• April 22, 2024, 10:56:10 PM
• Welcome, Guest

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 7   Go Down

### AuthorTopic: MysteryQuest Landing Gear and Bevington Photo  (Read 128669 times)

#### Alfred Cramer

• T1
• Posts: 5
##### Re: MysteryQuest Landing Gear and Bevington Photo
« Reply #15 on: September 15, 2013, 02:19:37 AM »

Jeff has deduced the locations of the camera and the Bevington Object by drawing lines between reference points.  Knowing these locations, it's not that hard to scale the B.O.  I don't know the exact height of the Norwich City, but let's suppose its bow was 50 feet. I put a ruler on the photo and found that the height of the image of the B.O. is about .5 times the image of bow of the Norwich City. (That's very approximate--I could do better if I had the high-res version of the whole photo.) Multiply 50 by .5 -- but we still have to compensate for the two objects' different distances to the camera.  My ruler on Jeff's schematic (see reply #7 or #12 in this thread) says that the N.C. is 7.5 times as far from the camera as the B.O.  So divide the ratio of the two images' heights by 7.5 to compensate. That is,

(height of BO) = (.5 / 7.5) x (height of bow of NC) = .067 x (height of bow of NC) = .067 x 50 ft = 3.33 ft

It's not an exact measurement, but the result is very much in the right ballpark.  And the fact that the BO and NC are hundreds of feet apart doesn't matter.
Logged

#### Tim Mellon

• T5
• Posts: 805
• Blast off!
##### Re: MysteryQuest Landing Gear and Bevington Photo
« Reply #16 on: September 15, 2013, 05:38:54 AM »

Yes, Mr. Cramer, but my question goes to the reliability and precision of the postulated position of the camera, due to the extemely acute angle between the site lines.
Tim
Chairman,  CEO
PanAm Systems

TIGHAR #3372R

Logged

#### Tim Mellon

• T5
• Posts: 805
• Blast off!
##### Re: MysteryQuest Landing Gear and Bevington Photo
« Reply #17 on: September 15, 2013, 06:08:27 AM »

"The first item of interest was that the diameter
of what might be a tire appeared to be roughly
36 inches – the Goodyear Airwheels on Earhart’s
Electra had a diameter of 35 inches."

Ah, Gary, but then you are defining the size of the object using one of its components for scale. I understood this to be a no no because we dont know that the black blob is a tire in the first place.

Tim
Chairman,  CEO
PanAm Systems

TIGHAR #3372R

« Last Edit: September 15, 2013, 06:22:58 AM by Tim Mellon »
Logged

#### Tim Mellon

• T5
• Posts: 805
• Blast off!
##### Re: MysteryQuest Landing Gear and Bevington Photo
« Reply #18 on: September 15, 2013, 06:20:29 AM »

So, as to the specific distance between the camera and the Bevington Object, what is that distance, and what is the margin of error, plus or minus, considering the very acute angle between the viewer and the points of reference on the shoreline?

The problem can be restated, Ric, as the difficulty in solving for two unknowns (the position of the camera and the position of the Bevington Object) rather than just one.

Tim
Chairman,  CEO
PanAm Systems

TIGHAR #3372R

Logged

#### Jeff Victor Hayden

• T5
• Posts: 1387
##### Re: MysteryQuest Landing Gear and Bevington Photo
« Reply #19 on: September 15, 2013, 08:55:39 AM »

The math is correct Alfred but I think the assumed 50ft may be a bit off for the bow section according to the central yard log 792.
This must be the place

Logged

#### Tim Mellon

• T5
• Posts: 805
• Blast off!
##### Re: MysteryQuest Landing Gear and Bevington Photo
« Reply #20 on: September 15, 2013, 09:09:11 AM »

"The first item of interest was that the diameter
of what might be a tire appeared to be roughly
36 inches – the Goodyear Airwheels on Earhart’s
Electra had a diameter of 35 inches."

Now, Gary, your reference to the main landing gear tire being of diameter 35 inches now presents an entirely new problem:

My measurement of the ratio between the bottom (horizontal) edge of the worm gear to the full diameter of the tire appears to be 7:12. If the tire were 35 inches in diameter, that would imply a worm gear measurement of 20.6 inches.

However, using a real scale (in inches) you can see that the comparable length of that radius, taken from a bonafide L10E spare worm gear, is a mere 14.5 inches, or at least 41% less than the dimension one would expect.

I conclude, therefore, that the declaration by those at TIGHAR that the Bevington object is actually an Electra landing gear, is now highly questionable. YMMV.
Tim
Chairman,  CEO
PanAm Systems

TIGHAR #3372R

« Last Edit: September 15, 2013, 09:13:35 AM by Tim Mellon »
Logged

#### Tim Mellon

• T5
• Posts: 805
• Blast off!
##### Re: MysteryQuest Landing Gear and Bevington Photo
« Reply #21 on: September 15, 2013, 09:30:28 AM »

Jeff, as you know, I believe that the best indication that the BO might be a landing gear, is the presence several hundred meters down the fall line of a debris field that I believe contains many Electra parts, including a contorted main landing gear with an evident worm gear in the shape of that displayed in my previous post.

My points were (1) to question the validity of the TIGHAR analysis based upon the lack of scale, a sin for which I have been criticized incessantly, and (2) to point out again the never-ending modification of the expert's opinion based upon the whim of the week.

Tim
Chairman,  CEO
PanAm Systems

TIGHAR #3372R

« Last Edit: September 15, 2013, 09:58:14 AM by Tim Mellon »
Logged

#### Alfred Cramer

• T1
• Posts: 5
##### Re: MysteryQuest Landing Gear and Bevington Photo
« Reply #22 on: September 15, 2013, 09:55:57 AM »

The math is correct Alfred but I think the assumed 50ft may be a bit off for the bow section according to the central yard log 792.

Perfectly happy to be corrected, Jeff.  What would be your estimate?

As to Mr. Mellon's question about acute angles:  To the extent that the lines and their intersections may be uncertain, I don't see it raising the ratio of distances (7.5 in my calculation earlier) above about 9 or below about 6.  That's just my estimate.
Logged

#### Tim Mellon

• T5
• Posts: 805
• Blast off!
##### Re: MysteryQuest Landing Gear and Bevington Photo
« Reply #23 on: September 15, 2013, 10:12:01 AM »

Now, Mr. Cramer, if we take your (admittedly inaccurate) estimate of 3.33 feet, add the 9 inches (.75 feet) then we derive 4.08 feet for the total height of the Bevington Object. Wouldn't you agree, looking at the rendition provided by Mr. Glickman, that the total height is more than 6 feet if the diameter of the main landing gear tire is actually 35 inches?

(Come to think of it, what is that blobby white U-shape object directly underneath the tire? It has no corresponding landing gear equivalent? Jeff Glickman, can you help here?)
Tim
Chairman,  CEO
PanAm Systems

TIGHAR #3372R

« Last Edit: September 15, 2013, 10:50:05 AM by Tim Mellon »
Logged

#### Greg Daspit

• TIGHAR member
• Posts: 788
##### Re: MysteryQuest Landing Gear and Bevington Photo
« Reply #24 on: September 15, 2013, 10:45:21 AM »

What happened to the Forensic Report of the underwater footage Tim posted earlier, I think it was in this thread but now I don't see it?

3971R

Logged

#### Tim Mellon

• T5
• Posts: 805
• Blast off!
##### Re: MysteryQuest Landing Gear and Bevington Photo
« Reply #25 on: September 15, 2013, 10:52:31 AM »

Sorry Greg, it has never been posted here.

Tim
Chairman,  CEO
PanAm Systems

TIGHAR #3372R

Logged

#### Greg Daspit

• TIGHAR member
• Posts: 788
##### Re: MysteryQuest Landing Gear and Bevington Photo
« Reply #26 on: September 15, 2013, 11:11:36 AM »

Sorry Greg, it has never been posted here.
I'm talking about the one by Material Science Associates by Prof. Graham Forrester and John D. Jarrell, PHD, PE (Mechanical) dated June 3rd? That picture you posted of the worm gear with the scale on it was in the report.
Are you saying it was posted in a different thread or never on the Forum?

3971R

« Last Edit: September 15, 2013, 11:16:39 AM by Greg Daspit »
Logged

#### Tim Mellon

• T5
• Posts: 805
• Blast off!
##### Re: MysteryQuest Landing Gear and Bevington Photo
« Reply #27 on: September 15, 2013, 12:19:02 PM »

Yes, Greg, I don't think anything of that sort has been posted on TIGHAR. Perhaps you saw it elsewhere, but I honestly can't think where.

Tim
Chairman,  CEO
PanAm Systems

TIGHAR #3372R

« Last Edit: September 15, 2013, 12:22:54 PM by Tim Mellon »
Logged

#### Tim Mellon

• T5
• Posts: 805
• Blast off!
##### Re: MysteryQuest Landing Gear and Bevington Photo
« Reply #28 on: September 15, 2013, 12:44:48 PM »

"Sectored ring gear" works for me, Jeff. Is that what you use on the Gulfstreams?
Tim
Chairman,  CEO
PanAm Systems

TIGHAR #3372R

Logged

#### Greg Daspit

• TIGHAR member
• Posts: 788
##### Re: MysteryQuest Landing Gear and Bevington Photo
« Reply #29 on: September 15, 2013, 01:02:49 PM »

Sorry Greg, it has never been posted here.
I'm talking about the one by Material Science Associates by Prof. Graham Forrester and John D. Jarrell, PHD, PE (Mechanical) dated June 3rd? That picture you posted of the worm gear with the scale on it was in the report.
Are you saying it was posted in a different thread or never on the Forum?

That's interesting, Greg - where did you see that?  I don't recall anything like that being posted here and can't find such a critter on the TIGHAR site.  Is it published somewhere like Nauticos or similar?  Sounds like a serious study, I would love to see that.

It was posted by Tim, I'm pretty sure it was an attachment in his first post of this thread. It was up for a while. Several people were on-line while it was up.
The pdf is labeled "Earhart Wreckage Final Brief Report"
The report is titled "Forensic Evaluation of Video Footage from the TIGHAR 2010 and 2012 Nikumaroro Expedition".
Is that the name of the report done for you Tim?
3971R

« Last Edit: September 15, 2013, 01:08:27 PM by Greg Daspit »
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 7   Go Up

 Copyright 2024 by TIGHAR, a non-profit foundation. No portion of the TIGHAR Website may be reproduced by xerographic, photographic, digital or any other means for any purpose. No portion of the TIGHAR Website may be stored in a retrieval system, copied, transmitted or transferred in any form or by any means, whether electronic, mechanical, digital, photographic, magnetic or otherwise, for any purpose without the express, written permission of TIGHAR. All rights reserved. Contact us at: info@tighar.org • Phone: 610-467-1937 • Membership form • webmaster@tighar.org