Wire & Rope entire.mov

Ric Gillespie · November 13, 2012, 11:18:03 AM

Quote from: Tom Swearengen on November 13, 2012, 09:04:35 AM
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?

I don't see any indication that it is connected to anything. To me it looks like it's just laying there.

Tom Swearengen · November 13, 2012, 11:30:10 AM

Hum---ok.
Does it appear anywhere else? I didnt see it, but I'm probably not looking in the right place.

Ric Gillespie · November 13, 2012, 11:36:32 AM

Quote from: Tom Swearengen on November 13, 2012, 11:30:10 AM
Does it appear anywhere else?

I'm not sure but I don't have time to review many hours of video looking for something that we have reason to believe is not significant.

Tom Swearengen · November 13, 2012, 12:52:31 PM

Ok I undersand that. Was just thinking that if the squiggley only shows up around these 2 objects, then possibly there is a relationship between the 2. If it was whip coral, or gasket material, there may be more, and maybe we would have seen it.

Tim Mellon · November 13, 2012, 02:00:12 PM

For today's entertainment, we present the wingtip from a different vantage point, to the left of the first camera location (near the rope), and looking Northeast. The squigglie appears clearly in both pictures. This shot shows the bottom right side of the last "0" in the registration number NR16020. The wingtip is pointing up and away from the viewer.

Tim Mellon · November 13, 2012, 03:07:00 PM

"And now for something completely different!" (Monty Python...)

Close examination of the Harney drawing of the underside of the fuselage of NR16020 reveals these parts to be as indicated in the annotation. Airplanes are made up of more things than just wings and instrument panels. (Correction: should be STARBOARD, not PORT side).

Tim Mellon · November 13, 2012, 04:06:32 PM

Here are two more interesting details. Compare the unobscured part of the star to the photo of the logo on the tail of the airplane.

C.W. Herndon · November 13, 2012, 06:25:44 PM

Could this be your removable cap?

Tim Mellon · November 13, 2012, 06:38:09 PM

Woody, I suppose. But the one on top of the engine looks like it has a smooth rim, whereas the one underwater looks knurled. Dunno.

Wait a minute --- what's that round thing inside the cockpit, like on the back of the copilot's seat?

Chris Johnson · November 14, 2012, 05:29:15 AM

Can't see it! How about and arrow pointing at it?

Tom Swearengen · November 14, 2012, 06:42:15 AM

Tim---My thoughts were that if it were gasket packing material from a ship, then why do we just see it around 2 objects, that 'look like' landing gear struts? I would think that if it were something other than an accessory to the 'struts', then we would see more of it in other locations. Not to contradict Ric, but I havent seen this in any other parts of the video, or the pictures. Only around these 2 targets.
Thoughts?

Tim Mellon · November 14, 2012, 07:11:08 AM

Quote from: Tom Swearengen on November 14, 2012, 06:42:15 AM
Tim---My thoughts were that if it were gasket packing material from a ship, then why do we just see it around 2 objects, that 'look like' landing gear struts? I would think that if it were something other than an accessory to the 'struts', then we would see more of it in other locations. Not to contradict Ric, but I havent seen this in any other parts of the video, or the pictures. Only around these 2 targets.
Thoughts?

I have looked carefully again, Tom, and now think you are correct: one to the right (South) of the end of the rope, and the other lying on the wingtip trailing edge. I thought there might be others, but what I saw were just duplicates of these two from different angles. And these two are quite close together in real space, I estimate less than ten meters apart. I can't yet identify the "strut" you refer to, but I agree that whatever the "squiggly" is, it came with the plane in 1937.

Tim Mellon · November 14, 2012, 07:42:16 AM

I think the process is backwards. We don't know what the squiggly stuff is, but we do know, rather precisely, the shape and dimension of the wing. Therefore it should be the wing, if anything, that gives scale to the squiggly, not the other way around. Ric, I thought, was reporting the opinion of a mariner. Since this material is not part of the shipwreck, I can't see any reason to put too much credence in an opinion so far removed from an airplane.

Tim Mellon · November 14, 2012, 07:49:32 AM

John Balderston, I think it was, opined that he thought the round object in the attached still shot was a main landing gear folded back up alongside the port engine.

My own interpretation of this picture (now that I have looked at it hundreds of times) is that we are looking at the upside-down tail section of the airplane, with the tailwheel assembly, somewhat broken up, lying above the rather distinctively shaped "tailcone". The Harney drawings have a good presentation of the tailwheel assembly.

Tom Swearengen · November 14, 2012, 07:56:32 AM

So, Tim, this was in a different area that was searched on Niku VII? See anything between the 2 , or the live feeds that are duplicated?