Wire & Rope entire.mov

[Alan Harris]

I still feel that way, but I'm willing to try to find out the proper terminology for the stuff.

Just google "shaft packing" or "packing gland material", you'll find numerous sources.  I believe it has been available for a very long time in its basic form, just the materials have changed.  Its use is for sealing rotating shafts where there is liquid on one side, such as marine propeller shafts, pump shafts, etc.  Offhand I can't think of any potential aircraft use, but I certainly can't claim exhaustive factual knowledge as to that.  It is not a general-purpose material used for insulating, padding, or cushioning purposes.

[Tim Mellon]

 :).
OK, the size of the squiggly: in reply #144 I determined the distance from the starboard position light perpendiculaly to the seam between the wingtip and wing to be approximately 17 inches. I used the Harney wing drawing to reach this estimate.

In that still shot the squiggly sits on the same wingtip, and appears to me to be only slightly larger, maybe 20 inches across.

I think we are approaching another "absolute landslide of nonsense" wasting time on this (IMHO) trivial subject.

[Bill Roe]

I think we are approaching another "absolute landslide of nonsense" wasting time on this (IMHO) trivial subject.

Um....
Never mind.  LMAO

[Tom Swearengen]

Sorry if I'm wasting time on nonsense. But, frankly, out of all the pictures from the 2 videos, this is all I can make out. No wing tips, marker lights, altimeters, wings with N  numbers, verticals with a Lockheed star sticking out from under some coral. Nope the black thing I can see. May be packing material like your boys on the KOK say it is. Maybe it is something natural. I dont know-----I'm NOT in photo recognition, especially where scale is involved. But--you are looking for something you can identify----try that. Gee-- maybe its nothing but a dead eel. Maybe its more rope, that just happens to show up in 2 different places along with 2 similar objects.

Too bad it wasnt seen in the 2012 video with better equipment. Too bad Mr. Glickman with all his toys cant make out what it ISNT. If it isnt Electra wreckage, what is it and I'll shut up.
Trival subject---maybe. Most say probably. But ---what if?

[Tim Mellon]

 Tom, if it's a landing gear you see, tell us where. Point to it in a still, like everyone harangued me to do. Is the squiggle a pointer to it? If you've already posted this info, please tell me where.                          ;)

[Bill Roe]

Sorry if I'm wasting time on nonsense. But, frankly, out of all the pictures from the 2 videos, this is all I can make out. No wing tips, marker lights, altimeters, wings with N  numbers, verticals with a Lockheed star sticking out from under some coral. Nope the black thing I can see. May be packing material like your boys on the KOK say it is. Maybe it is something natural. I dont know-----I'm NOT in photo recognition, especially where scale is involved. But--you are looking for something you can identify----try that. Gee-- maybe its nothing but a dead eel. Maybe its more rope, that just happens to show up in 2 different places along with 2 similar objects.

Too bad it wasnt seen in the 2012 video with better equipment. Too bad Mr. Glickman with all his toys cant make out what it ISNT. If it isnt Electra wreckage, what is it and I'll shut up.
Trival subject---maybe. Most say probably. But ---what if?

Ya gotta step back to three feet from your computer to see it.

[Tim Mellon]

... with a Lockheed star sticking out from under some coral.

Actually, it's sticking out from under another piece of metal. But if you are noticing that much, you are making real progress. No-one said this was going to be easy.  :)

[tom howard]

:)

If the two are not mutually exclusive, why did you state TODAY that the squiggly doos are not part of the shipwreck?

.   

Because they are sitting next to airplane parts, not next to ship wreckage. And because one simple material could be used on both ships and airplanes.

Once again your are using one opinion, " sitting next to plane parts", to influence a secondary opinion, therefore the  black squiggly item might be from the plane, and definitely not the ship. 
This is simple logic being abused and it can be harmful to any search.
There are rules for evidence for a reason Tim.

[Tim Mellon]

:)

If the two are not mutually exclusive, why did you state TODAY that the squiggly doos are not part of the shipwreck?

.   

Because they are sitting next to airplane parts, not next to ship wreckage. And because one simple material could be used on both ships and airplanes.

Once again your are using one opinion, " sitting next to plane parts", to influence a secondary opinion, therefore the  black squiggly item might be from the plane, and definitely not the ship. 
This is simple logic being abused and it can be harmful to any search.
There are rules for evidence for a reason Tim.

. 

I see the wing. You don't. Let's leave it at that.

[tom howard]

Well I see the plane in the lagoon based on the overhead satellite pictures. I can also see it clearly on the Helicopter tour over the lagoon. The water is fairly clear on that day. I have located both wings, and reflections of underwater glass as well, so you must be mistaken. Two wings beat one wing.

[Tom Swearengen]

oops ---sorry---this is the pic I wanted to show. Its from early in the 2010 video. Scale: yep using
the pic of AE kneeling beside the gear, I make the length from the axle to the bottom of the strut about 26 inches +-. The tire was 36 inches. The axle to the top of the strut was about 60 inches+- So, looking at the object, the center part of the squiggley to the bottom of the strut (top of the fork) is 30 inches+-, if thats a tire of 36 inches in diameter at the bottom. That means, the ROV was a pretty good distance away to see this.

Tim the timestamp on the pic is 13:38:32:07, and I think Richie originally posted it. The pic of AE and the gear, I got from the Purdue Archives. The pic of the rusted gear is from the Idaho crash site of a 10E that Tighar uses for field school I think. (havent been).
Tom

[Tom Swearengen]

My bust-----it was Jeff Victor Hayden. Very first pic on the stills from the the ROV footage thread.
Tom

[Tim Mellon]

 :)

oops ---sorry---this is the pic I wanted to show. Its from early in the 2010 video. Scale: yep using
the pic of AE kneeling beside the gear, I make the length from the axle to the bottom of the strut about 26 inches +-. The tire was 36 inches. The axle to the top of the strut was about 60 inches+- So, looking at the object, the center part of the squiggley to the bottom of the strut (top of the fork) is 30 inches+-, if thats a tire of 36 inches in diameter at the bottom. That means, the ROV was a pretty good distance away to see this.

Tim the timestamp on the pic is 13:38:32:07, and I think Richie originally posted it. The pic of AE and the gear, I got from the Purdue Archives. The pic of the rusted gear is from the Idaho crash site of a 10E that Tighar uses for field school I think. (havent been).
Tom.                                                                               

.     

Tom, looks proimising. I have to see it in motion at home on Friday. If the tire diameter is 36, would you estimate the squiggle at 20?

[Tom Swearengen]

Tim--I estimated the brake hose length, from the caliper to the bottom of the strut, where the fork is welded, at about 20 inches.

[John Ousterhout]

I'd like to point out that the video pictures that clearly show a shadow already have a built-in distance and size calibration, if the distance between the ROV lens and the light source were known.  In simplest terms, the apparent width of the shadow will be small at great distances.  Conversely, an apparently large width of shadow indicates the object is near the lens.
There are videos from different ROVs and two expeditions.  To precisely judge distance/size for any particular video shot we need to know which ROV took the picture, and the distance from lens to light of that particular ROV.
It becomes a bit more challenging with the shadow is cast on a surface some distance beyond some object of interest.