Print

[JNev]

Wish we knew more about coral and salt water corrosion of aluminum vs. ferrous metallic items in such an environment. To me at least, it would help to know this. 

This aircraft has been in 125 feet of water in a coral atoll lagoon for 70 years.  There is some corrosion in areas where dissimilar metals are joined and, for some reason, where oil was present.  But otherwise the aluminum exhibits minimal corrosion and very little coral growth.

Which only underscores, IMO, that IF we were seeing real Electra debris in these shots SOMETHING out of that pile would most likely be distinctive enough to be "KNOWN" - and not just some vague shape in the rock mist...

With all due respect to the guys 'seeing' this stuff - Richie, Tim, etc. - I don't see it, nor do I think any of this stuff is 'Electra' at all.  After months and months and now at least two significant strings I now believe I cannot take these strings seriously at all, no matter how sincere all this speculation is. 

IMO now it is pure nonsense.  It's not for a lack of desire or spirit - it's merely that wishful thinking seems to have stolen the day here.

No one will be happier than me if you all prove me wrong but I'd lay big odds against that now.  The 'seers' here are simply rehashing much that has already been speculated on before - and 'readjusted' when 'scale' was pointed out to us - and off she continues to fly...

I can't take this seriously anymore and if this is what the Niku search is down to then it appears to me that the hypothesis is in trouble.  IF that bird is at Niku it is going to take an awful lot more than this footage to find it.

[Bill Roe]

Wish we knew more about coral and salt water corrosion of aluminum vs. ferrous metallic items in such an environment. To me at least, it would help to know this. 

This aircraft has been in 125 feet of water in a coral atoll lagoon for 70 years.  There is some corrosion in areas where dissimilar metals are joined and, for some reason, where oil was present.  But otherwise the aluminum exhibits minimal corrosion and very little coral growth.

Which only underscores, IMO, that IF we were seeing real Electra debris in these shots SOMETHING out of that pile would most likely be distinctive enough to be "KNOWN" - and not just some vague shape in the rock mist...

With all due respect to the guys 'seeing' this stuff - Richie, Tim, etc. - I don't see it, nor do I think any of this stuff is 'Electra' at all.  After months and months and now at least two significant strings I now believe I cannot take these strings seriously at all, no matter how sincere all this speculation is. 

IMO now it is pure nonsense.  It's not for a lack of desire or spirit - it's merely that wishful thinking seems to have stolen the day here.

No one will be happier than me if you all prove me wrong but I'd lay big odds against that now.  The 'seers' here are simply rehashing much that has already been speculated on before - and 'readjusted' when 'scale' was pointed out to us - and off she continues to fly...

I can't take this seriously anymore and if this is what the Niku search is down to then it appears to me that the hypothesis is in trouble.  IF that bird is at Niku it is going to take an awful lot more than this footage to find it.

Well Jeff -
Perhaps, as a former moderator, you may know why the mods have not questioned the findings of Tim and Richie when, in fact, Jeff Glickman has not determined any of this to be true?  Yet mods/admins question pure science/facts relative to disputing the hypothesis?

[Ric Gillespie]

I can't take this seriously anymore and if this is what the Niku search is down to then it appears to me that the hypothesis is in trouble.

This is by no means what the Niku search has come down to and the hypothesis is not in trouble.

[Michael Elliot]

Did either of the submersibles include underwater metal detectors? (Some are especially sensitive to aluminum.)
Were there any other types of detectors included on the submersibles?
Did any of the L-10 instruments use emitters for lighting, or was radium not used on dials by the 1930s?
How about imaging? Anything other than video?
Being a USN contractor suggests the operators have access to a wide range of technology.

[Ric Gillespie]

Did either of the submersibles include underwater metal detectors? (Some are especially sensitive to aluminum.)

No.  I'm not aware of an underwater metal detector that is especially sensitive to aluminum.

Were there any other types of detectors included on the submersibles?

The AUV was equipped with side-scan sonar.  The ROV had standard defintion video, high-definition video and sector scan sonar.

Did any of the L-10 instruments use emitters for lighting, or was radium not used on dials by the 1930s?

Several of the instruments had needles and numbers painted with radium.

How about imaging? Anything other than video?
 

The ROV high-defintion video camera was supposed to have still photo capability but it didn't.

Being a USN contractor suggests the operators have access to a wide range of technology.

Theoretically they could have had anything they wanted.  We got what they recommended.

[Michael Elliot]

Thanks for reply.
Sorry for delay. Have been inside a wing for much of the day (not an L-10 wing.)
I recall that Ebinger Gmbh makes some detectors that they advertise as being sensitive to aluminum.
See, Deep search metal detector TREX® 150  at
http://www.ebingergmbh.com/index.php?Itemid=8&id=5&option=com_content&task=blogcategory
(hand-held tech can be transplanted to a submersible)

[Tom Swearengen]

i'm assuming that the contractors recommended specific assets based on the information they were given. I'm also assuming that technical difficulties with both the ship and the ROV/AUV equipment made this expedition much more difficult.
So---assuming another underwater search/recovery mission is undertaken, what does the wishlist look like?

[Ric Gillespie]

So---assuming another underwater search/recovery mission is undertaken, what does the wishlist look like?

Dunno yet.

[Tom Swearengen]

Ok.

[Martin X. Moleski, SJ]

So---assuming another underwater search/recovery mission is undertaken, what does the wishlist look like?

This would be the first two items on my wishlist:

• Retirement of the debt incurred for Niku VII.
• Full funding of Niku VIII prior to docking out.

Other items will undoubtedly fall into place as time goes on. 

[Ric Gillespie]

So---assuming another underwater search/recovery mission is undertaken, what does the wishlist look like?

This would be the first two items on my wishlist:

• Retirement of the debt incurred for Niku VII.
• Full funding of Niku VIII prior to docking out.

Other items will undoubtedly fall into place as time goes on. 

Absolutely.

[Tom Swearengen]

Oh Yess---i agree 100%.
Was thinking of the equipment that you might want to take on VIII
Tom

[Tim Mellon]

I shall take this opportunity to move out of the way of the "Bevington Object" discussion by reposting the newly discovered starboard wing analysis to the thread most closely associated. This shot came from the full length 8.55 minute 2010 High Definition video.

Additionaly, based on Richie's comments about two shadows, I have revised my opinion slightly about what can be seen in this still. I went back to the Harney drawings and measured the distance from the position light to the seam between the wingtip and the wing: approximately 17 inches. I then measured from the seam back to the top of the "0" to the left: approximately 63". This means that the "0" is the first of the two "0"s ("NR16020"), and that therefore it is the same "0" that appears in the post by John Balderston last month. The visible "0" lies within the confines of the leftmost shadow.

[Tim Mellon]

I answered Jeff about the squigglies just seconds after Ric locked the thread, so here goes again:

I think there are two different squigglies. The one at the wingtip is at frame 13:39:42;08, 70 seconds later than Tom's at 13:38:32;08 and only seeable in the full 8.55 minute extended video. I think in space they may be no more than 10 meters apart, or so, but I am just guessing about this.

Close examination suggests to me that the material is flat, and may have been released from tension. Could it have been some sort of insulation used to cushion the metal fuel tanks in the cabin from one another, to prevent chafing? The fact that there are multiple squiggles (more than two) in the 8.55 minute video leads me to believe they are part of the debris, and not some modern material that just happened to float down onto the debris field.

[Tom Swearengen]

What is interesting is that the squiggleys appear around objects that from my untrained eye, resemble struts, with a hose attached. Sorry guys. I find no other pictures of the black squiggleys, except around these 2, apparently different objects.
If it were modern gasket packing material for a ship, then why would if appear that it is connected to these 2 targets, and we dont see it other places?