Summary of Debris from 2010 Video

[Tim Mellon]

Tom, I think John Balderston's November 25 report documents "major airframe" components: engine mount, right wing, etc. I don't know if this has been made accessible to the Forum yet. I would assume the cockpit, with instrument panels, as well as a landing gear, also count as major components.

In the end, logic dictates that only one certifiably NR16020 part need be identified to prove the Nikumaroro Hypothosis. Naysayers, on the other hand, must be able to demonstrate that EVERYTHING asserted to be a part of this aircraft, MUST be something else instead. I am betting on the liklihood of the first.

Ric maintains that TIGHAR's agreement with Kiribati already covers the right to examine and recover both airplane and human remains. The question you pose, nonetheless, I infer to include a more profound component: even if legally recoverable, is it morally and ethically permissible to disturb a gravesite? I would hope that Father Moleski could help us out on this one.

[Tom Swearengen]

Tim---the gravesite prospect was what I was referring to. This story is bigger than we think.

[Ric Gillespie]

If human remains were conclusively identified on land or underwater we would certainly expect to recover them using rigorous archaeological protocols for return to next of kin.

[JNev]

Tom, I think John Balderston's November 25 report documents "major airframe" components: engine mount, right wing, etc. I don't know if this has been made accessible to the Forum yet. I would assume the cockpit, with instrument panels, as well as a landing gear, also count as major components.

In the end, logic dictates that only one certifiably NR16020 part need be identified to prove the Nikumaroro Hypothosis. Naysayers, on the other hand, must be able to demonstrate that EVERYTHING asserted to be a part of this aircraft, MUST be something else instead. I am betting on the liklihood of the first.

Ric maintains that TIGHAR's agreement with Kiribati already covers the right to examine and recover both airplane and human remains. The question you pose, nonetheless, I infer to include a more profound component: even if legally recoverable, is it morally and ethically permissible to disturb a gravesite? I would hope that Father Moleski could help us out on this one.

I don't know if I am categorized as a 'naysayer' or not by others (eye of the beholder I suppose) but for my part, which I think is reasonable, ANYTHING that can be definitively shown to be of Earhart, Noonan or their airplane would suffice.  IMHO that would include even a humble shred of sheet metal that bore all the right signature 'proof' elements - type, vintage, thickness, distinctly identifiable fastener pattern, etc.  That's a little stretch maybe and just for the sake of illustration, but the point is I think your 'logic' is 'logical' in terms of what it would take to demonstrate a presence of our lost aviators beyond reasonable doubt.

And 'beyond reasonable doubt' is of course one thing, while an opinion based on perusal is quite another; I well respect that each of us may draw our own conclusions based on that perusal.  I would hope that one perhaps having a more stringent standard than another wouldn't necessarily relegate the former to the status of 'naysayer', but YMMV, of course.  For me, silt covered patterns among the rocks and growth on the sea floor so far don't provide enough information for a conclusive perusal. 

I make the distinction merely because I find the 'either fer me or agin me' argument, so easily attached to that prospect, to be a nonstarter.  I'm sure that's not the intent, but occasionally find it worthwhile to reflect on that distinction for the sake of clarity: some of us may simply believe more is needed before we call it a day and lay any wreaths in a certain place.

[Tim Mellon]

Do you see the shoe sole with a heel still attached in this same photo?

IF it's a shoe, it's from the left foot.

[Tim Mellon]

Man, you're good!  ;)

Just trying for that fourth star!

[william patterson]

Do you see the shoe sole with a heel still attached in this same photo?

IF it's a shoe, it's from the left foot.

Man, you're good!  ;)

How about sick?
If these were human remains, which I strongly doubt, the glee and references to getting a "4th star" for finding a "hand", or a "foot", or "I have found some fingers, somebody else found a thumb,  is hideous.
Sorry, but to encourage this mental illness is illness itself.

[Tim Mellon]

How about sick?

Lighten up. Don't you know it's all just coral?

[Dan Kelly]

And now, back to work.

If the attached picture shows a detached human hand, then it certainly gives scale to the HF antenna cable.

I found the fingers; someone else I know found the thumb.

A human hand? Yes Tim, anything you say  ::)

[Tim Mellon]

One extra item I noticed while looking at the High Definition monitor in Seattle was what appeared to me to be a housekey. It is much more difficult to see in the attached clip, but the axis of the key is in line with, and below, the red arrow.

[Will Hatchell]

Tim,

Based on your study of the video footage, do you know the approximate distance from the detached hand-thumb and shoe, key, etc. to the back end of the fuselage and WC where you spotted AE and FN?

Kind thanks,

[Tim Mellon]

the approximate distance from the detached hand-thumb and shoe, key, etc. to the back end of the fuselage and WC where you spotted AE and FN?

Between hand and skull, approximately 6 feet.

Key looks to be in Fred's trousers.

[Will Hatchell]

So, would you say that the 6-ft. are still within that starboard slab of the fuselage or outside of the fuselage? I believe you've identified that general section in and around the navigator's table and the WC? Obviously, these human body parts have not moved far from their source.

Thanks Tim.

[Tim Mellon]

Hatch, I would characterize what is up-slope of the Navigation station and WC as kind of a mish-mash: fuel tank, battery, landing gear, and who knows what else.  Nothing is orderly and readily mapable.

[Monty Fowler]

Having pondered at length Tim's rather interistingly thought out postings and pictures and red lines and such, I am reminded of a poem I had to memorize as a teen:

    "Know, stranger, that all you will confront is strange -
      and in your own image."

And that's all I've got to say about that.

LTM, who doesn't see Elvis in all his piles of paper,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 CER