TIGHAR
Amelia Earhart Search Forum => General discussion => Topic started by: tom howard on October 25, 2012, 10:06:30 PM
-
If any facts are in error, please correct, but it seems by reading old expedition reports and even current theory, that an Earhart landing was within 400 meters of the shipwreck.
Has that always been the assumption and if so why?
I know there is antecdotal reports of plane parts and maybe even a wing jn the lagoon. However given typhoons flooding the island, these could have come from.anywhere on the reef face it seems.
The area from the wreck north is just 1/4 mile in lenght. In maps this supposed landing would be the shortest stretch of exposed surface. In addition to.a shorter landing strip, a pilot would also face unknown dangers of wreckage debris such as anchor chain they would not see until they hit it.
Wouldnt a pilot coming in pick the longest stretch of reef, such as right in front of the seven site? It would seem natural to choose a 4 mile long strip over a 1/4 mile one possibly laced with chains and debris. Perhaps they set up camp right where they landed?
-
Has that always been the assumption ... ?
No. TIGHAR has had all kinds of theories about where the plane might have landed, and has gone looking in those locations to test the various theories.
Emily Sikuli's story (http://tighar.org/wiki/Emily) led TIGHAR to think about the reef near the Norwich City.
The Bevington Object (http://tighar.org/wiki/Bevington_Object) was in that same area.
Wouldn't a pilot coming in pick the longest stretch of reef, such as right in front of the seven site? It would seem natural to choose a 4 mile long strip over a 1/4 mile one possibly laced with chains and debris. Perhaps they set up camp right where they landed?
Different pilots "would" do different things for different reasons under different conditions. There is no way to prove that your imagined scenario is false, except, maybe, to find some big pieces of the Electra elsewhere.
The reef is not equally broad or flat all the way around the island.
(http://tighar.org/aw/mediawiki/images/5/51/Nikucolor.jpg)
The Electra did not need a long landing strip, especially at low gross weight and with some water on the reef to slow her down.
-
Tom, the reasons I would favor for landing near the Norwich City:
(1) It's in the lea of the island, winds coming usually from the east, and sheltered by tall trees on the shore;
(2) Reef is straight and surface is hard, so less chance of ground loop or flipping over;
(3) Norwich City provides visual queue as to distance, and especially height;
(4) Norwich City might provide useful things to survivors, for instance a rope to tie the plane down so it won't slide off the reef;
(5) Less crashing surf, again being to leaward.
-
Hey Tom---when I first looked at Niku---I saw the long northern beach and thought yep, good landing site. AE might have thought so too. The problem that I saw was that when you fly to somewhere like that, you cant really tell what youre landing on, especially if it has some water on it.
There may have been other areas that also seemed inviting.
The fact is that we havent found anything yet. The anecdotal statements, and the finding of aircraft parts in the village, dont say where they came from, or how they got there. Emily gave a statement about airplane parts on the reef north of the shipwreck. I'm pretty sure all of that area has been searched for other materials. Some might have been there, and removed by villagers for use on the island.
IMHO--that Tighar has is a theory, that they are trying to get some factual evidence to validate the theory. As has been stated by many others, Niku may be the right island, but we're looking in the wrong place.
-
The thing to remember is that we did not derive the hypothesis from speculation about where Amelia would land. The hypothesis that she landed north of the shipwreck is derived from anecdotal, environmental, and photographic evidence.
-
I am sure great thought went into choosing the NC site by Tighar. But from a pilot out of gas perhaps these geographical issues that now seem important, like perhaps being next to the wreck for possible supplies had no bearing then. While I agree with Marty on the lay of the land, and Tim on landing leeward, The tall trees if anything would have been a negative not a positive to a NC landing site. Coming in dry I would want that Four mile straight reef with small brush on the side, not big trees and a short strip laced with possible shipwreck debris.
Plus if they landed near the Norwich it probably doesnt get blown off in normal six to eight inch tide. They would have tons of ship to tie to and a less sloping beach to make it to the treeline. Wrapping the electra up to the ship with chains or rope means their shelter and huge plane gets seen and doesnt get washed over. But if they picked the longest strip to land on with low shrubs, little visible objects to hit, they would realize too late they made a mistake. If parked on the long northern edge there wasnt anything to tie to no trees and no wreck.
-
So while in hindsight the western edge near the wreck has more possibilities for saving themselves and the plane, they may have went for the longest straightest strip like a lot of pilots might have.It would have been a bad choice. Doing so might have left them right in front of seven site where they camped near their plane. With Nothing to tie off to, no wind protection, and then had to watch the plane face the windy breakers that eventually took the plane. Could be, you never know. It would explain this seven site campground and the plane quickly being washed away if parked on the windy side.
-
Doing so might have left them right in front of seven site where they camped near their plane. With Nothing to tie off to, no wind protection, and then had to watch the plane face the windy breakers that eventually took the plane. Could be, you never know. It would explain this seven site campground and the plane quickly being washed away if parked on the windy side.
We seriously considered that possibility. In 2001 I did several experiments placing buoyant and non-buoyant objects on the reef in front of the Seven Site. In all cases, the objects moved shoreward, not seaward, during the tidal cycle. By contrast, on the western reef north of the shipwreck, waves refract around the island's northwest tip resulting in a southwesterly flow toward the reef edge. You can see it in some of the satellite photos. The attached image is from Nov. 11, 2009.
-
Please, everyone, let's step back for a moment. I think careful examination will show that the 2010 video shows much of the NR16020 wreckage. I have spent quite a few hours now, and I think that, in addition to the "0" and "2" identified by John Balderston, that I can also see the "6" numeral, just above and to the left of the coil of wire in frame #17 at time 13:43:21. And between the "6" and the "2" appears to be a wingtip with yet another marking. Of course, we would anticipate that Jeff Glickman would like to opine further, one way or another.
I wish others would re-examine the 2010 video, especially the first third. We can contemplate zippers and freckle cream jars until the cows come home, but the real answers to the driving question of whether Nikumaroro was the last landing field for NR16020 lie underwater, west of Nessie, as Tighar has so correctly predicted.
Whether we found this evidence again in 2012 is not particularly relevant, in my opinion. The fact of the matter is that, had it not been for the Niku VII expedition, the importance of the 2010 video may never have been discovered by those awaiting the 2012 results. Let's concentrate on what is evident, what is known, what is knowable, and what is reasonable.
-
With all respect Tim, I have seen some interesting items on the 2010 film, I have yet to see a "2" or any other number. The frame where you see numbers I see shadows and nothing else.
You are correct, bottles and jars are just cumulative evidence, it is not the plane.
But I haven't seen a confirmed plane part yet underwater, nor one frame tighar has said is a plane part, so it could still be anywhere off that reef or lagoon.
-
The Electra did not need a long landing strip, especially at low gross weight and with some water on the reef to slow her down.
I seem to recall a previous discussion on this but but I can't find it. I'm curious how high the water level was on the reef during the time period the Electra would have likely have landed on the reef and also what the tide was doing till sunset that day -- did the tide come in between the landing time and sunset, or did it go out, or what? If there was water on the reef at landing time and the tide was rising that would be strong impetus for getting anything useful for survival on dry land. Is a tide table for the landing day available somewhere?...
Thanks
-
Ric has a graph correlating tides with times of subsequent radio transmissions heard by various listeners.
-
Doing so might have left them right in front of seven site where they camped near their plane. With Nothing to tie off to, no wind protection, and then had to watch the plane face the windy breakers that eventually took the plane. Could be, you never know. It would explain this seven site campground and the plane quickly being washed away if parked on the windy side.
We seriously considered that possibility. In 2001 I did several experiments placing buoyant and non-buoyant objects on the reef in front of the Seven Site. In all cases, the objects moved shoreward, not seaward, during the tidal cycle. By contrast, on the western reef north of the shipwreck, waves refract around the island's northwest tip resulting in a southwesterly flow toward the reef edge. You can see it in some of the satellite photos. The attached image is from Nov. 11, 2009.
That is pretty incredible, both that the plane would happen to be In a fluke spot that would take it down(you think), and that you also did informal testing at the 7 site just to test out other possibilities.
That is years of experience and nice work.
While that does not prove Mr.Gillespie is correct in all theories, I think it does show that if something was possible, he has already considered it. Probably twice.
-
Well the tides are an issue and one of the reasons I considered the windward side near the 7 site more likely for a landing spot. Per the graphs( Going off memory so dont shoot me, ) it never got more than 6 inches deep up close to the beach even at high tide. So without some wind or a storm the tires would have barely been wet the whole week she was there.
I don't think Normal tides would have washed the plane off near the norwich if it was that shallow.
-
Ric has a graph correlating tides with times of subsequent radio transmissions heard by various listeners.
Here are two graphs covering July 2 and July 3. The blue line represents the water level on the reef in the area where we think the plane landed. The green lines are credible post-loss signals.
-
I seem to recall a previous discussion on this .........
There was quite a bit of discussion. I started it by making the claim that an experienced, rational pilot would not have landed any place on the reef. Especially one who has a history of ground loops. As an experienced pilot, I would have put her down, gear up, in the lagoon. There was some discussion with a few non-pilots dissenting by stating that Earhart would have wanted to save her airplane first.
To me and few other experienced pilots this didn't make much sense simply because survival comes first. Ensuring rescue comes second. A good pilot would not consider saving the airplane - if the airplane could be flown out, why land in the first place?
A gear up lagoon landing would provide the best chance for survival. Having the airplane in the lagoon would provide the best chance for rescue.
Heh heh - as an experienced combat pilot flying my A-1 under the same circumstances, I'd have bailed out before landing on the reef or lagoon. Now that's the best chance for survival. LOL
-
As an experienced pilot, I would have put her down, gear up, in the lagoon. There was some discussion with a few non-pilots dissenting by stating that Earhart would have wanted to save her airplane first.
As an experienced pilot, I wouldn't - not if I had a relatively dry, hard surface of adequate length to land on - wheels down. No doubt about it. And the main reason would be survival. Ditching - even if done perfectly on calm water - characteristically results in a skip followed by a sudden and brutally violent stop. The Electra had only lap belts. No shoulder harness. Bump your head and you drown. I'd take a possible ground loop over a ditching any day. The crew of the Croydon (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/64_ReefLanding/64_ReefLanding.htm) made the same choice.
-
And secondly, even if one survives the ditching, there is the problem of sharks, even in the lagoon.
-
And secondly, even if one survives the ditching, there is the problem of sharks, even in the lagoon.
Ohmygodyes - sharks. and, don't forget, potrizeebees.
Heh heh nice touch, Tim. But, again, this has been hashed over back in July with most experienced pilots in agreement that a gear up lagoon landing would provide the best chance of survival.
-
What, me worry?
-
And secondly, even if one survives the ditching, there is the problem of sharks, even in the lagoon.
Ohmygodyes - sharks. and, don't forget, potrizeebees.
As a member of the Spelling Police, I must caution you about using the correct spelling of important words such as "potrzebie." Young and impressionable readers of the TIGHAR Earhart Forum entries may not recognize this important alternate unit of measure that is being written about in the above posting if its spelling is so corrupted with superfluous vowels.
For instance, in the Ameliapedia article about Nikumaroro's lagoon (http://tighar.org/wiki/The_Lagoon), the dimensions of the lagoon are given as "approximately 3 miles long and a mile wide at it's widest point." Not only is there an unnecessary apostrophe in that description, but the quaint system with its so-called "English units" that the author of this entry has used would be better understood by the forum's general readership if those distances were restated in more precise terms: "approximately 2.13318252 furshlugginer potrzebie long and 0.71106084 furshlugginer potrzebie wide at its widest point." (Skeptical readers of this post are referred to Google (https://www.google.com/search?q=1+farshimmelt+potrzebie#sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&q=1+mile+in+potrzebie&oq=1+mile+in+potrzebie&gs_l=serp.3...0.0.14.4969.0.0.0.0.0.0.6344.6344.9-1.1.0.les%3B..0.0...1c.58oe1mC822Y&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=19e0b359a6988847&bpcl=35466521&biw=1016&bih=395) and its built-in calculator capabilities; simply type: 1 mile in potrzebie. Wikipedia has a full explanation of the highly practical potrzebie (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potrzebie) together with useful modifiers such as furshlugginer that were added to the system in 1957 by the now-retired world-renowned Stanford University computer scientist Donald Knuth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Knuth).)
-
"Although the Moon is one-sixth the size of the Earth, it is still farther away." Alfred E. Neuman
-
But, again, this has been hashed over back in July with most experienced pilots in agreement that a gear up lagoon landing would provide the best chance of survival.
I was otherwise engaged in July. Yes, there was a regrettable period of several months earlier this year when a handful of individuals promoting invalid methodologies such as; we-can-figure-out-what-Amelia-did-by-imagining-what-we-would-have-done dominated the forum. A little house-cleaning has returned the forum to rational discussion based on sound investigative practice.
-
But, again, this has been hashed over back in July with most experienced pilots in agreement that a gear up lagoon landing would provide the best chance of survival.
I was otherwise engaged in July. Yes, there was a regrettable period of several months earlier this year when a handful of individuals promoting invalid methodologies such as; we-can-figure-out-what-Amelia-did-by-imagining-what-we-would-have-done dominated the forum. A little house-cleaning has returned the forum to rational discussion based on sound investigative practice.
Ric, in no way have I indicated that Earhart landed in the lagoon. If you received that impression, then I apologize for the mis-communication.
However, I did promote the fact that - she was not on the island during the search by the Navy Aircraft. Now that is sound based on the fact that the Navy fliers found "signs of habitation" but could not find people. A paradox had she or Noonan been there. Also the fact that this pilot has extensive SAR hours and extensive experience flying on the deck.
I'm rather certain that both Earhart and Noonan did not deliberately hide in the jungle in order to avoid being rescued.
-
However, I did promote the fact that - she was not on the island during the search by the Navy Aircraft.
That is not a fact. It is merely your supposition based on your own opinion. Calling it a "fact" is an example of invalid methodology.
Now that is sound based on the fact that the Navy fliers found "signs of habitation" but could not find people. A paradox had she or Noonan been there.
By that reasoning a TIGHAR team was not on the island in 1989 when an NZAF P-3 Orion came in low (est. 500 feet), circled the island, buzzed our ship, but never saw the 12 people standing out in the open on the island, wearing bright colored clothing, and waving like mad. I was one of the 12. We have the whole thing on video so I'm pretty sure we were really there.
Also the fact that this pilot has extensive SAR hours and extensive experience flying on the deck.
So does this pilot. We seem to have conflicting expert opinions.
I'm rather certain that both Earhart and Noonan did not deliberately hide in the jungle in order to avoid being rescued.
So am I. It's great when experts agree.
[/quote]
-
Also the fact that this pilot has extensive SAR hours and extensive experience flying on the deck.
So does this pilot. We seem to have conflicting expert opinions.
Ric, I had no idea you were a combat pilot. Thank you for your service.
Are you a River Rat? Your airplane?
Bill
-
Ric when you were on the beach with the 12 people waving to the p3 orion were you conducting an experiment to see how high up pilots could see humans? Were the pilots instructed to look for you at different heights? Were they not told your location and had to find you, or did they know where you were at and it was simply a visual accuity test at different heights?
That was a great idea either way to actually test how high people can be seen on a beach. Of course the unknown variable is whether the light conditions were the same. Regardless, a real world test like that points out tighar is not speculating when stating that Earhart could be missed by Navy, you are out testing your hypothesis.
If they did not see you at 500 feet at what height were the pilots finally able to find /see you?
-
Ric, I had no idea you were a combat pilot. Thank you for your service.
I wasn't. All my time is civilian (although I got a lot of unofficial stick time as an Army communications officer for a 1st Cavalry aviation battalion. All of my combat was with the battalion commander.
-
I wasn't. All my time is civilian (although I got a lot of unofficial stick time as an Army communications officer for a 1st Cavalry aviation battalion. All of my combat was with the battalion commander.
.
General George Putnam, by any chance?
-
General George Putnam, by any chance?
A light colonel from Utah named Young. I could tell ya stories - but they're off topic.
-
Alot of pilots and non-pilots on this Forum. And it seems that everyone has an opinion on whether landing on the reef, or the lagoon, was a good idea. Seems to me either you are right or wrong, you are both right.
Tom
-
And it seems that everyone has an opinion on whether landing on the reef, or the lagoon, was a good idea.
And none of the opinions mean a darn thing. All of the available evidence (and there is lots of it) strongly suggests a landing on the reef. Whether it was a good idea or a bad idea is immaterial to finding whatever is left of the plane.
-
Ric, speaking of finding the plane, might I respectfully call your attention to the following frames in the Niku VI HD video:
(1) 13:43:14 frame 14 shows the underside of the wingtip of the left wing, with the clear line (pointing directly at the camera) dividing the wingtip from the inboard portion of the wing and the bottom of the left aileron; in addition, the bottom of the digit "0" can be seen to the right of this line. Compare, for example, to the photo of AE standing in front of the aircraft that shows the N-number on the bottom of the left wing.
(2) 13:43:44 frame 9 shows the large lightening holes identified by John Balderston, but in addition shows the tubes attached to the underside of the top of the leading edge of the wing that were used to strengthen the leading edge. These tubes are shown in the cross-section of the wing in the set of drawings in the limited edition (Ric, please explain "limited edition").
(3) 13:43:24 frame 6 shows what appears to be a flap hinge that has been bent back on itself. Perhaps the wire shown was used to control the flap position.
(4) 13:43:20 frame 20 includes what looks to me like the Lockheed logo on the fixed portion of the left rudder.
(5) Not to forget the "0" and "2" from the top of the right wing previously identified by John Balderston. These can be found at 13:43:20 frame 21.
(6) 13:43:12 frame 18 at the very top about 3/4 of the way from left to right appears to be the open pilot's hatch seen from above and behind. The sliding pilot's window is to the left. On top of the fuselage behind the hatch appears to be the cover for the two forward tank fueling ports. Perhaps it is just my imagination, but I think one can also make out portions of the pilot's steering wheel through the open hatch.
Please pass these references on to Jeff Glickman. Thanks.
-
Please pass these references on to Jeff Glickman. Thanks.
Will do. I've already forwarded earlier forum postings on this subject to Jeff and asked him to look at the video. This summary should be helpful. Thanks.
-
With all respect Tim, I have seen some interesting items on the 2010 film, I have yet to see a "2" or any other number. The frame where you see numbers I see shadows and nothing else.
You know Tom -
Someplace in this maze of threads and comments I've seen (what I remember as) expert opinion relative to the aluminum skin corroding or deteriorating, over 75 years, so that the aircraft numbers would be gone. Just can't find it. I doubt that anyone will find the aircraft identification numbers let alone any identifiable piece of aluminum skin.
I could be wrong right, you know.
-
Someplace in this maze of threads and comments I've seen (what I remember as) expert opinion relative to the aluminum skin corroding or deteriorating, over 75 years, so that the aircraft numbers would be gone. Just can't find it. I doubt that anyone will find the aircraft identification numbers let alone any identifiable piece of aluminum skin.
How well aluminum skin survives in salt water seems to depend upon the particular environment. A few of the skins on a Douglas TBD-1 Devastator at a depth of 500 feet off Miami have corroded away. The skin of a Grumman F3F recovered from a similar depth off San Diego was in good shape and the markings were still visible after recovery. The skins on the TBD-1s in Jaluit Lagoon in the Marshall Islands - depths 50 and 125 feet - are in great condition after 70 years.
-
...environment.
Or the alloy? I have little knowledge relative this industry except I have anti-corrosion stuff on my boat. And it's on Lake Ontario.
I'm wondering if a military aircraft would be manufactured with a superior alloy - stronger/heavier for pilot protection? My A-1 weighed 12,000. The standard A-1 was 11,000. Even though the Skyraider was a larger plane, I wonder what the weight difference is.
Wait a minute - don't make no never mind noways. My single 3400hp weighed more than her two 550hp. And i had more electronics.
-
Bill, I think while there are documented planes pulled up decades later and show paint, it seems those are in relatively protected areas compared to this reef face. It would face a lot of movement for a time, and almost constant sand blasting from coral sand beating it. Throw in a typhoon or two, and I would be shocked if wing paint survived, especially whole numbers.
-
.... I would be shocked if wing paint survived, especially whole numbers.
.
They have. I've seen them.
-
Too many variables to be able to determine how aircraft wreckage will deteriorate over time, as Ric and others have pointed out.
Feel free to add to the list...
Environment
Location
Depth
Quality of materials used in construction (1930's)
Quality of coatings on surfaces, paint etc (1930's)
It's only my opinion but, the Electra didn't have a lot of paint on it to start with in comparison to say, a Corsair, Avenger or Devastator etc... and, the location of the debris field isn't exactly ideal for preserving features like paint, or even aluminium for that matter. Yes, aircraft have been found with paint jobs intact but, under more favourable conditions, lagoons, flat sea beds, shallower water etc...
IMHO of course
-
Too many variables to be able to determine how aircraft wreckage will deteriorate over time, as Ric and others have pointed out.
Feel free to add to the list...
Environment
Location
Depth
Quality of materials used in construction (1930's)
Quality of coatings on surfaces, paint etc (1930's)
It's only my opinion but, the Electra didn't have a lot of paint on it to start with in comparison to say, a Corsair, Avenger or Devastator etc... and, the location of the debris field isn't exactly ideal for preserving features like paint, or even aluminium for that matter. Yes, aircraft have been found with paint jobs intact but, under more favourable conditions, lagoons, flat sea beds, shallower water etc...
IMHO of course
Jeff -
Isn't there something about increased and quicker deterioration if aluminum is fixed to another material - say, steel?
-
Jeff, when you look at the debris field it has a lot going for it.
a) It's where Emily remembered plane wreckage
b) It's where 'Nessie' was photographed
c) There were a max of 3 planes reported missing in this area, AE's being one
d) It isn't coral reef
Norwich city? I doubt it, too flimsy, too far away, steel is heavy, it goes down not along reef slopes
IMHO of course
-
Ric, speaking of finding the plane, might I respectfully call your attention to the following frames in the Niku VI HD video:
(1) 13:43:14 frame 14 shows the underside of the wingtip of the left wing, with the clear line (pointing directly at the camera) dividing the wingtip from the inboard portion of the wing and the bottom of the left aileron; in addition, the bottom of the digit "0" can be seen to the right of this line. Compare, for example, to the photo of AE standing in front of the aircraft that shows the N-number on the bottom of the left wing.
This sounds intriguing, but I'm not aware of any Niku VI HD video. Are you referring to the familiar 2 min. Niku VII clip, and if so, what do the time markers such as 13:43:14 refer to?
-
Ok ---for us technically deprived members that cants seen to find this, can someone post the frames that Tim is referring to?
Tom
-
Tom, I'm confident (from the time markers) that the Niku VI video that's being discussed is the Wire & Rope video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tvHm3jZcME&feature=plcp) available on the Youtube TIGHARChannel (http://www.youtube.com/user/TIGHARchannel)
-
Or the alloy? I have little knowledge relative this industry except I have anti-corrosion stuff on my boat. And it's on Lake Ontario.
I'm wondering if a military aircraft would be manufactured with a superior alloy - stronger/heavier for pilot protection?
From the early 1930's onward, virtually all American all-metal aircraft - civilian and military - were skinned with the same alloy. Back then it was known as 24ST ALCLAD. Today it's called 2024 ALCLAD - a sheet of alloy with excellent strength properties sandwiched between thin layers of pure aluminum for corrosion protection. It was a patented ALCOA product until the need to boost aircraft production at the outbreak of WWII prompted the government to allow other manufacturers (Kaiser, Reynolds, etc.) to produce it. Earhart's Electra, my Dad's B-17, your A-1, and my Beech Debonair were all made of the same stuff.
-
Here's a good site for anyone interested in aluminium deterioration. It's a joint venture EAA, MATTER and Liverpool university, you can even take a test at the end to see how you got on.
http://aluminium.matter.org.uk/content/html/eng/default.asp?catid=179&pageid=2144416649 (http://aluminium.matter.org.uk/content/html/eng/default.asp?catid=179&pageid=2144416649)
-
All good points Jeff. I'm glad you mentioned the 'sand'. Are you referring to the 'sand' in the HD video?
I have been working on one or two theories regarding the 'sand' in the HD video, mainly along the lines of 'sand doesn't do that'.
;)
-
Personally, at this point, I'd like to see something more like those war wrecks Ric just put up...
Me too. Have you ever watched something, say a football game, and had a real strong desire to get back into it? Play it again? As soon as those airplanes were posted, I felt that I should put it on and fly it out of the water. They look like they're ready to go.
My personal feeling is that those airplanes should have a priority over something civilian........someone inept.
-
My personal feeling is that those airplanes should have a priority over something civilian........someone inept.
We're not gonna go there.
-
As far as reef landing near the NC.....most logical for several reasons. And was discussed a long time ago. Flat, almost dry surface, wide and long enough, near a ship wreck which may offer supplies or shelter (at least a strong landmark). But what we know about AE is also important, and yes I wasn't there or inside her head for sure, but her history shows she would not be ready to give up on completing this flight. A airplane in one piece, found quickly, refueled, could then continue on. Ditching is rather final. She had a habit of not necessarily ending up where she meant to go. I CAN imagine the excitement of seeing that reef, dry, wide and long, with both fans still spinning. I may have been to excited to make a good landing....but I would have certainly tried to keep the hope alive. Just my 2 cents...about what it is worth to some I am sure.
-
As far as reef landing near the NC.....most logical for several reasons. And was discussed a long time ago. Flat, almost dry surface, wide and long enough, near a ship wreck which may offer supplies or shelter (at least a strong landmark). But what we know about AE is also important, and yes I wasn't there or inside her head for sure, but her history shows she would not be ready to give up on completing this flight. A airplane in one piece, found quickly, refueled, could then continue on. Ditching is rather final. She had a habit of not necessarily ending up where she meant to go. I CAN imagine the excitement of seeing that reef, dry, wide and long, with both fans still spinning. I may have been to excited to make a good landing....but I would have certainly tried to keep the hope alive. Just my 2 cents...about what it is worth to some I am sure.
I would disagree with the NC spot being the "most logical". I know Ric doesn't like speculation, but where she landed involves a deal of speculation, no way around it, we don't have pictures of her touching down. She would have no idea how flat or smooth the surface was as she was landing besides a low flyover. At the Norwich, she also would have the shortest "runway" to stop the plane, and there is obvious debris all over around the Norwich. What if she ran across the anchor chain that would not be visible while flying over?
Let's see,
Choice 1, no debris, 4 mile stretch of dry reef that looks straight,flat, dry, dunes to the left, water to the right.
Choice two. Put it down next to a huge beached freighter with lord knows what junk is half buried in a hole, or chains waiting to flip the electra end over end, and high trees off to one side, a 5000 ton freigher off to the other, and the shortest stretch of reef on the entire atoll to land on.
I really don't think Choice two is the most obvious or logical choice for landing. She could always land on the Northern shore and walk to the wreck for supplies if she wanted. She doesn't have to land right in front of the ship. It would have been very dangerous to do so not knowing what was on the surface among all the steel debris. She might have anyway. But it doesn't mean that is the most logical.
-
I would disagree with the NC spot being the "most logical".
Whether it's the most logical place to land is irrelevant. It's where all of the evidence found so far says she DID land.
How logical was it to try to fly around the world in 1937 without knowing morse code or knowing how to work your Radio Direction Finder?
-
I would disagree with the NC spot being the "most logical".
Whether it's the most logical place to land is irrelevant. It's where all of the evidence found so far says she DID land.
How logical was it to try to fly around the world in 1937 without knowing morse code or knowing how to work your Radio Direction Finder?
Not logical at all to do either in my opinion. But what evidence have you found that she landed near the Norwich? I know of reports of planes by people decades later, but if you discount Gilbert islanders recollections, I would give no more weight to young gardner islanders remembering a plane or hearing of the their parents speak of a plane. That is not hard evidence you can hold in your hand. Site 7 is a long way down the beach as you know well.
So unless I missed something, and that is possible as I haven't been at this for two decades and am not the expert, what evidence is there for a Norwich landing?
-
So unless I missed something, and that is possible as I haven't been at this for two decades and am not the expert, what evidence is there for a Norwich landing?
Lots, but the best evidence is the Bevington Photo.
-
So unless I missed something, and that is possible as I haven't been at this for two decades and am not the expert, what evidence is there for a Norwich landing?
Not to mention the pile of Electra parts at 800 feet down, just offshore from the Bevington object...
-
So unless I missed something, and that is possible as I haven't been at this for two decades and am not the expert, what evidence is there for a Norwich landing?
Not to mention the pile of Electra parts at 800 feet down, just offshore from the Bevington object...
Haha, very good one, but I do believe you have to actually see the plane to put it in the evidence column.
-
Depends what you are expecting to see, or hoping to see I guess. A fairly intact aircraft or one in little bits? A fairly intact one would stick out like a sore thumb, the other version?
-
Tim--what "pile of Electra parts at 800 feet down, just offshore from the Bevington object..."?
Did you guys raise any of these 'parts' and positively identify them as being from an Electra? If you did, THAT would be newsworthy. And if so, WHAT PARTS WERE THEY?
I'd be REALLY interested in knowing that, and I'm sure that our members would be too. Perhaps THATS the reason the KOK came home early.
Tom
-
Tim--what "pile of Electra parts at 800 feet down, just offshore from the Bevington object..."?
Did you guys raise any of these 'parts' and positively identify them as being from an Electra? If you did, THAT would be newsworthy. And if so, WHAT PARTS WERE THEY?
I'd be REALLY interested in knowing that, and I'm sure that our members would be too. Perhaps THATS the reason the KOK came home early.
Tom
Tom, viewing the full-length Niku VI HD video released just yesterday, my eyes see literally countless pieces of metal, some of them with very recognizable airplane shapes (wing with aileron, rudder, landing gear, tail wheel (courtesy Richie), painted identification number digits) and others with sheared, jagged edges. I look for straight edges, right angles, circular shapes, and non-circular holes such as a square punch-outs.
This pile of rubble exists in a fairly small area, maybe the size of a basketball court, and is distinct in character from the Norwich City wreckage to the South. Ric has identified the specific area in which the Niku VI footage was obtained. I don't think it is necessary to actually recover a physical part so long as it can be properly identified and be shown to come from the specific aircraft NR16020. That would in itself answer the key question "where did the Earhart flight terminate."
The KOK returned exactly as scheduled, without finding anything related to an Electra in real time. Subsequent video, still under review, may disclose parts from the Electra, and if so, would duplicate IMHO those found in the VI video.
-
That would constitute a very interesting pile of wreckage.
I am wondering what forces could -
- Cause such massive destruction - into pieces - of an Electra airframe, and yet
- Still deposit so many pieces of such relatively light material (like wing panels, sheet metal, etc.) into a relatively small area?
Jeff, I think the answer to the paradox you pose is the monocoque construction of the aircraft in conjunction with the binding effects of components such as cables, wires, and hoses. These would tend to keep the aircraft relatively intact in spite of external forces. Even so, we don't know, in fact, whether the Electra was subject to pounding surf, or whether it just floated off the reef on an extremely high tide, to sink and be damaged by crashing against the cliff walls on the way down to its final resting place.
-
My question is,
Who here is willing to get in a submersible an go down 800 feet to investigate the wreckage ?
On the reef face of Niku
Not me.
Anyway what would be the point, No doubt soon as footage was made available with Evidence an comment's it would be dismissed anyway ? would it NOT. U always have doubters
Unless you see an object first hand, you/we all have doubt's as to weather it is genuine or not.
Anyway.
Wreckage field. Using the rope as scale if it was a tie down for plane for instance, each twist in rope would be between 4 & 8 inches long
so do the math's :)
My point being, I doubt any member here has had to identify airplane parts in this kind of environment so it's a learning curve for all
-
Anyway what would be the point, No doubt soon as footage was made available with Evidence an comment's it would be dismissed anyway ? would it NOT. U always have doubters
Unless you see an object first hand, you/we all have doubt's as to weather it is genuine or not.
Or, "You can lead a horse to water...." :)
-
Was a long night
Apologies to all
However it's still my opinion, untill Tighar raise a piece of wreckage there will always be those nay Sayers.
As to evidence of landing on reef by Norwich city,
First thing you would see, approaching island is Norwich City, so you would look there first, if you were a searcher looking for downed plane
:)
-
(6) 13:43:12 frame 18 at the very top about 3/4 of the way from left to right appears to be the open pilot's hatch seen from above and behind. The sliding pilot's window is below and to the left. On top of the fuselage behind the hatch appears to be the cover for the two forward tank fueling ports. Perhaps it is just my imagination, but I think one can also make out portions of the pilot's steering wheel through the open hatch.
Reviewing the additional footage of the extended Niku VI HD video, I would like to revise my estimatation with regard to item #6 in my earlier post. Rather than a cover for the two forward tank fueling ports (which according to the Harney drawing consists of two separate rectangular covers), I think that frame #26 at time 13:41:23 shows the circular object more likely to be the loop antenna, twisted 90 degrees so it points forward and aft, then bent over to the port side.
This new frame shows shadow beneath the circle, indicating vertical separation. I am glad we are able to see things from several different angles. Thank you, Ric, for providing the extra video.
In addition, if you advance from the original 13:43:12 frame 18 to frame 22, one can see the channel into which the pilot's sliding window opens. It appears as a lightish line extending from the window's bottom aftwards.
-
Tim---Im guessing you are referring to the VII HD video. I'll leave those interputations to those more qualified than me. I saw the black squiggley and the gear 2 years ago, and was busted, so you can sense the caution in my tone.
I think that as serious as this is, IMHO, I would think that proof would not be in a HD video, but more in an artifact. Tailwheel with a part number on it, part of a wing skin with portions of the registration number, instruments, etc. Look at it this way Tim, for many years the public did NOT believe that man had visited the moon. Didnt matter that we had a grainy video feed. People wanted something they could see, and possibly touch. Pictures and video leave alot of interputations to the viewer. Just look at this forum, or those in DC at the symposium. Varied opinions.
So, an identifiable artifact puts to rest all the conjecture. Like Rod Tidwell said, "show me the money". Well in our case, the money is the identifiable part that we can prove came from NR16020.
Richie---I'd go on the submirsible.
Tom
-
Tim---Im guessing you are referring to the VII HD video.
No, I've more or less given up on the VII video. The full length VI video from 2010 released yesterday is where the action's at, IMHO. Please go back and look again, because there is so much new to see, we can all partake in the feast.
-
Look at it this way Tim, for many years the public did NOT believe that man had visited the moon. Didnt matter that we had a grainy video feed. People wanted something they could see, and possibly touch.
And there are still those who don't believe Tom, despite the evidence.
Example: who exactly set up the equipment on the moon to enable this experiment to function, even today it is still in use...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Laser_Ranging_experiment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Laser_Ranging_experiment)
Can't please everyone :-\
-
Tim----I think we have same things in mind. I personally didnt see anything in the VII video, but what do I know. I leave things like that to the people that are more qualified than me.
My thing about the pile of electra stuff at 800 feet surely made it sound like you guys found something specific. That's all I was asking. Not footage from a 2 year old video. Something in the present.
I mis-understood.
Tom
-
(1) 13:43:14 frame 14 shows the underside of the wingtip of the left wing, with the clear line (pointing directly at the camera) dividing the wingtip from the inboard portion of the wing and the bottom of the left aileron; in addition, the bottom of the digit "0" can be seen to the right of this line. Compare, for example, to the photo of AE standing in front of the aircraft that shows the N-number on the bottom of the left wing.
Further review of this frame, and frames from the extended VI video, show that an additional control surface (I think one half of a rudder) sits on top of the leading edge of the upside-down wing described above.
-
Hi Tom
Look in white box an you will see, what i believe are 3 letters which spell T.A.P
There is actually more man made objects in the video, I will try an post them soon
Thanks Richie
-
Tim---Im guessing you are referring to the VII HD video.
No, I've more or less given up on the VII video. The full length VI video from 2010 released yesterday is where the action's at, IMHO. Please go back and look again, because there is so much new to see, we can all partake in the feast.
Tim you do realize that Mr.Glickman the photo analyst you are going to meet has given a 100% probability that the latest 2012 expedition has video that he states shows a man made debris field of lighter objects seperate from the Norwich city wreck?
Yet you have "given up on the 2012 debris field video"? No excitement over Glickman's work is apparent. Instead your insist the previous expedition video, which Glickman already analyzed, dismissed, and did not find an airplane part is "where the action is"?
That shows little faith in Glickman or his photo expertise. The film Glickman said was not electra parts you are excited about. The film Glickman is 100% positive shows a debris field you have given up on.
I am getting very confused about what Tighar considers a debris field and who the expert is. Ric said Tim Mellon had expertise from being on the boat and if Tim says he sees something it should be re-examined.
At the same time Mr.Mellon says he has given up on an endorsed Glickman 2012 debris field that is certain to contain man made parts.
Where's waldo, or in this case, just where is the debris field? This cannot be the same debris field either because Glickman has already said nothing was found in the first film Mellon is looking at, yet Glickman is 100% sure of the second field. Or if it is the same field, then Glickman previously dismissed a "pile of plane parts", that Mr.Mellon says is plainly visible with easily identifiable plane components.
It is hardly a ringing endorsement of Mr.Glickman's 2012 photo research abilities when major contributers are using terms like "given up on it".The other alternative is suggesting Glickman missed an entire broken up plane Mr.Mellon plainly sees in area the size of a basketball court.
They cannot both be correct.
-
Tim---Im guessing you are referring to the VII HD video.
No, I've more or less given up on the VII video. The full length VI video from 2010 released yesterday is where the action's at, IMHO. Please go back and look again, because there is so much new to see, we can all partake in the feast.
Tim you do realize that Mr.Glickman the photo analyst you are going to meet has given a 100% probability that the latest 2012 expedition has video that he states shows a man made debris field of lighter objects seperate from the Norwich city wreck?
Yet you have "given up on the 2012 debris field video"? No excitement over Glickman's work is apparent. Instead your insist the previous expedition video, which Glickman already analyzed, dismissed, and did not find an airplane part is "where the action is"?
That shows little faith in Glickman or his photo expertise. The film Glickman said was not electra parts you are excited about. The film Glickman is 100% positive shows a debris field you have given up on.
I am getting very confused about what Tighar considers a debris field and who the expert is. Ric said Tim Mellon had expertise from being on the boat and if Tim says he sees something it should be re-examined.
At the same time Mr.Mellon says he has given up on an endorsed Glickman 2012 debris field that is certain to contain man made parts.
Where's waldo, or in this case, just where is the debris field? This cannot be the same debris field either because Glickman has already said nothing was found in the first film Mellon is looking at, yet Glickman is 100% sure of the second field. Or if it is the same field, then Glickman previously dismissed a "pile of plane parts", that Mr.Mellon says is plainly visible with easily identifiable plane components.
It is hardly a ringing endorsement of Mr.Glickman's 2012 photo research abilities when major contributers are using terms like "given up on it".The other alternative is suggesting Glickman missed an entire broken up plane Mr.Mellon plainly sees in area the size of a basketball court.
They cannot both be correct.
Tom, please read the language carefully. I said I had "more or less given up on the video". I have spent more hours looking at the VII over the past two months than the VI, the long version of which I have only seen for three days.
I certainly have confidence in Mr. Glickman's skills, but until he explains what he has seen in the VII debris field, I have no idea whether it represents AE aircraft parts, or just what. What I can see with my own eyes in the 8+ minutes of VI video is, to me, astounding. I have no idea whether or not Mr. Glickman has been afforded the opportunity to examine these 8+ minutes. My own experience is as a pilot, an airline captain, and an airline owner, so "things airplane" are familiar to me. I am no expert, and do not pretend to be, so I don't think it is appropriate to compare me to Mr. Glickman. Apples and oranges.
-
Hey Richie---let me borrow your computer screen so I can read the letters!
-
It is hardly a ringing endorsement of Mr.Glickman's 2012 photo research abilities when major contributers are using terms like "given up on it".The other alternative is suggesting Glickman missed an entire broken up plane Mr.Mellon plainly sees in area the size of a basketball court.
They cannot both be correct.
Tom, when you or Mr. Glickman, or anyone else, for that matter, show me a full cockpit, identifying many flight instruments and controls, in the Niku VII HD video, then I will concede that I am not correct. See my Reply #54 in the "Wire and Rope entire.mov" thread for full details.
-
Hi All
Never noticed this before but in this 1935 image of Norwich City there is a mooring rope hanging over side, No doubt it would still be there in 1937
-
Hi All
Never noticed this before but in this 1935 image of Norwich City there is a mooring rope hanging over side, No doubt it would still be there in 1937
Richie, you really are a land lubber. It's a mooring line not a rope. line line line say it over and over, you'll get it, I know you will. ;D
-
A question occurred to me that might belong on this thread.
Recall the photo taken by one of the Colorado's planes of the reef & shipwreck, that showed another plane from the Colorado (which I cannot find right now.)
That would have been taken with a med. or lge. format camera, and the negatives would have probably been archived. Being a USN camera and film, the film may well have been high resolution. Certainly, the camera lens would be professional level. So. Has anyone obtained that negative and others taken of the same area by those searchers, and gone over them with a glass? If Nessie was an artifact from c/n 1055, and it was there in Dec 37 for Bevington, it had to be there in July/Aug 37 for the Colorado searchers. I recall difference in tide levels, but I should think it would be worth a look.
Given the triangulation already done, locating where to look should be easy.
Thanks
Mike
-
Mike
I think the photo you are thinking of was from a later period, not from the Colorado search. Ric would probably be the best to answer this, but I think the photo with another aircraft in it was taken either during the war, or in the 50's.
The only photo supposedly from the Colorado overflight is the one showing the SE end of the island including the 7 site, which in itself begs the question of why they took that one and not others particularly when the Norwich City was such a prominent landmark.
Andrew
-
Hi Mike
Here is link, ur image is fifth one down dated 1941, http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/19_Forensicupdate.html
Thanks Richie
-
Thanks Richie & Andrew.
After correction of my errors of time and overflight, seems as though the follow-up on the pictures was done. Odd, though. I cannot find any documentation of Photek's findings, or their methods. These pics that were sent to them must have been film originally. Did Photek use the film or digital copies? And was their analysis carried out with film? If all they used were digital, I'd have a few questions.
Do we know for sure that the Lambrecht photographer took only one pic? Possible, but seems unlikely. Carrying the camera around all day, and only take one pic. In a plane? Did anyone rattle the archivist? What size was the original film of the Lambrecht pic negative of the island. Was it sheet or roll? etc. etc.
Again, appreciate your help.
Regards
Mike
PS. Did the Japanese military take any aerials of Niku in their preparation for Pacific domination? Has anyone asked?
-
Hi Michael
Here is link to Untouched images http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/16_ForensicImaging/16_Forensicimaging.html
If you want to search Tighar's work, just below banner heading at top of page you will see a row of boxes click on the Search Tighar box, and on next page click on search by subject :)
-
Did Photek use the film or digital copies?
Photek was working with a copy-negatiive provided by the New Zealand Archive which holds the original print.
Do we know for sure that the Lambrecht photographer took only one pic? Possible, but seems unlikely. Carrying the camera around all day, and only take one pic. In a plane? Did anyone rattle the archivist? What size was the original film of the Lambrecht pic negative of the island. Was it sheet or roll? etc. etc.
We don't know the answer to those questions. We did "rattle the archivist" in New Zealand but he doesn't know how a New Zealand archive came to have U.S. Navy photos that we haven't found in U.S. records.
Did the Japanese military take any aerials of Niku in their preparation for Pacific domination? Has anyone asked?
Questions like this are understandable given the prevalence of mythology about pre-war Japanese "preparation for Pacific domination," but the fact is Japanese fortification of the mandated islands didn't begin until 1940 and there is no evidence that the Japanese ever did any intelligence gathering in the Phoenix Group.
-
The only photo supposedly from the Colorado overflight is the one showing the SE end of the island including the 7 site, which in itself begs the question of why they took that one and not others particularly when the Norwich City was such a prominent landmark.
Actually when you think it about it is very odd. Although the Norwich City was a prominent landmark, the picture you would've thought would've been taken would have been the "signs of recent habitation" as it to drew their attention enough to cause them to repeatedly buzz the area looking for inhabitants. IMHO that would've been the picture to take.
LTM,
Don
-
The only photo supposedly from the Colorado overflight is the one showing the SE end of the island including the 7 site, which in itself begs the question of why they took that one and not others particularly when the Norwich City was such a prominent landmark.
Actually when you think it about it is very odd. Although the Norwich City was a prominent landmark, the picture you would've thought would've been taken would have been the "signs of recent habitation" as it to drew their attention enough to cause them to repeatedly buzz the area looking for inhabitants. IMHO that would've been the picture to take.
There were three aircraft with two people in each. Only Lambrecht mentioned the "signs of recent habitation." Bill Short (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Letters/Short.pdf) did not. We don't know who took the photo.
-
RB#16 suggests: "We think that it’s one of the other PBYs making a low pass over the shipwreck." Crew of 2 in a PBY? PBYs had a crew of at least 3 and sometimes up to 10. Did you later (than Oct 1999) determine that it was a smaller Douglas or Grumman A/C? That's what I thought at first glance -- a Navy torpedo or dive bomber.
Mike.
-
RB#16 suggests: "We think that it’s one of the other PBYs making a low pass over the shipwreck." Crew of 2 in a PBY? PBYs had a crew of at least 3 and sometimes up to 10. Did you later (than Oct 1999) determine that it was a smaller Douglas or Grumman A/C? That's what I thought at first glance -- a Navy torpedo or dive bomber.
There seems to be some confusion about the photos. The only photo we know of that was taken on July 9 during the Navy's search for Earhart is the one we call the Lambrecht Photo (a misnomer really, because there is no reason to think that Senior Aviator John Lambrecht took it himself). The photo shows the island from the southeast end looking westward (even though the handwritten north arrow points due West).
As explained in RB#16, the photo that shows an airplane-shaped object on the reef was taken in June 1941. On June 21, 1941 six U.S. Navy PBYs visited Gardner Island as part of a strategic survey of all of the islands in the South Central Pacific. The photo is one of several they took that day. The airplane-shaped object is consistent with a PBY-2. There seems to be little doubt that the airplane-shaped object is one of the PBYs making a low pass near the shipwreck.
-
Going back over some earlier threads, I came across the following:
Re: Deserted Island, Castaways, Survival thread
« Reply #261 on: April 07, 2012, 09:39:36 AM » by Heath Smith
Pic is switched to negative.
Which is from « Reply #876 on: February 08, 2012, 07:53:13 PM » Still from ROV video thread
Date of original pic is 1 Dec 1938
Am I going round the bend, or can anyone else see a vague planform just to the left of the white spot under the arrow point? It’s lighter than the surround. It’s not a full planform; the nose and the empennage are missing. But, most of the wing is there, the nacelles are there. Depending on the type of monitor you’re using you may benefit by moving your viewpoint around a bit. The missing tail section may be what Heath points out as “interesting.”
The version appended here is the negative (posted by Heath Smith) of that from Ric’s reply on 8 Feb 2011 with the contrast raised. The arrowhead is the original from Ric’s .
Mike
-
Am I going round the bend, or can anyone else see a vague planform just to the left of the white spot under the arrow point?
Yes, I see it.
"Vague planforms" are just waiting to be found (http://tighar.org/wiki/Google_Earth) all over the place.
-
Am I going round the bend, or can anyone else see a vague planform just to the left of the white spot under the arrow point?
If the entire center section and wings of an aircraft were sitting on the reef on December 1, 1938 is it reasonable to suppose that it was missed by the crew of the Supermarine Walrus that took the photo and the New Zealand Survey party that was there for the next two months?
-
So, Marty, you’ll have to add the figment I posted to your collection of same.
re. The Walrus crew. You, RG are a pilot. So am I. We both know that what you can see on the ground, and remember, when you’re PIC is really limited. The observer/nav/copilot is in a better position (assuming he’s paying attention over the correct side. The Walrus seated two crew side by side – not tandem.) The probability that the Walrus crew could miss a fuselage and wings of an Electra that had been pounded by surf for 18 months, and was mainly submerged and might have been obscured with sand, growth, etc – from my standpoint – is pretty high. And the photo suggests they were at least 1000ft AGL. So my assignment of probability of their missing it is relatively high.
The probability that the NZ Survey Team could miss such an artifact is a much more serious question. If they were camped in sight of the area and could observe it at all tide stages, then I’d say that it’s a small probability that they would have missed a plane wreck halfway across the reef, even if it was flattened by surf. So, that’s why I posted. And, there’s one more reason why I posted.
In this photo, there are three (3) possible Electra artifacts.
First, Heath Smith pointed out the “interesting” image, and I suggested it had some characteristics of an empennage. To help in the visualization, after looking at Heaths pic, reef pic (1) copy.jpg, appended, see the wreck pic. of CF-HTV appended. Think about it with the elevator torn off.
Second, I pointed out the “planform” in my 29 Jan 2013 post, above.
Third, there is another artifact in the planform photo -- three parallel lines in a SE-NW direction that terminate in the planform, roughly where the landing gear would have been. Keep in mind that nature may occasionally generate two parallel lines, but seldom does she do three parallel lines. Also keep in mind prevailing wave directions. It’s a puzzle. I’m interested to discover whether I’m the only one who saw this puzzle. And, this may, indeed, be an artifact of digitizing. So:
I’d like to ask Ric if he could arrange for a copy of the 1 Dec 1938 print negative to be made using hi-res. film -- preferably 6cm medium format -- and send it to me. Maybe that will keep me out of mischief for a while. I have some experience interpreting film. No rush. Whenever.
BTW, in previous expeditions, did anyone go over this reef section with a metal detector that works underwater and is designed to detect aluminum, (See Ebinger GmbH Metallsuchgeräten at: www.ebingergmbh.com) or even just an old fashioned one that prefers iron, nickel etc?
Appreciate your tolerance of my figments. Thanks
Mike
-
In this photo, there are three (3) possible Electra artifacts.
First, Heath Smith pointed out the “interesting” image, and I suggested it had some characteristics of an empennage. To help in the visualization, after looking at Heaths pic, reef pic (1) copy.jpg, appended, see the wreck pic. of CF-HTV appended. Think about it with the elevator torn off.
I scanned the print at 600 dpi and blew up the features you reference. See attached images. Heath Smith's interesting image is a flaw in the photo - a Y-shaped piece of something-or-other on the negative when the print was made.
Second, I pointed out the “planform” in my 29 Jan 2013 post, above.
There is no planform. It's a speck of dust on the negative.
Third, there is another artifact in the planform photo -- three parallel lines in a SE-NW direction that terminate in the planform, roughly where the landing gear would have been.
I see no parallel lines.
BTW, in previous expeditions, did anyone go over this reef section with a metal detector that works underwater and is designed to detect aluminum?
The metal detectors we use will detect and kind of metal and are extremely sensitive, but going over the reef with a metal detector would be like going over a parking lot with a metal detector. It is not possible for something to be buried in the reef. If there was metal on the reef it would have to be on the surface where we could see it.
Appreciate your tolerance of my figments. Thanks
No problem.
-
Well, that's better. 600dpi helps. There's nothing there. It's all digital pic. noise. And you wondered why I had been going on about film.
Two things I'll leave you with.
1. A reef is a living thing: it grows. And doing so it can entomb debris. So, I wouldn't write it off. Esp. on the next expedition -- you'll need a shore crew in addition to the underwater crew.
2. Did the 4th artifact near the bottom of dot.jpg also vanish at 600dpi?
Regards
Mike
PS. Did you get ver 6 of the Survivors list?
-
re. The Walrus crew. You, RG are a pilot. So am I. We both know that what you can see on the ground, and remember, when you’re PIC is really limited. The observer/nav/copilot is in a better position (assuming he’s paying attention over the correct side. The Walrus seated two crew side by side – not tandem.) The probability that the Walrus crew could miss a fuselage and wings of an Electra that had been pounded by surf for 18 months, and was mainly submerged and might have been obscured with sand, growth, etc – from my standpoint – is pretty high. And the photo suggests they were at least 1000ft AGL. So my assignment of probability of their missing it is relatively high.
Mike, I won't get in to a discussion of the probability of the Walrus crew detecting the Electra, if it was in fact on the reef when they flew over. In the recent past there have been many posts made about probabilities of dectection from aircraft. I will, however, submit some information about the aircraft. The quote below comes from this wikipedia article about the Supermarine Walrus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermarine_Walrus).
"Although the aircraft typically flew with one pilot, there were positions for two. The left-hand position was the main one, with the instrument panel and a fixed seat, while the right-hand seat could be folded away to allow access to the nose gun-position via a crawl-way.[6] An unusual feature was that the control column was not a fixed fitting in the usual way, but could be unplugged from either of two sockets at floor level. It became a habit for only one column to be in use; and when control was passed from the pilot to co-pilot or vice-versa, the control column would simply be unplugged and handed over. Behind the cockpit, there was a small cabin with work stations for the navigator andradio operator."
This quote leads me to believe that the normal crew for the Walrus was probably three, pilot, navigator and radio operator. The wikipedia article, as well as this article (http://www.ipmsstockholm.org/magazine/1998/01/stuff_eng_detail_walrus.htm)indicate that there was a forward and a rear gunner position on the Walrus. Both were outside the aircraft and, probably, had a much better field of view than from the cockpit. Whether this would equate to a higher probability of detection for objects on the ground I cannot say.
It also appears that the 1938 New Zealand photo of Gardner Island, which was made from a Walrus, was probably made from the rear gunner position because of the way the wing tip and aft part of the stabilizing float are included in the upper right part of the picture which is attached below.
I submit this for whatever it may be worth.
-
It also appears that the 1938 New Zealand photo of Gardner Island, which was made from a Walrus, was probably made from the rear gunner position because of the way the wing tip and aft part of the stabilizing float are included in the upper right part of the picture which is attached below.
After looking at some of the other pictures of the Walrus aircraft it appears that I was wrong in my determination that the 1938 New Zealand photo of Gardner was made from the rear gun position. The part of the wing and float shown in the first picture appears to be the leading edge of the wing, with position light, and the front of the float, with curved "bow" and mooring eye, see picture two.
Sorry about my misinterpretation. It seems the picture could have been taken from either the "co-pilot's" seat or the front gunner position although it looks more like from the "co-pilot's" seat.
-
I always found this photo intriguing.
The arrows show the path of incoming ICBMs landing near the Norwich City, part of the SAMTEC project conducted at Niku. The reason we can't find any electra wreckage is because of the nuclear blasts that took place there at Camp Zero.....
or not
Now back to your regularly scheduled reality show....
:-)
amck
-
Do we know what the arrows mean?
Why have them on an image taken from the other end of the island?
-
Do we know what the arrows mean?
Why have them on an image taken from the other end of the island?
Chris, this is where I got the picture. (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/21_RecentHab/21_RecentHab.html) The caption for the picture only says that the arrows point to "features of interest" at the far end on the island.
-
Thank You :)
-
If I had to guess....
-
Shipwreck's in the wrong place :) unless there was another!
-
Shipwreck's in the wrong place :) unless there was another!
I'm not holding the Royal Navy to a high degree of precision in this case.
-
Notice how there was one arrow diagonally pointing at the "shipwreck" that has been almost entirely erased?
I wonder why, but in the end it probably doesn't matter.
amck
-
Notice how there was one arrow diagonally pointing at the "shipwreck" that has been almost entirely erased?
I wonder why, but in the end it probably doesn't matter.
amck
Probably pointing to the Bevington Object, but before Jeff Glickman's approval...
-
I wonder if our mis-adveturers , on the island saw the plane fly over the south-east corner of the island and decided to move there to wait for other planes or ships ?
If this was the only area of the island flown over a plane in the reef surf would have been very hard to spot.... at the other end of the island ...
-
George, My take is that it is generally believed that the Colorado Search planes circled the entire island. While Lambrecht never explicitly said in his report (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Lambrecht's_Report.html) that he did circle around the island he uses the phrase "repeated circling and zooming" around the signs of recent habitation and gives a reasonable description of Gardner including the Norwich City that suggests they flew around at least once.
-
My take includes a little from what both George and Matt said.
I think the “repeated zooming and circling” phrase referred to one spot on the island. A specific location where there were “signs of recent habitation”. The suspected Camp Zero after it was abandoned. Just based on I don’t think it would be described as “zooming” if you went around the whole island.
A separate big search circle around the island and one around the lagoon makes sense to me if they had time. Lambrecht noted the lagoon as a possible landing area when he noted “Given a chance, it is believed that Miss Earhart could have landed her plane in this lagoon and swam or waded ashore”
As far as moving to where she saw planes, or if AE even heard or saw these planes, she may have gone to the shore already searched and was blocked from view by trees when they searched the other shore.
The shape of the island is like searching two. An inner island and an outer island
Worst case for trying to be seen could be moving back and forth between the shores, always chasing where they were
-
A specific location where there were “signs of recent habitation”. The suspected Camp Zero after it was abandoned.
If the search planes had "zoomed and circled" around Camp Zero their circles would have included the Norwich City and the presumed parking stand for the Electra (unless maybe they had crop-dusting experience).
Greg, I think you logic lends even more credence to the likelihood that the Electra was no longer there.
-
Lambrecht noted the lagoon as a possible landing area when he noted “Given a chance, it is believed that Miss Earhart could have landed her plane in this lagoon and swam or waded ashore”
If you were circling an island/atoll as a searcher under that impression would you even give a second thought to searching the outer reef edge ?
Would pilots like Lambrecht in this kind of scenirio, Be told in training to ditch into lagoon or the outer reef ?
Just wondering if that's how they were taught in training and expects Amelia would do the same.
Thanks Richie