a receding tide leaving a wake.
My bet: receding surf leaving a wake.
-
alternativly a fixed object on a receding tide leaving a wake.
My bet: receding surf leaving a wake.
Then wouldn't the white water be on the other side of the object? Also, viewing the original photo without enlargement, it's clear that the surf is minimal and coming from the right of the object not from the island.
-
It does remind me of bouys in the river when the tide is turning!
-
It was just a quick look on that one photo that isn't the best, I see no surf, just a wake of some description.
Just a quick look/glance :) not studied in depth.
-
It was just a quick look on that one photo that isn't the best, I see no surf, just a wake of some description.
Just a quick look/glance :) not studied in depth.
Chris -
If you look at the original photo while still attached to Bevington's scrapbook, you will see minor wave action, very low, and coming from to the right of the object.
-
Bill, i'm sure your right but my observation was based purely on the photo a few posts above. Kind of what do people see in the picture that they are shown without access to any other medium.
-
Maybe I'm wrong, but my impression is that the 'surf' is 'moving' from northwest to southeast - from the viewer's near-left toward his shoreward-right. How are you getting from the right?
Oh jeez - because I'm left handed. You must be right handed. The right side of the brain controls the left side of the body - so us lefties are in our right minds. So there.
Meh - now that I take another look, the surf could be from either direction - but parallel to the island rather than heading into or away from the shore.
-
A friend, a former USAF Intelligence Operations Specialist, a Photo Interpreter studied the enlargement of the photo of the Bevington object - independent without bias or clues. He saw white saltwater froth resulting from a fish or animal jumping or swimming in the water on the reef.
I'd be interested to know what forensic imaging techniques and algorithms your unnamed friend used to determine that the analyses Glickman and the State Dept. photo analysts made are incorrect.
So, I argue that the object could be an Electra Main Gear or it could be a Fish. Or anything including a defect in the film.
Highly qualified photo analysts, including disinterested specialists at the U.S. State Department, have determined that it is a man-made object and not a defect in the film.
Another problem with the Bevington Photo that, to the best of my knowledge, has not been addressed - are the numerous anomalies on the photograph.
There are numerous dust flecks, sunlight reflections off the water, a few birds in the sky, etc. All have been addressed.
Now, for your statement: "Mellow out, lads. Jeff Glickman has done a good job........." Maybe so. But we cannot be certain. Mr. Glickman's analysis has been compromised as a result of biased input from the report owner.
That is untrue and offensive.
-
Good Morning "Ladies and Germs" (Milton Berle) Having lived on a large body of water for most of my life, what I see is simply wave action due to the wind. Without the tidal data for the date and time this picture was taken, all speculation is moot. There is no way to tell from this picture whether it is an incoming or outgoing tide. And I for one have never seen or heard of a "receding surf leaving a wake". What exactly does that mean? A wake is created by a moving object through the water not a stationary object if that is, what it is, claimed to be.
-
Now, for your statement: ..."Mellow out, lads. Jeff Glickman has done a good job......" Maybe so. But we cannot be certain. Mr. Glickman's analysis has been compromised as a result of biased input from the report owner.
That is untrue and offensive.
Uh, Ric, it was not Bill Roe who said ""Mellow out, lads. Jeff Glickman has done a good job......". It was Vahe Demirjian who coined that little tidbit which I found equally offensive to the forum.
-
And I for one have never seen or heard of a "receding surf leaving a wake".
Sorry for the imprecision, Bob. Perhaps I should have said "receding surf wave leaving a wake." In other words, swells that break over the reef carry water inward to a point of water equilibrium, then the water recedes back over the reef. As it does so, a fixed object stuck in the surf could cause a wake-like effect seaward of the object.
-
Waves are a poor indicator of current direction. As Andrew, Ric and others have mentioned, the current on the reef flat can be quite strong. A stationary object on the reef flat would be expected to leave a wake (correction - eddy for stationary objects, wake for moving objects) (thanks to Bob for the correction, below) when the water is in motion. In this thread (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php?topic=726.0), Andrew tells us that the currents around the island tend toward the N/NW. In the Bevington photo, NW would be to the left. Of course, the current on the reef flat might be in some other direction, depending on the tidal set at the moment.
Interesting idea, that the photo shows wake (if a moving object, or an eddy if moving water around a stationary object) - with that in mind, it's easy to see "wake" or "eddy" in the photo. That also suggests to me that whatever object is creating the eddy (if that's what it is) is fixed in place enough to resist the force of the moving water. That implies it is stuck in place, or massive, or both.
-
Waves are a poor indicator of current direction. As Andrew, Ric and others have mentioned, the current on the reef flat can be quite strong. A stationary object on the reef flat would be expected to leave a wake when the water is in motion. In this thread (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php?topic=726.0), Andrew tells us that the currents around the island tend toward the N/NW. In the Bevington photo, NW would be to the left. Of course, the current on the reef flat might be in some other direction, depending on the tidal set at the moment.
Interesting idea, that the photo shows wake - with that in mind, it's easy to see "wake" in the photo. That also suggests to me that whatever object is creating the wake is fixed in place enough to resist the force of the moving water. That implies it is stuck in place, or massive, or both.
With respect John, what you refer to as "wake" is "Ebb and Flow" Ebb receding around a stationary object at low tide and Flow rising at high tide creating an eddy on the back side of either the Ebb or the Flow. A stationary object in the water does not create a "wake". "Wake is the region of recirculating flow immediately behind a moving solid body".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wake_(disambiguation)
-
"Wake is the region of recirculating flow immediately behind a moving solid body, caused by the flow of surrounding fluid around the body".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wake
Bob, please quote accurately.
-
Now, for your statement: ..."Mellow out, lads. Jeff Glickman has done a good job......" Maybe so. But we cannot be certain. Mr. Glickman's analysis has been compromised as a result of biased input from the report owner.
That is untrue and offensive.
Uh, Ric, it was not Bill Roe who said ""Mellow out, lads. Jeff Glickman has done a good job......". It was Vahe Demirjian who coined that little tidbit which I found equally offensive to the forum.
I know that Mr.Roe was quoting Mr. Demirjian. The part of Mr. Roe's posting that is untrue and offensive is the last sentence. Jeff Glickman's analysis has not been compromised and my input was not biased.
-
Hi All
If someone can show me a fish, Poss a hammer head shark with them sizes i will reevaluate my theory of bevington image, Until then i believe it is what it is
Also is it possible both this an the rov 2010 topic be moved to say, The Niku island artifact's or sumthink, as i find these video's an discussion's are distracting new comer's from searching for them selves The evidence Tighar as, An feel Tighars hard work is being overlooked with these video's
Just my opinion, Take it or leave it.
P.S Am glad Jeff Glickman don't come on here arguing his opinions, As i feel Jeff will be the key to fool proofing this hypothesis
Watch this space :)
-
Hi All
If someone can show me a fish, Poss a hammer head shark with them sizes i will reevaluate my theory of bevington image, Until then i believe it is what it is
Also is it possible both this an the rov 2010 topic be moved to say, The Niku island artifact's or sumthink, as i find these video's an discussion's are distracting new comer's from searching for them selves The evidence Tighar as, An feel Tighars hard work is being overlooked with these video's
Just my opinion, Take it or leave it.
P.S Am glad Jeff Glickman don't come on here arguing his opinions, As i feel Jeff will be the key to fool proofing this hypothesis
Watch this space :)
I know this story is only my word, but I have seen large fish and sharks leaping in shallow water as they chase their dinner. Now my question is was Mr Glickman, who I assume knows his business, asked to evaluate, or whatever he'd call it, the image to see if it could also be a fish or shark. I ask that because if it was a sort of common event on the reef maybe Mr Bevington just didn't take any interest in it. Which would explain the question that I see that some folks have asked which was why didn't the survey party see the Electra undercarriage sticking up. It just seems to me as someone new to this that if that is properly explained with documentation then the doubt would go away, which would be good for TIGHAR.
-
"Wake is the region of recirculating flow immediately behind a moving solid body, caused by the flow of surrounding fluid around the body".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wake
Bob, please quote accurately.
My bad, I posted the wrong quote and link. I revised my post to the disambiguation a revised and more accurate description of wake.
-
Now my question is was Mr Glickman, who I assume knows his business, asked to evaluate, or whatever he'd call it, the image to see if it could also be a fish or shark.
Fish, shark, seabird, manta ray - all of these possible explanations were addressed when Jeff first began working with the image in the spring of 2010. Jeff's assessment was that discernible straight, hard edges in the image confirm that it is a man-made object. The landing gear hypothesis came later.
-
Also the distance Bevington was from object in image, i doubt he would have noticed, why else would there be so much work being put into getting the best photo,
An clear description of Anomaly
:)
-
Fish, shark, seabird, manta ray - all of these possible explanations were addressed when Jeff first began working with the image in the spring of 2010. Jeff's assessment was that discernible straight, hard edges in the image confirm that it is a man-made object. The landing gear hypothesis came later.
Thank you Mr Gillespie for that reply, but my point was that seeing all the doubt expressed not just on this thread but others as well, wouldn't publishing the full written information clear that up and stop all this argument. It'd allow you to get on with your excellent work free of having to answer silly questions like mine. I'm sure you've got better things to do than police people chattering about stuff you've probably already dealt with.
-
Thank you Mr Gillespie for that reply, but my point was that seeing all the doubt expressed not just on this thread but others as well, wouldn't publishing the full written information clear that up and stop all this argument.
And you think it would stop all this argument??? There's no full written information to publish. I keep explaining this and it doesn't seem to do any good. I'll try again. Jeff has not written a report on his Bevington Photo research.
TIGHAR has access to specialized expertise from three different types of sources:
- paid consultants
- donated corporate or government services
- volunteers
We've used paid consultants to evaluate bird bones, fish bones, mollusk shells, broken glass for signs of use as a cutting implement, DNA testing, etc. For the fee we pay them, we get a written report.
On many occasions we've been fortunate to get specialized expertise from corporations or government agencies at no cost. ALCOA Aluminum, the FBI laboratories, the CIA, the NTSB laboratories, the Armed Forces DNA Identification Laboratories(AFDIL), and the State Dept. Bureau of Intelligence and Research are examples of agencies that have done gratus work for TIGHAR. For this kind of help we sometimes get an advisory meeting rather than a written report.
Fortunately, most of our specialized expertise comes from TIGHAR volunteers such as Dr. Tom King, Dr. Randy Jacobson, Dr. Reed Riddle, the late Dr. Karen Burns, LCDR Bob Brandenburg, and many more. Jeff Glickman is in this category. They don't get paid for their work and their research always involves an on-going dialog with me and/or other TIGHAR researchers.. Our in-house experts eventually write a formal report or paper on the subject they're working on. There are many examples of such reports on the TIGHAR website. Bob Brandenburg and I co-authored the Post Loss Radio Signals Catalog but it took us twelve years and we're still tweaking it. Jeff put together a presentation on the Bevington Photo for the Earhart 75 Symposium as an explanation of what we had learned so far. He'll write paper on the Bevington Photo when he's ready. I'm writing an informational article on the Bevington Photo for the next issue of TIGHAR Tracks.
-
Hi Ric
Will any more footage of Niku 2012 be released ?
-
Will any more footage of Niku 2012 be released ?
If Jeff Glickman finds something interest.
-
Would it not be easier to add small clips of possible debris field, An let the folk the evidence iis made public for be judge,
My reasoning is that there is nothing obvious in 2010 video, which i would rate Jeff takeing intrest in
:)
-
Would it not be easier to add small clips of possible debris field, An let the folk the evidence iis made public for be judge,
That way lies madness.
-
Thank you Mr Gillespie for that reply, but my point was that seeing all the doubt expressed not just on this thread but others as well, wouldn't publishing the full written information clear that up and stop all this argument.
And you think it would stop all this argument??? There's no full written information to publish. I keep explaining this and it doesn't seem to do any good. I'll try again. Jeff has not written a report on his Bevington Photo research.
...
Thank you for that very detailed response to my question Mr Gillespie. Correct me if I am wrong but are you saying that no written report on the examination of the Bevington photo has been prepared? I'm not claiming to be an expert on these matters but in my contracting work with engineering companies on big industrial projects, I'm pretty certain that if someone was going to say that their work was correct they would have had their calculations properly prepared and checked and double checked by other people in that particular discipline, before they took the next step. I've seen instances where mistakes have cost a lot of money - not small change I can tell you. If TIGHAR haven't got their analysis of the photo properly prepared then how is it possible for anyone outside of TIGHAR to check those calculations and know it is right. Am I missing something here? - you understand I'm just trying to get this straight in my mind.
-
FWIW, hasn't the photo analysis been reviewed? Jeff's analysis stated that it was a man made object. As Ric points out, it was later hypothesized to be an aircraft landing gear assembly and Jeff outlined several components of it. The photo was then reviewed by government experts who also declared it to be consistant with the undercarriage of an aircraft, a Lockheed 10e Electra if I recall correctly. If aquatic life or other natural causes have already been considered and ruled out, I don't understand the on-going dispute. Granted, it is impossible to be 100 percent certain it is an aircraft component unless that exact object is located, but several rulings have been made saying it is aircraft wreckage. The question to be asked is, from what aircraft? We, meaning anyone interested in uncovering what really happened to AE/FN, and you're probably not on the forum if you're not, need to focus on finding whatever evidence remains to prove or disprove that the object in the photo may have been a part of the Electra. If it is, great; if not, and it turns out to be from something else, great. The search can continue to somewhere else. Maybe there is wreckage and it is not from the Electra. Maybe it is a lost WWII aircraft. Maybe some colonist was into aircraft scraps and collected bits. We won't know until whatever may be there is identified. I don't think anyone here is trying to undermine anyone's effort to know the truth of what happened to AE/FN. Personally, if it is found that they did crash and sink, were captured and executed, landed and died on Niku, or were abducted by aliens, it doesn't matter to me. I would simply like to know what did happen. Current evidence seems to point to Niku. Maybe that will be proven, maybe not. LTM, who always likes to know where she is. -John
-
Thank you Mr Gillespie for that reply, but my point was that seeing all the doubt expressed not just on this thread but others as well, wouldn't publishing the full written information clear that up and stop all this argument.
And you think it would stop all this argument??? There's no full written information to publish. I keep explaining this and it doesn't seem to do any good. I'll try again. Jeff has not written a report on his Bevington Photo research.
...
Thank you for that very detailed response to my question Mr Gillespie. Correct me if I am wrong but are you saying that no written report on the examination of the Bevington photo has been prepared?
You just quoted me saying, "Jeff has not written a report on his Bevington Photo research." Would you like me to say it again?
I'm not claiming to be an expert on these matters but in my contracting work with engineering companies on big industrial projects, I'm pretty certain that if someone was going to say that their work was correct they would have had their calculations properly prepared and checked and double checked by other people in that particular discipline, before they took the next step. I've seen instances where mistakes have cost a lot of money - not small change I can tell you. If TIGHAR haven't got their analysis of the photo properly prepared then how is it possible for anyone outside of TIGHAR to check those calculations and know it is right. Am I missing something here? - you understand I'm just trying to get this straight in my mind.
Thus is not a big industrial project nor is it a university-funded research project. TIGHAR is a tiny, struggling nonprofit led by a guy with a BA degree and some experience in aviation accident investigation. Our procedures are far more informal - and far more streamlined and efficient - than anything you're likely to run into in the corporate or academic world. Jeff Glickman and I have an on-going dialog by phone, email, and when possible, in person. I know and like Jeff and I have learned to have great respect for his expertise but I also recognize the need for independent verification of results. That's why I jumped at the chance to have the State Dept. photo analysts look at the Bevington Photo. They didn't ask for a report from Jeff and they weren't interested in why he thought we are looking at an Electra landing gear. My question to them was simple. "Our guy sees the wreckage of Electra landing gear. What do you see?" Their answer - verbatim - was, "We did our own research and we see the same thing your guy sees." I didn't quiz them on what techniques they had used to analyze the photo and I'd be willing to bet that they wouldn't have told me anyway. I had what I needed - independent verification from disinterested experts that the object in the Bevington photo appears to be (not "definitely is") the wreckage of landing gear from a Lockheed Electra. With that information we feel comfortable using the Bevington Photo as a data point in trying to figure out where to look for the wreckage of the plane.
-
Hi John Joseph Barrett,
Frankly, and I don't want to underestimate it, it's ridiculous to think that AE and FN were abducted by aliens (to fans of AE, it's the equivalent of paleontologists hypothesizing that dinosaurs went extinct because they were abducted by aliens or smoked cigarettes).
As every proponent of the crash-and-sink hypothesis has said before, the only way to prove that AE crashed her plane into the sea is to use AUVs and ROVs to search the ocean floor for NR16020 at depths of 15,000-18,000 feet. As it stands, the Williamson and Associates expedition of 1999, the 2002 and 2006 Nauticos expeditions, and most recently the 2009 Waitt Institute for Discovery expedition have made attempts at a search by scouring the seafloor west and northwest of Howland Island and Baker Island, but none of those expeditions were ever able to find any trace of NR16020. As summarized by Ted Waitt, "our results eliminate thousands of square miles from future search efforts." (see discussion of unsuccessful 2009 expedition at http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/07/120724-amelia-earhart-google-doodle-fred-noonan-115th-nation-science/). Therefore, anyone who thinks that AE simply crashed her plane in waters west of Howland Island and Baker Island may have to modify or reject their hypothesis altogether by expressing the possibility that AE and FN either overflew Howland and landed in waters east of Howland Island or made navigational errors while en route to Howland Island (David Billings himself is a proponent of the hypothesis that Earhart did not crash her plane near Howland Island but instead landed somwhere else).
Given the consistent failure of Nauticos and other compaines to find Earhart's plane off Howland Island, let's not get into an argument and it's better to accept the Niku hypothesis because it's probably the only one supported by available physical evidence (discounting anecdotal accounts as not sufficient to prove the Niku hypothesis). As for the possibility that the debris field identified by Jeff Glickman might be from a WW2 plane rather than NR16020, you should refer to http://tighar.org/wiki/Aircraft_lost_in_the_vicinity_of_Nikumaroro for a list of aircraft that crashed in the vicinity of Nikumaroro, and the size and appearance of the round object (possibly the Electra landing gear) in the lower right corner of the ROV footage obtained during Niku VII makes clear that the round object can't be from a B-24, a B-17 or a PBM Mariner because those planes don't have a fender covering the wheels as in the Electra.
-
You just quoted me saying, "Jeff has not written a report on his Bevington Photo research." Would you like me to say it again?
....
I apologize for my delay in responding Mr Gillespie - work sometimes forces its way into my life. I thank you for you taking the time to explain the background to how you put together your research and work. I can understand that it is difficult.
I have read in one of your posts where you say that, I might be wrong, the State Department OK'd the interpretation of Mr Glickman's. But as I read it this was verbal only - is that right? Darn there goes the phone again - shouldn't complain, many folks don't have a job.
-
You just quoted me saying, "Jeff has not written a report on his Bevington Photo research." Would you like me to say it again?
....
I apologize for my delay in responding Mr Gillespie - work sometimes forces its way into my life. I thank you for you taking the time to explain the background to how you put together your research and work. I can understand that it is difficult.
I have read in one of your posts where you say that, I might be wrong, the State Department OK'd the interpretation of Mr Glickman's. But as I read it this was verbal only - is that right? Darn there goes the phone again - shouldn't complain, many folks don't have a job.
maybe he hadn't at time of asking :)
-
I have read in one of your posts where you say that, I might be wrong, the State Department OK'd the interpretation of Mr Glickman's. But as I read it this was verbal only - is that right?
That's right. They made it clear at the time that they would not give us a written report nor could we talk publicly about what they had just told me. I honored their request and revealed their validation of Jeff Glickman's opinion only to the TIGHAR board of directors and, of course, to Jeff. I didn't even mention it to Kurt Campbell, the Ass't Sec. of State who asked the Bureau of Intelligence and Research to help us out. I assumed they would report their findings directly to him. But they didn't and Kurt only learned about it a couple months later when I mentioned it in passing in an email inviting him to attend our Earhart 75 symposium. Kurt got excited, checked with the Bureau to confirm what I had told him and the next thing i knew I was called to Washington for a meeting where I was informed that State would help us generate the public awareness necessary to raise the money for a hi-tech underwater search and that the Secretary of State wanted to announce the expedition at a big public event at the State Department. I was quite surprised when, at the event, Kurt spoke openly of the State Dept. photo analysts' validation of Jeff's work. I didn't blow their cover. He did - but he's an Ass't Secretary of State.
-
That's right. They made it clear at the time that they would not give us a written report nor could we talk publicly about what they had just told me.
Thanks for your reply Mr Gillespie and I am sorry for the delay in my reply, but I had to think this one through. Are you saying that all you have are verbal opinions from the Dept. of State as to what that thing on the edge of the reef is - nothing in writing. I'm sure you know what you are doing but that strikes me as brave. Have other folk asked for written confirmation or reports when you've mentioned your identification of it to them?
-
Are you saying that all you have are verbal opinions from the Dept. of State as to what that thing on the edge of the reef is - nothing in writing. I'm sure you know what you are doing but that strikes me as brave.
I've found that bravery is required for many aspects of this work but taking U.S. Government photo analysts at their word isn't one of them. I accepted what they told me to be their honest opinion.
Have other folk asked for written confirmation or reports when you've mentioned your identification of it to them?
No. No one - not me, not Jeff Glickman, not the State Dept. analysts - is saying the object in the Bevington Photo is Electra landing gear. All we're saying is that that's what it looks like to us.
-
I've found that bravery is required for many aspects of this work but taking U.S. Government photo analysts at their word isn't one of them. I accepted what they told me to be their honest opinion.
My apologies for this exceptionally tardy response Mr Gillespie, I didn't mean taking the word of the State Department is brave, but that it is brave to use something which according to you, if I read you correctly, is not supported by any producible analysis or proof as one of the means to attract donations to fund the search. To me that is a step in the dark.
-
My apologies for this exceptionally tardy response Mr Gillespie, I didn't mean taking the word of the State Department is brave, but that it is brave to use something which according to you, if I read you correctly, is not supported by any producible analysis or proof as one of the means to attract donations to fund the search. To me that is a step in the dark.
Welcome to the dark Mr. Kelly. We don't claim to have proof. We're conducting an investigation. Searching and doing research is expensive. We try to attract donations to fund the search and the research by freely sharing the information we have. We try very hard not to over-state or misrepresent. Every individual is free to make his or her own judgements and to contribute or not as they see fit. I make no apologies for fund raising. Without funding we would not be here to answer your criticism of our fund raising. How much have you contributed?
-
Hi All
Firstly Ric what i meant by releasing video clips of poss debris field, Was to take burden off Jeff G, An see what public opinion is of debris field and ongoing investigation,
Secondly i Believe this video, Show's that the only thing Jeff Glickman had to do to get image we see today, Is use his zoom able magnifier to get good enough image, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zcqb26Lz6V8
Thirdly, I believe it's the technology at hand, That has thwarted Tighar's attempts at proving Hypothesis
:)
-
Welcome to the dark Mr. Kelly. We don't claim to have proof. We're conducting an investigation. Searching and doing research is expensive. We try to attract donations to fund the search and the research by freely sharing the information we have. We try very hard not to over-state or misrepresent. Every individual is free to make his or her own judgements and to contribute or not as they see fit. I make no apologies for fund raising. Without funding we would not be here to answer your criticism of our fund raising. How much have you contributed?
Thank you for your prompt reply Mr Gillespie. If as you say you don't have proof, which is an honest admission, why then was so much made of the nature of the Bevington Object when in fact as you have honestly said there is no published and independently attested data to support its identification by yourself as an undercarriage leg from the Electra? Is the complete uncertainty of its identification made absolutely clear to any people you are courting for donations?
-
Is the complete uncertainty of its identification made absolutely clear to any people you are courting for donations?
Complete uncertainty? Are there degrees of uncertainty? If something is not certain it is, by definition, uncertain. If the identification of the object was certain we would be celebrating the conclusive solution of the Earhart mystery. The Bevington Object is a fascinating piece of evidence and deserves close attention but we've never claimed that the identification of the object is certain. I think we've made that very clear in everything we've published. If I'm mistaken I invite you to point out where we have misled anyone.
-
Mr. Kelly. Forgive me for jumping in, but your posts pushed me over the edge to finally take the required half minute to register and post. While your tone is distinct, what eludes me in your badgering of Mr. Gillespie is the precise nature of your concerns...
Are you suggesting that Mr. Gillespie is in fact misleading or defrauding donors? Or do you simply have some kind of broad, altruistic concern for donors to non-profit organizations?
Given the documented, self-evident fact that Mr. Gillespie has indeed gone far out of his way in this forum to repeatedly disclaim any definitive discovery of anything, are you suggesting he's taking a radically different approach in his solicitations for donations? If so, what evidence do you have that such is the case? Are you familiar with or have direct personal knowledge of Tighars fund raising tactics and donor relations? Have any donors suggested to you that they've been misled? Or are you speculating that such is the case? Again, if so, what facts or events prompted such speculation?
Also you describe the "complete uncertainty" of the identification of the object in the Bevington photo. While identification of the object is uncertain (as Mr. Gillespie has repeatedly stated) I presume that your judgement dismisses the multiple, expert analyses supporting some degree of possible identification, and finds them in fact irrelevant and or incompetent.
Not trying to be argumentative. Simply trying to pull the veil off your implications and understand the nature, degree, and factual support of your concerns. Thanks!
-
Complete uncertainty? Are there degrees of uncertainty? If something is not certain it is, by definition, uncertain. If the identification of the object was certain we would be celebrating the conclusive solution of the Earhart mystery. The Bevington Object is a fascinating piece of evidence and deserves close attention but we've never claimed that the identification of the object is certain. I think we've made that very clear in everything we've published. If I'm mistaken I invite you to point out where we have misled anyone.
Thank you Mr Gillespie for your reply. As it appears that nothing that is verifiable has been published on the item, something that you have confirmed yourself, then how can it be properly assessed by anyone? Or has the meaning of your reply escaped me.
What I am trying to say is that for a great many people, like myself for instance, professional knowledge of an Electra's undercarriage is lacking. So if I followed your suggestion and thought it was the undercarriage then my opinion, even if accompanied by a donation, would be worthless in supporting your claim. However if the details of the identification process were fully published and had been assessed by people with that knowledge in some sort of expert review process, and they had confirmed in writing that you had a sound case then that would be a better thing to use wouldn't it. Certainly in the current situation of uncertainty as an average person with all the costs of staying alive I would be unwise to part with any money unless much more detail was available, which is proper business practice you will agree for both TIGHAR and I.
-
Dan---If I can jump in here for a second. NOTHING has been verified. If it were, there wouldnt be a mystery. We have theories, and are working towards getting results of scientific investigation of those theories. I dont necessarily agree with all the theories, but at least something is being done, vice sitting on our hands and conjuring up ideas.
Tim's meeting with Jeff is just one of those things that on the surface looks strange. Here's a wealthy guy that is genuinely interested in finding some answers, and has the means to make it happen. He took HIS time, and money to fly out to see Jeff, and I assume, discuss the photos, videos, and how interuptations are done. Good for Tim!. Possibly, out of that meeting, some real artifacts can be seen, then a PLAN can be put into place to go recover them.
Never, in the history of the Earhart disappearance, has so much information been accumulated. Look at it this way------with the 2010 and 2012 videos, there are some 'targets'. Now we know their locations, and with sufficient funding , can go recover, and 'possibly' identify them.
Stay tuned.
-
Like Jeff, I too did some studying before I signed up for DC. Not only airframe and undercarriage, but possibly what they may have looked like after a reef landing. Unfortunately for me, my flight experience isnt in a plane like a 10E. So, I questioned some pilots I knew, one of which has 40,000 + hours in a bunch of different aircraft, from DC3 to 767, from C150 to Globe Swifts. He gave me alot of insight. I took that info with me to DC, and came to my own conclusions over the Bevington object photo.
So, my minor contributions to this project pale by comparison to most others. I too, have no regrets.
Tom