Summary of Debris from 2010 Video

[Ric Gillespie]

The components in that presentation are positionally incorrect and where he placed the retracting gear on the tire is impossible as it would have been underwater on the strut.

As I think I've mentioned previously, our understanding of the wreckage visible in the Bevington photo has evolved since Jeff's presentation.  There will be a full explanation in the new TIGHAR Tracks (if I can ever get the darn thing finished).

[Will Hatchell]

The components in that presentation are positionally incorrect and where he placed the retracting gear on the tire is impossible as it would have been underwater on the strut.

As I think I've mentioned previously, our understanding of the wreckage visible in the Bevington photo has evolved since Jeff's presentation.  There will be a full explanation in the new TIGHAR Tracks (if I can ever get the darn thing finished).

Ric,

Kind thanks for reminding us of the upcoming revamped explanation. We all look forward to that when completed!  :)

[Tim Mellon]

The left landing gear assembly (with inverted fender)...

.                               

Hatch, how did you determine that it was the left gear?                                                  :)

[Bob Lanz]

The components in that presentation are positionally incorrect and where he placed the retracting gear on the tire is impossible as it would have been underwater on the strut.

As I think I've mentioned previously, our understanding of the wreckage visible in the Bevington photo has evolved since Jeff's presentation.  There will be a full explanation in the new TIGHAR Tracks (if I can ever get the darn thing finished).

None to soon Ric, none to soon, and if that gear was disconnected from the strut as it appeared in the presentation, it would have sunk like a rock.  You're right, someone (Mr Glickman?) has some "esplainin' ta doo Lucey".

[Will Hatchell]

The left landing gear assembly (with inverted fender)...

.                               

Hatch, how did you determine that it was the left gear?                                                  :)

Tim, I haven't determined that actually; that's clearly flawed thinking on my part, and conflating the suspected left-gear landing damage with what more likely could have happened as the plane broke up before and after going over the edge. Unless you can clearly determine from the underwater footage whether it's a left or right strut that the inverted fender is attached to, I'm at a loss to say, and certainly retract my statement that it was the left side mechanism. Thanks for bringing this up, by the way.

[Albert Durrell]

All of the "sightings" among the debris got me to thinking - if the debris is the Electra, what might the remains tell us of what actually happened?  Perhaps the accident investigators could give us some ideas of how they would go about investigating this scene?  What would they look for to determine if it was wheels up or down?  Would any of the switch or gauge settings left on equipment possibly give us clues as to radio settings, gaslevel, etc?  Is there any chance after this length of time that anything could be gleaned from the debris?

[Tom Swearengen]

Hi Albert!
" All of the "sightings" among the debris got me to thinking - if the debris is the Electra, what might the remains tell us of what actually happened?  Perhaps the accident investigators could give us some ideas of how they would go about investigating this scene?  What would they look for to determine if it was wheels up or down?  Would any of the switch or gauge settings left on equipment possibly give us clues as to radio settings, gaslevel, etc?  Is there any chance after this length of time that anything could be gleaned from the debris?"
Well, IMHO, I dont think it will tell us alot. I say that because there arent any major parts that have been 'spotted' yet. Tim and others see very small parts, scattered over a reef slope. So finding out if the gear was torn apart during the landing, when the electra went over the reef edge, or during the drop to the debris field might be as big a mystery as what happened to AE in the first place.
BUT----if you 'were' to find instruments, then yeah that would be useful information, I would think. Others may disagree with me.
Tom

[Tim Mellon]

Bob's right that much has been made over this 'thing', so the awaited update will be welcome, I'm sure.

As I told Jeff Glickman, I think the aggregation of images in the "Balderston Debris Field" gives more credence to the notion that the Bevington Object is perhaps an Electra component than the Bevington Objects suggests that the Electra washed over the reef at that point along the shoreline.

Jeff laughed heartily.

[JNev]

Bob's right that much has been made over this 'thing', so the awaited update will be welcome, I'm sure.

Like I told Jeff, I think the aggregation of images in the "Balderston Debris Field" gives more credence to the notion that the Bevington Object is perhaps an Electra component than the Bevington Objects suggests that the Electra washed over the reef at that point along the shoreline.

Jeff laughed heartily.

Well, like I said, Tim - to each his own, no matter what the experts or others say.  But for me, that 'fork' in the 'Bevington Object' is the most compelling piece of photo evidence I personally have seen, in my judgment... and it could still be something else (or nothing at all...).  But - part of my attempt at 'illustrating' this whole thing may be taken as demonstrating that it remains highly subjective, IMO.

And it should be fun as well - I don't see the problem with us doing our best to sleuth out what we think we can.  For me, after all I've thought about it all, TIGHAR's helped give me a big ol' puzzle to work at when I can.  I still have time for world hunger on a different stage...  ;)

[Dan Kelly]

The components in that presentation are positionally incorrect and where he placed the retracting gear on the tire is impossible as it would have been underwater on the strut.

As I think I've mentioned previously, our understanding of the wreckage visible in the Bevington photo has evolved since Jeff's presentation.  There will be a full explanation in the new TIGHAR Tracks (if I can ever get the darn thing finished).

Mr Gillespie as someone who does not see anything in that Bevington Object that resembles any undercarriage components, I am worried that the revised explanation of what it is will not be any more reliable than the first simply because it is composed in answer to the criticisms of the first. The first interpretation has been used to attract donations - so if the first was able to do that successfully why is it necessary to alter what is an exceptionally subjective interpretation and replace it with a second equally subjective interpretation? Also will the second interpretation be then offered to independent analysts to compare it with the first and also to give an independent assessment. Just because people donate money based on such claims does not in itself make the claim correct.

[richie conroy]

Hi Dan

While i agree with your logic, I believe a YEAR  from now we will, Yet again re evaluate the Bevington image, Simply due to advances in technology.

However at this current time Jeff Glickman is using best equipment/software available to interpret the image, Also bare in mind The states best forensics have agreed with Jeff Glickman What it appears to be, Am waiting patiently to View new analysis   

[Greg Daspit]

It is possible components of what may be both the left and right landing gear could be in The Bevington Photo.
One strut in foreground:  Inverted, minus tire and fender, but still with hub.
One strut in the background: Possibly broken in two pieces similar to the Luke Field crash. Tire and fender partially above water.
A possible scenario could be that after their wing tie downs broke, they scavenged  some cable from N.C.  to stake the wheels down but could not cut the cable so just looped both wheels on the same length of cable. The two struts ended up tangled together after the reef and surf tore up the plane. Or the two main gears stayed staked to the reef and the plane tore lose. Maybe that cable is the one you see in the video?  However the age looks too new for 1929. Was cable from the N.C. seen in its debris field so we can see for an aging comparison? IMHO it also looks way too thick to be an aerial

[Tim Mellon]

And it should be fun as well - I don't see the problem with us doing our best to sleuth out what we think we can.  For me, after all I've thought about it all, TIGHAR's helped give me a big ol' puzzle to work at when I can.  I still have time for world hunger on a different stage...  ;)

This is the essence, Jeff. Thank you for reminding us.

[Ric Gillespie]

None to soon Ric, none to soon, and if that gear was disconnected from the strut as it appeared in the presentation, it would have sunk like a rock.  You're right, someone (Mr Glickman?) has some "esplainin' ta doo Lucey".

The strut is part of the landing gear assembly.  By "gear" do you mean the wheel and tire?  Bear in mind that where the object was on the reef the water was only a few inches deep at that time.  There was no place for anything to sink to.

[Dan Kelly]

The components in that presentation are positionally incorrect and where he placed the retracting gear on the tire is impossible as it would have been underwater on the strut.

As I think I've mentioned previously, our understanding of the wreckage visible in the Bevington photo has evolved since Jeff's presentation.  There will be a full explanation in the new TIGHAR Tracks (if I can ever get the darn thing finished).

Thank you Mr Gillespie. For some reason my reply to you was removed, I know not why so let me ask the question again. Will the new interpretation be offered for independent analysis as was the first.